HUMAN ECOLOGY AS AN INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPT
43
example will have to suffice and for that I have chosen the conflict
between a system of deontological ethics and one of axiological ethics.
Deontological ethics deals with the nature of duty, without regard to the
goodness or value of motives or the desirability of the ends of any act,
while axiological ethics is that branch of ethics dealing primarily with
the relative goodness or value of the motives and ends of any action.
Related here is the question of ethical relativism, whether or not moral
standards and principles are commonly relative to the nature of the
particular society in which they exist and whether or not they submit to
outside criticism or evaluation. The relevance, ecologically, is that the
behavior of an individual or society is regulated by its system of ethics.
Does one define one’s behavior in terms of duty to country or obligation
to mankind? Is a company employee morally obligated to tattle on that
company if it is polluting or is one’s first duty to the company and
family (who depend on the company job for their welfare)? Is the doctor
who believes that over-population will destroy mankind obligated to
perform an abortion or is his duty to the code of ethics of the A.M.A.?
One of the more important considerations is the choice of a group to
which to belong, if such a choice exists: choice of community and community norms are a function of the ethical system. The interactions and
exchanges between individuals and groups are functions of the inherent
ethical system. The limits of responsibility defined by choice of a system
of ethics is also reflected in attitudes toward nature and environment.
Conscious adoption of an axiological system of ethics could go far
toward realization of Leopold’s (1933) badly needed and still missing
“third” ethic.
The subtle differences in meaning between the doctrines of anthroposolipsism and anthropo-centrism are also of significance as ethical
measures of man’s attitudes and behavior toward other creatures and
the environment. Considering oneself the most important creature in the
world or universe (anthropo-centrism) results in far different behavior
from considering oneself the only important creature (anthroposolipsism).
Central to this discussion, obviously, is the recurring conception of
human uniqueness. As Hepburn (1967) claims, “One’s conception of
how man is related to the rest of the natural world may help to determine-in conjunction with many other factors-ane’s sense of the
importance or unimportance of human life, the roles judged reasonable
and unreasonable for men to adopt”. This is closely related to the abovementioned conflict between anthropo-solipsism and anthropo-centrism
and that between axiological and deontological ethics. John Stuart
Mill’s essay on nature (in “Three Essays on Religion”, 1874) is typically
ambiguous. The dualism in Mill’s essay is confusing but underlines the
43
example will have to suffice and for that I have chosen the conflict
between a system of deontological ethics and one of axiological ethics.
Deontological ethics deals with the nature of duty, without regard to the
goodness or value of motives or the desirability of the ends of any act,
while axiological ethics is that branch of ethics dealing primarily with
the relative goodness or value of the motives and ends of any action.
Related here is the question of ethical relativism, whether or not moral
standards and principles are commonly relative to the nature of the
particular society in which they exist and whether or not they submit to
outside criticism or evaluation. The relevance, ecologically, is that the
behavior of an individual or society is regulated by its system of ethics.
Does one define one’s behavior in terms of duty to country or obligation
to mankind? Is a company employee morally obligated to tattle on that
company if it is polluting or is one’s first duty to the company and
family (who depend on the company job for their welfare)? Is the doctor
who believes that over-population will destroy mankind obligated to
perform an abortion or is his duty to the code of ethics of the A.M.A.?
One of the more important considerations is the choice of a group to
which to belong, if such a choice exists: choice of community and community norms are a function of the ethical system. The interactions and
exchanges between individuals and groups are functions of the inherent
ethical system. The limits of responsibility defined by choice of a system
of ethics is also reflected in attitudes toward nature and environment.
Conscious adoption of an axiological system of ethics could go far
toward realization of Leopold’s (1933) badly needed and still missing
“third” ethic.
The subtle differences in meaning between the doctrines of anthroposolipsism and anthropo-centrism are also of significance as ethical
measures of man’s attitudes and behavior toward other creatures and
the environment. Considering oneself the most important creature in the
world or universe (anthropo-centrism) results in far different behavior
from considering oneself the only important creature (anthroposolipsism).
Central to this discussion, obviously, is the recurring conception of
human uniqueness. As Hepburn (1967) claims, “One’s conception of
how man is related to the rest of the natural world may help to determine-in conjunction with many other factors-ane’s sense of the
importance or unimportance of human life, the roles judged reasonable
and unreasonable for men to adopt”. This is closely related to the abovementioned conflict between anthropo-solipsism and anthropo-centrism
and that between axiological and deontological ethics. John Stuart
Mill’s essay on nature (in “Three Essays on Religion”, 1874) is typically
ambiguous. The dualism in Mill’s essay is confusing but underlines the