Environmental Ethics Lesson Plan Two
Who, When, Where, How, and What: The Distinctiveness of Environmental Ethics

By Keith Warner, OFM, Director of the Faith, Ethics, and Vocation Project of the Environmental Studies Institute at Santa Clara University
and David DeCosse, Director of Campus Ethics Programs at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics

Background: This lesson plan again aims to build not on what you don't know but on what you do know. Specifically, we intend here to introduce the distinctiveness of environmental ethics by inviting you to see how environmental ethics are connected to personal ethics. Whether you consider yourself a very ethical person or not, the fact is that you no doubt already think in many ethical ways. You think about right and wrong, about what it means to be treated fairly, about having justice done. This lesson plan aims to extend such common thinking about personal ethics to the field of environmental ethics. We will do this by invoking the classic question words - "who," "when," "where," "how," and "what" - as bridges by which both to see the connection between personal and environmental ethics and to see the distinctiveness of environmental ethics itself. And please note that we will not engage in this lesson plan the other classic question word "why." That is not because that word is not useful in affecting our thinking about environmental ethics. Rather, it is because we have attempted to get at the "why" of environmental ethics in the course of writing the autobiography in the first lesson plan. At the end of each step in this lesson, there is a question or questions to guide reflection and prompt discussion. We invite you first to respond to these questions from what you already know. If you have more time, we also invite you briefly to consider each question in light of related information that can be found on some of the Web sites provided on the list at the end of this short course. You should take notes as you proceed through the questions. There is no more extended writing assignment for this lesson plan.

The "Who" of Environmental Ethics: We are used to thinking of ethics in personal or interpersonal terms. Ethics is the field of study that pertains to how we ought to act - toward ourselves and others. But the field of environmental ethics has invited us to think more broadly about who in fact are the subjects of ethics. Specifically, environmental ethics invites us to consider:

1. That ethics is not just about the personal. Rather, it is about how we ought to behave toward ourselves and others in the context of the natural world.
2. That ethics pertains as well to how we act - not only toward ourselves and others - but also toward the natural world itself.
   In the past, the natural world was often the unseen participant in many situations of ethical significance. For instance, it was not uncommon that a blind eye could be turned to the environmentally damaging effects on a community of manufacturing or waste disposal. Now, however, a community's well-being is assessed not only in terms of such things as the quality of jobs or the provision of health care. Rather, such well-being is also assessed in terms of the safety of the community from the harmful effects of pollution. Or, for instance, it may have been the case that excessive tree cutting in forests was permitted as a way to provide for economic livelihood. But it may not have been the case that connections were made to the beauty and value of the trees in themselves or to how trees in a forest affect many other living things.

All Stakeholders and Moral Status

In any ethical decision, we must always ask who are all the stakeholders: Who are all of the persons who have an interest in the outcome of the ethical decision? Environmental ethics has required us to consider far more carefully the actual extent of the range of stakeholders in any ethical decision. These may include, of course, the immediate people involved. But the stakeholders may also include the people of future generations who may be affected by changes in the environment brought about by decisions made today. The stakeholders may also include people who live far away who may be affected via air and water by the environmental decisions made near at hand. And stakeholders may include the natural world itself. Here the concept of "moral status" has become of increasing importance in environmental ethics. This concept invites us to consider the "moral status" or, what is the same thing, the intrinsic value of each stakeholder - whether the stakeholder is a human being or are the animals, plants, and ecosystems of the natural world itself.

The Common Good Includes the Goods of the Earth

It is therefore always helpful to think of a decision involving environmental ethics in terms both of the concepts of the "common good" and of "social ethics." The common good is an ethical concept that means that the good of each person is inseparable from the good of all persons. To the degree that environmental issues almost always involve actions that may have an effect on a wide variety of persons, such issues almost always require an assessment of our good in light of the common good. Because of this requirement to address the common good of many persons, environmental ethics are known as a branch of what is called "social ethics" (which we can distinguish from the less-peopled notion of "personal ethics"). Moreover, it is also important when engaging in environmental ethics to consider all of the different goods that figure in the common good. Of course, the goods of many different men and women figure in the common good. But environmental ethics and the concept of moral status invite us to look beyond only human goods. Rather, they invite us to consider that the common good includes human and non-human goods: That the common good includes not only those environmental conditions that enhance the fulfillment of men's and women's lives but that the common good also includes the well-being of the natural world for its own sake.

