This paper considers the foundation of self-realization and the sense of morality that could justify Arne Naess’s claim ‘Self-realization is morally neutral,’ by focusing on the recent debate among deep ecologists. Self-realization, the ultimate norm of Naess’s ecosophy T, is the realization of the maxim ‘everything is interrelated.’ This norm seems to be based on two basic principles: the diminishing of narrow ego, and the integrity between the human and non-human worlds. The paper argues that the former is an extension (...) of Plato’s idea of self-development or self-mastery while the latter is implicit in Aristotle’s holism. It defends that Self-realization is morally neutral only if the term ‘moral’ is considered in the Kantian sense. However, Naess reluctantly distinguishes between ethics and morality, which makes his approach less credible. The paper concludes that Aristotle’s notion of eudaimonia supports Self-realization to qualify as a virtue. (shrink)

Which are major debates in environmental ethics and why is necessary to put upside down the traditional anthropocentric/non- anthropocentric debate? Ecocentric ethic is not an anti-human position, and it has to become the global ethic: it's not a matter of economics but it's the common good, in a Socratic sense.

Ecological research and conservation practice frequently raise difficult and varied ethical questions for scientific investigators and managers, including duties to public welfare, nonhuman individuals (i.e., animals and plants), populations, and ecosystems. The field of environmental ethics has contributed much to the understanding of general duties and values to nature, but it has not developed the resources to address the diverse and often unique practical concerns of ecological researchers and managers in the field, lab, and conservation facility. The emerging field of (...) “ecological ethics” is a practical or scientific ethics that offers a superior approach to the ethical dilemmas of the ecologist and conservation manager. Even though ecological ethics necessarily draws from the principles and commitments of mainstream environmental ethics, it is normatively pluralistic, including as well the frameworks of animal, research, and professional ethics. It is also methodologically pragmatic, focused on the practical problems of researchers and managers and informed by these problems in turn. The ecological ethics model offers environmental scientists and practitioners a useful analytical tool for identifying, clarifying, and harmonizing values and positions in challenging ecological research and management situations. Just as bioethics provides a critical intellectual and problem-solving service to the biomedical community, ecological ethics can help inform and improve ethical decision making in the ecology and conservation communities. (shrink)

Stakeholder theory is often unable to distinguish those individuals and groups that are stakeholders from those that are not. This problem of stakeholder identity has recently been addressed by linking stakeholder theory to a Rawlsian principle of fairness. To illustrate, the question of stakeholder status for the non-human environment is discussed. This essay criticizes a past attempt to ascribe stakeholder status to the non-human environment, which utilized a broad definition of the term "stakeholder." This paper then demonstrates how, despite the (...) denial of stakeholder status, the environment is nonetheless accounted for on a fairness-based approach through legitimate organizational stakeholders. In addition, since stakeholder theory has never claimed to be a comprehensive ethical scheme, it is argued that sound reasons might exist for managers to consider their organization's impact on the environment that are not stakeholder-related. (shrink)

Spätestens mit der 1992er Rio Declaration on Environment and Development hat sich der Begriff „Ökosystemintegrität“ als Leitprinzip internationaler Umweltpolitik etabliert. Seinen Ursprung hat dieser Begriff in Bestrebungen in Kanada und den USA, mit Hilfe der positiven Konnotationen des aus der menschlich-sozialen Sphäre stammenden Begriffs der „Integrität“ die Wertschätzung und den Schutz von Natur zu fördern. Die Kombination mit dem Begriff „Ökosystem“ ergibt sich aus der Absicht, eine zugleich integrativ-holistische und naturwissenschaftlich-empirische Bewertungsmöglichkeit zu etablieren – anstelle einer entweder naturwissenschaftlich-reduktionistischen oder spirituell-holistischen (...) Betrachtungsweise. In diesem Aufsatz wird zunächst der Entstehungskontext des Begriffs der Ökosystemintegrität beleuchtet, um dann vier konkurrierende Begriffsbestimmungen vorzustellen: Ökosystemintegrität als Fähigkeit eines Ökosystems, seinen ursprünglichen Zustand, seine intrinsische Funktionalität bzw. innere Zweckmäßigkeit oder seine extrinsische Funktionalität bzw. äußere Zweckmäßigkeit aufrechtzuerhalten, sowie, übergeordnet, ökologische Integrität als transpersonal-planetarisches Bewusstsein der Eingebundenheit des Menschen in das planetarische Ökosystem. Diese vier Konzepte werden zunächst – deskriptiv – im Hinblick auf die ihnen zugrunde liegenden naturwissenschaftlichen Theorien und naturtheoretischen Prämissen sowie auf ihren normativen Gehalt analysiert. Dann wird – normativ – ihre Eignung als umweltethisches Leitprinzip geprüft. Epistemologische Kriterien für die Auswahl dieser vier Begriffsbestimmungen waren: Werden Ökosysteme bzw. Ökosystemintegrität im Sinne eines ontologischen Realismus als beobachterunabhängige oder aber im Sinne eines ontologischen Konstruktivismus als beobachterabhängige Entitäten bzw. Eigenschaft begriffen? Was wird als Referenz dafür angesehen, ob etwas abträglich für Ökosystemintegrität ist? Vor allem in normativer Hinsicht ist die Frage relevant: Werden Menschen bzw. Gesellschaften als getrennt von oder als Teile von Ökosystemen bestimmt? Gewählt wurden diese Kriterien, weil sie entscheidende Prämissen der vielen verschiedenen Konzepte von Ökosystemintegrität erschließen, die in umweltethischer Hinsicht normativ wirksam werden. Die vorliegende Analyse zeigt, dass alle vier Konzepte von „Ökosystemintegrität“ mit schwerwiegenden Einwänden konfrontiert und als umweltethisches Leitprinzip problematisch sind – vor allem, weil sie auf fragwürdigen ontologischen Voraussetzungen basieren. (shrink)

