ON ALDO LEOPOLD’S LAND ETHIC
Most
of the ethical theories deal with principles concerning rightness or wrongness
that govern human interaction with other humans. Less has been the case for how
humans should interact with the environment. Thus, Aldo Leopold puts forward
land ethics as a layout for humanity’s relationship with the land.
Inasmuch
as establishing principles of interaction between humans and the environment,
it is a hard task to do since there is a need to reframe a dominating
instrumentalist perspective that humans have i.e., objects are in use and
should be used to achieve happiness. Part of the disposables to cater human
happiness is the environment of which humans still see as a property (for
consumption) rather than a coequal such as how ethical theories have always looked
at humans with each other as coequals.
When
the core of any action is still instrumentalist, then actions that stem thereof
will bear the same mark. To Leopold, conservation efforts are still a
manifestation of humanity’s desire to exploit the environment with a seeming
effort to save it for the time being.[1]
Not unless there is a radical turn to treat the environment in the same way
humans are compelled to treat each other equally, then there is no ecological
consciousness at work; more so, without such consciousness, there can be no
conscience (reflection of any act) when instrumentalist-anchored deeds are in
play.
The
temptation to remain in the instrumentalist perspective is inevitable as value
has always been tied to use whether in a personal take, that it can bring one’s
happiness or in a much larger scale, that of economics with profit as its
motive. Sometimes, this view on value leads humans to focus on those which can
profit them while leaving out the other parts of the environment that does not
yield any economic value. Leopold mentioned to the degradation of marshes and
other similar parts of the environment that cannot affect profit making but can
surely affect the entire circuitry of the ecosystem where it plays a certain role.
One does not look anymore on how a certain area or element plays within the
entire system as if it was an isolated entity that does not affect
anything. And oftentimes, an attempt to
save or conserve anything that will be affected is still based on a foreseen
economic value.
Leopold
is aware that the environment is a by-product and is in a continuing process of
evolution. Evolution brings about changes gradually and within a rather lengthy
duration compared to changes that human beings do which are excessive as the
effects are immediate and are oftentimes, disruptive to the ecological
circuitry. Human actions greatly affect the environment and fast track changes
which are problematic. To Leopold, human actions disrupt the land pyramid, and
only when there are less violent changes that occur, then the land pyramid can
readjust itself.
The call to take care of the environment must have a radical turn i.e., to radically minimize the instrumentalist perspective (economic value laden) and to treat the environment with dignity and respect. The land needs to be valued but not for a blatantly use-oriented manner.
DEFINING ANOTHER OTHER
Leopold’s Land Ethic made clear that nonhuman
entities are included as the other i.e., objects that humans must even have an
approximate intersubjective relation with. The center of ethics has always been
humanity’s relationship with each other which in turn, relegated the
environment as an “other” merely for use. If humanity has to achieve drastic
improvements to his or her relationship with the environment, then
conceptually, he or she has to extend ethical considerations to nonhuman
entities.
To
further prove a point, it is thus necessary to go through utilitarianism as an
ethical theory that holds a problem in the ethical consideration of nonhuman
entities, and where I would like to argue that Kant’s categorical imperative
can be a viable option to adopt for an ethical framework.
Consequentialism
has been tied to utilitarianism wherein the end goal of any action is to always
maximize happiness. The end justifies the means and whatever that intensifies
the experience of pleasure to a vast majority will be the course of action to
take. The primal consideration of any action has to be anchored on happiness
and if it is counter to it, then such course should not be taken. Also, since
happiness is the goal, then whatever stands in between or towards the
fulfillment of such incorporates a use-value; thus, value is given when it
brings happiness. This ethical framework is even guilty in instrumentalizing
humans as well in the quest for happiness; but tendencies for considerations of
any exploitative actions will be easily entertained due to the fact that
humans, at least, bears conscience when executing a certain questionable deed
to a face that they can empathize with. This too, is where Leopold is critical
on conservation efforts, as such still bears instrumental thinking into the
fore magnified by values dictated in economics. Although animal rights and land
ethics are beginning to take track in the ethical discourse, making people
outthink the basic and immediate utilitarian thinking implies a radical shift
of the tendency to instrumentalize in pursuing happiness.