Question: Who do you think are all of the stakeholders in the issue of endangered species?

Step Two:

The "When" of Environmental Ethics: When we discussed above the stakeholders in a decision about environmental ethics, we noted the importance of considering the stakeholders of the future. To be sure, the future is a category especially pertinent to environmental ethics. In many ethical decisions, the effects of our actions are immediate and apparent. In many environmental ethics decisions, however, the effects of our actions may be cumulative, long-lasting and, at least in the near term, hidden. The classic case of this is nuclear waste, the devastating effects of which may be invisible. But the consideration of the future in environmental ethics applies far more broadly than to the potency of nuclear waste. For instance, the pollution from a new residential subdivision might flow into a nearby river. At first, the damaging effects may be slight. But, over time, these effects may accumulate until the character of the river is fundamentally and destructively altered.

Think to the Seventh Generation

Thus in many environmental ethics decisions, we always need to ask: What is the role of the future in this decision? How can we assess the cumulative effects over time on the environment of whatever action is under consideration? How can we assess the cumulative effects of a decision we are likely to make? The contemporary Seventh Generation environmental movement is founded on this concern for the future. The movement draws its name from a declaration of the Native American Iroquois Confederacy: "In our every deliberation we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

Question: What do you think is the role of the future in the debate over nuclear waste disposal?

Step Three:

The "Where" of Environmental Ethics: Environmental ethics invites us, then, to look far ahead in time. It also invites us to look far afield on land and water and air. We tend to understand our ethical encounters as strictly interpersonal and as occurring in the home or office. But environmental ethics invites us to consider a far broader field as the scene of every ethical decision.

Natural World Not Taken For Granted

First, of course, we are invited to consider the natural world as a factor in all of our decisions. This requires us to leave the comfort of our homes or offices or shopping malls and consider the effects of actions on a natural world that we often take for granted or that we use without thinking too much about.

Spilled Engine Oil Drains to Faraway Bay

Second, environmental ethics invites us to consider places far from us. Whatever action we take may have an effect near-at-hand: The plastic bottle we throw out the window remains sitting for months by the side of the road. But our actions may also have effects that occur, literally, at a remove from what we specifically do: The used engine oil we pour down the roadside drain runs through miles of waterways and pipes all the way down to the faraway bay.

Emphasis on 'Wholes'

The third way that environmental ethics invites us to think differently in terms of place is in its emphasis on "wholes." That is, environmental ethics invites us to consider decisions in light of such living realities as the biosphere and ecosystems. Not only, then, can an action we take have an effect emerge far from where the action took place. But also, our isolated action may well occur within an existing biological system in which a small effect in one place may ripple out widely through an interconnected and interdependent web of life. Thus, when we trace the possible effects of a particular action, we must pay close attention to how the initial effects near at hand may well create a chain reaction of critical effects.

Question: When engine oil drains to a bay, what do you think are some of the places and ecosystems that could be affected?

Step Four:

The "How" of Environmental Ethics: When we begin the process of thinking through a decision of environmental ethics, we should keep in mind several key factors that inform how such reasoning is done. These factors are the difference between the empirical and the ethical; the role of risk, uncertainty, probability, and prediction; and the meaning of absolute, intrinsic, and instrumental value. Ethical reasoning on many topics may involve such aspects. But in environmental ethics these factors have an unusually significant role.

The Difference Between the Empirical and the Ethical

The first factor is the difference between the empirical and the ethical. Often, these two kinds of thinking are thought to be the same thing. But the first kind of thinking - the empirical - is about how in fact we do live. The second kind of thinking - the ethical - is about how we ought to live. Thus, for instance, it is an empirical claim to say that the runoff from a subdivision is causing the widespread death of shellfish in the nearby bay. This claim is a fact, which may or not may not be true. But it is not yet an ethical claim - that is, that some action ought to be taken to stop the effluent from reaching the bay. In order to make an ethical claim about this situation, we would have to add several more steps to the argument. In particular, we need to supply a step in the argument that says clearly why such an action to stop the runoff ought to be taken. For instance, we would have to say: The excessive death of the shellfish is harmful in itself because of the intrinsic value of a living thing like a shellfish. The death of the shellfish is also harmful because of the damage such death is doing to the ecosystem of the bay, which is also intrinsically valuable because of its quality as a living thing and because of its beauty. And the death of the shellfish is as well harmful because it directly affects a crucial source of food for humans and of a livelihood for commercial fishermen. With these reasons in hand, we now can make the ethical claim that the effluent ought to be stopped from reaching the estuary.

