Environmental Ethics

Amaidani Boncenor

In “Environmental Ethics,” Robert Elliot uses the example of Kakadu National Park in Australia, which runs the risk of being cleared for mining to discuss why people might be against the destruction of natural habitats. He makes it clear that regarding the environment; people have different ideas depending on their moral principles, which he calls Environmental Ethics. He goes on to examine some of the different environmental ethics people might have for not supporting the destruction of the park.

The first environmental ethic Elliot examines is the Human-centred ethic, which conveys that the decision should be based solely on how it will affect humans. I found this to be incredibly selfish because someone with this ethic only cares about the wellbeing of the park depending on the services that it provides them with.  Elliot successfully conveys the selfishness of people who have this ethic when he says, “it is only the happiness and unhappiness of humans which is morally considerable” (286). They fail to see the importance of the natural world and the effect it has on their lives.

The second environmental ethic is the Animal-centred ethic. This ethic regards both humans and animals as morally considerable in environmental issues, but not as equals. For example, it would be unacceptable if a decision protected animals and harmed humans, but it would be okay if it were vice versa. Elliot explains that this “ranking” is based on how complicated the species is, and refers to the complexity in thought between humans and kangaroos.  I understand that humans are more valuable because of their intelligence, but kangaroos should not be devalued to the point where they are insignificant. Kangaroos are an important part of the ecosystem because, like all animals, they help keep the food chain balanced.

The Life-centred ethic is very similar to the Animal-centred ethic. However, this ethic takes into consideration all the living things in the biosphere. Once again, the complexity of the living thing is what decides its moral significance. I do not believe its complexity should be valued, but rather its contribution to the environment, just like the case with humans and kangaroos. In the end, all the inhabitants work together in a chain.

After discussing the last three ethics, Elliot realizes that they all place a great importance on life. Elliot then develops the “Everything Ethic” which regards both living things and non-living things, such as rocks, as important.  I think this is a very unique ethic because when people think about the environment, they always think about different life-forms that need protection. Rarely do non-living things, such as rocks, get recognized. According to Elliot, “Mining will involve smashing up rocks, disturbing geological structures, spoiling fossils and the like” (288). This made me realize that every single feature of the Kakadu Park, no matter how small, is very important to its wellbeing and nothing should be “ranked” because everything works together.

In the last ethic, the Ecological Holism ethic, the living and non-living inhabitants are only important depending on how they contribute to the maintenance of the environment. I agree with this ethic because it values every species for its abilities regardless of complexity. It places a special importance on the environment and its continuity.

Although Elliot fails to choose one specific environmental ethic to handle the Kakadu Park issue, he still manages to convey that everything (living and non-living) is important in making the decision. I believe that a combination of the "Everything Ethic" and the Human-centred ethic would be appropriate in deciding to stop the mining of Kakadu Park. Both humans and everything in the park should be taken into consideration equally when making the decision because it will ultimately affect them both.