Ethics & Ecology
Ethics is a set of principles about right & wrong & how human beings should behave. Ecology is about inter- relationships – between living organisms (both plants & animals) and between biological & physical entities. The still unresolved issue seems to be how these two can be reconciled – probably in the interests of the future of mankind & the future of all the non- human beings.
The dichotomy between right & wrong began to be significant when the needs & efforts of human beings proliferated. The ethical question was probably absent or insignificant when the predominant theme and effort of human life was survival, as in the hunting gathering stage. It began to be more & more significant as one abandoned nomadic life style, became settled with the spread of agriculture which induced a sense of individual and / or communal property.
The surplus food that agriculture created tuned the communities into a human society with diverse skills & professions and a hierarchy of classes based on wealth & power or their lack & gave rise to different cultures which reflected aspirations, beliefs & motivations. Environment probably played a crucial role in shaping these. In the comparatively benign environment of the tropics flowered cultures which professed human life in tune with nature & its ecological compulsions. Human beings were never considered to be superior to nature. The cosmos & the nature were considered to be so vast & complex that they would always remain beyond human comprehension.
On the other hand cultures that survived in a comparatively harsh environment considered nature to be subservient to human beings and a resource to be conquered & exploited. As Lynn White Jr. says, “Christianity, in absolute contrast to ancient paganism and Asia’s religions (except perhaps Zorostrianism), not only established a dualism of man and nature but also insisted that it is god’s will that man exploit nature for his proper ends”; and further. “To a Christian a tree can be no more than a physical fact. The whole concept of the sacred grove is alien to Christianity and the ethics of the west.” (Lynn White Jr. The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis published in The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book: Ed. D. Vade Veer & C. Pierce, 2003, Thomson Wadsworth, USA).
But it was not until the Industrial Revolution when the west effected a union between science and technology, a marriage of theoretical and empirical approaches to nature, that knowledge came to be considered as technological power over nature. By the 19th Century conquest of nature became a normal pattern of action (Ibid).
Almost simultaneously, that is in 1873, this new pattern of action gave rise to the concept of ecology. As the study of the plant & animal kingdoms progressed, the western thinkers became increasingly aware of the necessity of preserving these in the interest of human survival and so arose the need to question the notion of human rights ( & later duties) towards the --- human world. An investigation began in the origins of right & wrong in humans & other animals. People began to discuss whether the animals have rights, whether trees have a moral standing & how the present generation should use nature & resources so as to ensure a decent standard of living for future generations. The constant rise in consumption & pollution triggered a movement that questioned the very basis of religious dogma and culminated into a Land Ethic and Deep Ecology.
Manual G. Valasquez examines the pros & cons of Ecological Ethics in his essay ‘Ecological Ethics’. The discussion is especially in relation to business & industrial practices & policies as these affect ecological systems. He examines the views of several authors who have contributed to the development of Deep Ecology by advocating that every animal & plant has an intrinsic value & needs to be treated with respect; that non- human parts of the environment deserve to be protected for their own sake whether they benefit humans or not & that business & industry should recognize the inter- relationships & interdependence of ecological systems in which they operate.
In the end however, he concludes that all these thoughts & actions emanating from them are still controversial. Authors who think otherwise argue that “why the fact that something is alive implies that it should be alive & that we therefore, have a duty to keep it alive or to express respect or reverence for it …. and that whether” We can claim that animal have rights or intrinsic value”.
What seems to be absent from thoughts of the authors quoted in the article, is the existence of predator- prey relationships in eco- systems. Humans today are the apex predator. Their consumption needs engulf almost the whole plant & animal world. The question then is how far should we stretch our consumption needs? Ecology recognizes thresholds for every natural systems beyond which a predator cannot & should not destroy prey species. Are we going to heed this scientific fact & Herold Laskis’ maxim that liberty is a system or restraints? Or should we go ahead destroying everything in the belief that technology will always find a substitute for everything?
The question of animal rights probably does not attain as cutting as an edge in the eastern cultures as it does in the west. Meat- eating is not such a compulsion in the tropics as it is in the temperate latitudes. In the east ecological knowledge is still a curiosity & has not led to awareness creation among the masses. Plants, animals & ecology are more a matter of neglect than of serious concern scientific, philosophical or otherwise.
The other relevant issue, that of pollution prevention has a wider audience both in the west & in the east than that of animal rights. This is because it directly affects business & industry’s profit- making & accumulation of wealth. The issue is whether companies should bear the responsibility of creating & maintaining an environment conducive to the welfare of people in the neighbourhood. The court case between Mackline Mining Co and official pollution prevention authority & environmentalists very well illustrates the issue of corporate environmental responsibility.
The law requires that the industries should use the best available technology to prevent pollutants entering atmosphere, water & soil. The company was accused of polluting a creek & destroying its fish & wildlife through the discharge of its effluents. The company then built a settling pond & there was some improvement in the water quality. Later the pond began to leak pollutants resulting in the water quality deterioration in the creek. The company pleaded that difficult market conditions had lowered its profits & it found it difficult to maintain the pond. If any penalties were to be imposed the company would have to close down resulting in loss of employment to locals.
Whether the penalty was imposed and the company has to close down is not known. But the case very well illustrates the arguments & difficulties faced in enforcing the “Polluter Pays Principle”. The “Precautionary Principle” states that any profit- making project should not be undertaken if the consequent pollution is difficult to prevent. In reality both these principles are rarely accepted due probably to the influence of English Common Law which gives priority to enterprise & asks pollutee to compensate the polluter if the former wants the enterprise to close down for introducing pollutants! In the modern world profit- making is still the “right” thing & not the preservation of the environment!!
The deeper question here is whether the right to a livable environment should or should not be considered a basic human right. William T Blackstone examines this problem in his article Ethics & Ecology. He considers rationality & freedom essential to develop capacities in human beings; that quality of life in a society is dependent on the availability of education, housing, medical & legal care etc. But finds that a livable environment though recognized as a human right is hardly enforceable legally. ( In India however, the apex court has upheld this right in recent cases). Given man’s great ability to manipulate the environment, it is necessary that new institutions & regulative agencies need to be established to make sure that manipulation is in the public interest. The state must prevent abuse & waste of environmental resources. By themselves private businesses are hardly agreeable to provide solutions to multiple environmental problems that they themselves create. Competition implies production at lowest possible cost. The calculation of GNP does not allow for the destruction of the environment. The uncontrolled growth culture basically encourages artificial needs detrimental to the quality of life.
If the ecological attitude is to challenge this reality, reconsideration of a host of current values is unavoidable. This reconsideration will undoubtedly affect the present institutions of private property & enterprise. Resources cannot be considered free or capable of unbridled exploitation.
In response to these problems there is now talk of a new economy, of natural capitalism and of a restoration economy. These recognize that a great many things have value & use which have no economic value & use. It is accepted that we should go in for soft technology as hard technology is responsible for most of the problems.
All this boils down to the ecological wisdom that everything on this planet is finite & perishable.
Unfettered rights & unbridled freedom are just not enduring & sustainable. Today’s reality vindicates therefore, the eastern ideals of restraint & abstinence; that the happiness is the highest when needs are controlled! Human rights imply not only responsibilities but also ecological wisdom!! The inter-relationship between ethics & ecology is therefore, enduring & irreplaceable.
Prakash Gole
No comments:
Post a Comment