Risk, Uncertainty, Probability, and Prediction

Another key factor in reasoning about environmental ethics is the role played by risk, uncertainty, probability, and prediction. Often cases of environmental ethics involve looking at the cumulative effect of actions stretching far ahead into the future. But how accurate are such occasions of looking ahead? How probable is it that the predicted harmful or beneficial effects on the environment of some action will in fact happen? As a quick test, it is usually the case that the more probable it is that a damaging effect will occur, the more powerful is the ethical argument for prohibiting or mitigating the effects of that action. But it is always important in assessing a case in environmental ethics to ask about the quality of the evidence used in assessing risk and in making predictions.

Absolute, Intrinsic, and Instrumental Value

A third key factor to keep in mind in thinking through a decision in environmental ethics is to note the difference among absolute, intrinsic and instrumental value.

Absolute Value

Something that has absolute value cannot in any way be harmed. Many people think, for instance, that innocent human life itself has absolute value and, thus, that there can be no justification for harming innocent human life. Not as many people today think that the natural world itself has a similar, absolute value. But many people have increasingly said that the natural world has intrinsic value or, in other words, counts for its own sake (we referred to this idea earlier when we spoke of "moral status").

Intrinsic Value

In environmental ethics, there may be a number of reasons for why we attribute intrinsic value to things. For instance, some people may grant intrinsic value to animals because these people believe that animals are created by God. Other people may grant intrinsic value to animals because these people think that animals have feelings of pain and pleasure that must be taken into account in our assessment of actions taken that may possibly harm animals. When we grant such intrinsic value to things, we do not regard them as readily as things that can be used. Rather, such things become protected or preserved or enhanced. Even so, however, it is important to note that something can have intrinsic but not absolute value: In other words, something can be precious but not so precious that under no circumstances will we permit it to be harmed. For instance, many people who support hunting may think along these lines. They value animals for their own sake but nevertheless justify hunting for reasons like wildlife management.

Instrumental Value

Last, we should also keep in mind the role of instrumental value in environmental ethics. We are reasoning by instrumental value when we say, for instance, that the natural world has value insofar as it benefits human life. At one level, this claim is not controversial. Almost everyone would say - when pressed - that we do value the natural world in great measure because of the way it shapes human life. But the key concern here is the degree of instrumentality that we grant to the natural world. For instance, it would be highly controversial in environmental ethics to use a notion of instrumental value that says the natural world only has value insofar as it benefits human life.

Question: Do you think animals have absolute, intrinsic, or instrumental value?

Step Five:

The "What" of Environmental Ethics: We now come to the "what" of environmental ethics: In other words, to the kinds of ethical reasoning and to the principles that actually go into making a decision involving environmental ethics.

Ethical Reasoning: Commands, Consequences, Character

If we reflect on how we already think, we can see several common modes of ethical reasoning. For the sake of simplicity and by using a sort of short-hand, let's consider these modes as three: Reasoning about commands, consequences, and character. Whenever we consider an ethical problem, we usually find ourselves reasoning along one or more of these lines. And this is as much the case in environmental ethics as in any other kind of ethics.

We can use the notion of "commands" as a shorthand way for referring to those things that we ought to do, no matter what the consequences. This kind of reasoning is also associated with such ethical categories as commandments, laws, rights, and justice. In terms of environmental ethics, perhaps the classic command is one of the classic commands in all of ethics, "Do no harm." That is, our first obligation toward the environment is to do no harm. Moreover, we are reasoning in a command mode when, for instance, we think that animals have rights and, therefore, that justice requires that we not harm them; this is often the ethical conviction behind those who do not eat meat.