The subject-matter of this essay is the moral status of nature. This subject is dealt with in terms of normative reasons. The main question is if there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in addition to the numerous indirect normative reasons that there are for doing so. Roughly, if there is some such reason, and that reason applies to any moral agent, then nature has direct moral status as I use the phrase. I develop the notions of direct (...) normative reason and direct moral status in detail and identify and discuss the two main types of theory according to which nature has direct moral status: analogy-based nature-considerism and non-analogy-based nature-considerism. I argue for the plausibility of a particular version of the latter, but against the plausibility of any version of the former. The theory that is representative of AN claims that nature has direct moral status in virtue of possessing interests. Proponents of this theory fail to show that nature has interests of the kind that they reasonably want to ascribe to it, and that interests of this kind are morally significant. In contrast to AN, NN comes in a variety of different forms. I elaborate a version of NN according to which there are direct normative reasons to care for nature in virtue of its unique complexity, and its indispensability. I argue that even if these reasons should turn out not to apply to any moral agent, they are still genuine direct normative reasons: there is nothing irrational or misdirected about them. Finally, I show how the question of whether there are direct normative reasons to care for nature is relevant to private and political decision-making concerning nature. This is exemplified with a case from the Swedish mountain region. (shrink)

‘Contingent Valuation ’ is a method often used to make decisions about environmental issues. It is used to elicit citizens’ preferences at the location of a specific facility, new road and the like. I argue that even if we could elicit a truly informed and ‘free’ choice, the method would remain flawed, as 1) all ‘local’ activity also has far-reaching environmental consequences; 2) majority decisions may support chices that adversely affect minorities; 3) even with full information, consenting to harms like (...) significant alterations of our normal functioning or health, or genetic mutations, may not be morally acceptable. (shrink)

This article summarizes some of the results of the BIOMED II project “Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw” connected to a research project of the Danish Research Councils “Bioethics and Law”. The BIOMED project was based on cooperation between 22 partners in most EU countries. The aim of the project was to identify the ethical principles of respect for autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability as four important ideas or values for a European bioethics and biolaw. The research concluded (...) that the basic ethical principles cannot be understood as universal everlasting ideas or transcendental truths but they rather function reflective guidelines and important values in European culture. The method of the research was conceptual, philosophical analysis of the cultural background of the four values or normative ideas that people use and find important in their existence. Moreover, this was combined with analysis of empirical legal material and policy documents. Also, a number of qualitative interviews with relevant experts were carried out. Another important result of the BIOMED project was the partner's Policy Proposals to the European Commission, the Barcelona Declaration, unique as a philosophical and political agreement between experts in bioethics and biolaw from many different countries. The Policy Proposals are reprinted here at the end of the article. (shrink)

The distinction between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric theories, together with the more fine-grained distinction between anthropocentrism, biocentrism and ecocentrism, are probably two of the most frequently occurring distinctions in the environmental ethics literature. In this essay I draw attention to some problematic aspects of the terminology used to draw these distinctions: the ‘centrism-terminology’. I argue that this terminology is ambiguous and misleading, and therefore confusing. Furthermore, depending on which interpretation it is given, it is also either asymmetric and non-inclusive, or superfluous. (...) Although I find it unlikely that the centrism-terminology will be abandoned, I end the essay by providing a suggestion for an alternative way to categorise theories in environmental ethics. (shrink)

New agricultural technologies are often justified morally in terms of their expected benefits, e.g., feeding the world's hungry. Such justifications stand or fall, not only on whether such benefits are indeed forthcoming, but on whether or not they are outweighed by attendant dangers. The practical details of easch case are, therefore, all-important. In this paper agriculture and aquaculture are examined from the perspective of ecosystem integrity, and with further reference to the uncertain effects of anthropogenic changes in the earth's atmosphere. (...) The principle of integrity provides a strong justification for a cautious approach to new technologies, and particularly so in the case of transgenics. (shrink)

This paper reviews the current status of the debate about concept of environmental sustainability, and mentions its related aspects of growth, limits, scale and substitutability. The paper suggests that ES is a clear concept and that it is universal and rigorous. While the many paths leading to ES in each country or sector will differ, the goal remains constant. ES is contrasted from social and economic sustainability, because the three types of sustainability follow different laws and require different means by (...) different disciplines to achieve each of them. ES is fundamental for survival of humanity; but ES without some measure of social sustainability will not be very attractive. The three now need to be integrated.This conceptualisation is far from an academic exercise. The monumental challenge of ensuring that possibly ten billion people are decently fed and housed within less than two human generations—without damaging the environment on which we all depend—means that the goal of environmental sustainability must be reached as soon as humanly possible. (shrink)