Deontological
Ethics is compatible with Land Ethic. Even though there are critiques that aim
at deontology as simply consequentialism on a higher plane, it is where the
treatment of the other as an end in-itself rather than a means is the critical
point to consider. Eventually, Kant’s categorical imperative calls upon an
actor to do something as it is a “duty”. Duty here is predicated to an action
once a certain maxim passes through the universalizability test and is deemed
doable under such circumstance. Taking consideration of the critique to
deontology, such bears weight as for example, taking care of the environment as
a maxim has to have a consequence in mind wherein it can be posited to be
doable by everybody. Still, instrumental thinking is at play; however, the
point is to do such as an end in itself once presumably universalized. But
Kant’s categorical imperative and the ultimate goal of the “kingdom of ends” is
only in effect with fellow rational beings who are not to use one another as a
means to an end. The same rational status cannot be said to a desert, marsh, or
a forest as they are not conscious and free, thus are not consciously driven to
treat humans as ends in-itself. Reciprocity here cannot be justified within the
bounds of intentionality as nonhuman entities are without such.
In
this case, even if there is an apparent absence of consciousness from the part
of the environment as a faculty of its freedom, the environment is still in
motion in accordance with its fixed laws. Consider the progress of the of the
environment for so long a time as the manifestation of its “will”, and it has
reached this far. Although this is not the kind of will that humans have that
shows utmost control, the environment too, is in motion, whether self-aware or
not, it has the tendency to determine itself through being determined by its
laws. Let this evidence of motion within its circuitry an instance for humanity
to consider what nature “wills” for itself. Thus, consider this move to pin a
seeming self-determinism to the environment a fundamental springboard for an
eco-centric framework i.e., humans have to consider what nature/environment goes
to given what principles humans can fathom on how nature works. This is now
treating the environment as an “other” with a coequal standing with humans
other than for use.
Although
Leopold is wary of conservation as way to address the problems humanity is
facing right now, let it be that conservation is the first step in treating
nature as a significant other. More so, a perspectival shift has to occur so
that the initial steps of conservation will not fall into the rabbit hole of
use-value-oriented actions. And this time, I would argue that to justify an
eco-centric ethical framework on the basis of having to later on benefit
humanity is still not what eco-centrism is. As long as the question “what is in
it for humans” lurks, the environment is still an instrument, and such perspective
is already the danger that is evident with human being’s present relation with
nature. The aim is simply to have harmony with nature as a coequal.
The
fulfillment of Land Ethic begs the call of Deep Ecology. In treating nature as
a significant other which has in its path to determine, a duty must be imposed
to “protect” it. Given the situation we are now at, such duty can lead to
clashes with the current economic landscape. Humans have exploited the
environment to sustain human population, and such is not perfect due to the
reality of inequality among humans and the staggering amount of hoarding from
other groups or individuals. This inequality reflects the exploitative condition
our society now has which worsens the lives on the marginalized while the earth’s
resources are stripped to be insanely and disproportionately available and accessible
to a few. One cannot help but that think that as long as there is proper distribution
of resources which is sufficient for humans, then there is no need to further
exploit nature. Yet this appears to be a regression as humans go back to the
time wherein, they only hunt what is sufficient for their needs in a given
moment. Such cannot be doable in a tightly intricate industrialized global
network of supply chains and where areas in the world are not at times used
accordingly for sustainability as they tend to focus on a certain trade rather
than a whole nation to be self-sufficient. Some nations or areas need to import
somewhere because they are not even producing for their sustenance; thus, a certain
area has to produce more to cater to a demand from another locale. Some places
in the world has to be fruit basket where non-fruit producing nation has to get
its food from.
The
intricacy of our current economic situation has led to our duty to protect the
environment seem like a radical but dangerous option as it will exacerbate the
already present dire conditions that humans are facing right now such as hunger
and scarcity. If only hoarding is addressed and the smoothness of global supply
chains even more improved, then there is no need to exploit the earth more to patch
up imbalances. The best way to start treating the environment as a significant
other is to slowly remove the pedestal that humans enjoyed for so long and that
an attempt to fix the “broken” economic system and the human factors along with
it, is a step towards fulfilling the “duty to protect.” Even though that the intention
of the actions is on addressing the human problem, the apparent consequent in
tagging along the environment is likely to occur. As mentioned earlier, be it that
conservation has its use-value underpinned motive, but it is a start. Be it
that humans fix their economic models then, in turn, addresses the exploitative
deeds to nature until humans start to will that nature has to stand side by
side with them as a coequal. Sustainable development is inevitable when distribution,
allocation, and appropriation are well-managed with the avoidance to needlessly
hoard; thus, sustainable development cannot just spring from pursuing Land Ethic
without tackling side by side economics.
[1]
Conservationist efforts are just enlightened self-interest efforts according to
Leopold. Enlightened in the sense that humanity is geared towards an act that
attempts to treat the environment with dignity but only to be instrumental for
future exploitation.
Comments
Post a Comment