The ethical notion of consequences is most often associated with the philosophical school of utilitarianism. According to this mode of ethical reasoning, commands are not sufficient in themselves to tell us what we ought to do. Instead, we need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions. Thus we can determine the correct ethical action by choosing the one that will produce the greatest balance of good consequences over bad consequences. This kind of reasoning helpfully invites us to consider the totality of a situation and to identify its positive and negative aspects. More to the point, in this kind of reasoning, commands or laws or rights can be overridden if doing so will yield a greater balance of benefits over harms. This means, for instance, that something like the rights of animals can be overridden for the sake of some perceived social good. In consequential reasoning, it is often difficult to specify what qualifies as a "benefit" and a "harm" or, similarly, a "benefit" and a "cost," or "good" and "bad," etc. Frequently in environmental cases, costs and benefits are considered only in monetary terms. But while the assessment of such financial costs is an essential part of many ethical analyses, it cannot be the whole of such analyses. And it is important to try to name what else constitutes harm and benefits. One way of doing this might be to say, for instance, that harm is constituted by things like premature death, undue pain, or the nonfulfillment of wants or desires. An environmental action that leads or very likely will lead to such harms would be ethically suspect.

When we speak of "character," we are not doing so precisely in the way that we often hear the word: As referring to a role in a play or movie. Rather, we are referring more to the notion that "he or she has got good character" or to the notion that "he or she is a person of conscience." In the face of a situation of environmental ethics, we are asking: What does this particular action that may affect the environment mean for my character? Or, similarly, what kind of person am I becoming by engaging in these actions in relation to the environment? Am I becoming more just, more humble, more generous? This mode of ethical reasoning invites careful and honest self-reflection. It can also be a kind of reasoning used very well by a group. The fact is, we become what we do - whether what we do involves only other people or also involves the natural world.

Ethical Principles: Justice, Sufficiency, Sustainability, Solidarity, and Participation

There are many different principles on which to draw in making specific decisions in environmental ethics. We'd like to stick with five basic ones - justice, solidarity, sustainability, participation, and sufficiency. In the face of any decision involving environmental ethics, we should ask how each of these principles can be applied to the situation at hand.

Justice: The classic formal principle of justice is that equals should be treated equally unless there is a sufficient reason to treat anyone (or anything) unequally. This principle is clearly relevant in the field of ethics called "environmental justice." That field is especially concerned with the injustice evident in the fact, for instance, that it is often lower-income communities - not wealthy suburbs - that bear the brunt of pollution. The notion of justice as equality is also apparent in discussions of animal rights. On the basis of what values are animals considered unequal to humans and thus subject to consumption by humans? Or does the equality of humans and animals as living creatures require far more humane treatment of animals? Or even the total non-use of animals? In the face of a decision in environmental ethics, we should ask the following questions:

• Are all human beings involved in this situation being treated equally and, if not, why not?
• Are all living creatures involved in this situation being treated equally and, if not, why not?

Sufficiency: The principle of sufficiency mandates that all forms of life are entitled to enough goods to live on and flourish. The principle also means no one should waste or hoard resources intended for the sufficiency of all. Thus, in the face of a decision in environmental ethics, we should ask the following questions:

• Will the decision permit all those involved - human and non-human - to have enough resources on which to live and flourish?
• Is there any aspect of the decision that indicates the presence of waste or excess?
  

Sustainability: The principle of sustainability requires us to favor those actions that will provide for basic needs and maintain natural communities into the future. So we should ask, in the face of an environmental problem:

• What are the immediate and long-term effects of the problem before us?
• Who - humans and otherwise - is affected today by the problem before us and who will likely be affected by this problem in the future?
  

Solidarity: Solidarity requires us to consider both that we are related to all things - human and otherwise - and that we have an ethical obligation to care for all things arising from that fact of relationships. So solidarity, in the face of any environmental problem, requires us to see the big picture and to ask the following questions:

• Who are all the human stakeholders involved in this situation?
• Who are all the natural stakeholders?
• Is there an ecosystem involved?
• Are there any stakeholders - human and non-human - who are especially vulnerable?
  

Participation: The principle of participation points us toward how decisions are made to deal with environmental problems. The principle requires us to recognize all of the parties - human and non-human - to a decision and to recognize that all parties have a say in how the decision is made. Thus the principle requires us to ask:

• Do all stakeholders in this decision actually have a say in how the decision is going to be made?
• Are there any stakeholders who cannot represent themselves? Or who have little power? How will their interests be represented in the decision-making process?