9.3 Approaches to Environmental Ethics
199
Almanac, today. His work is the foundation for land ethics. Leopold views “land”
as the whole ecological community of natural settings or a place. However, the
boundaries between species, natural communities, and ecosystems are still contested
topics.
9.3 Approaches to Environmental Ethics
The three primary forms of ethical theory are deontological ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics (Sandler 2009). They differ in terms of their central evaluative
categories. In virtue ethics, the main evaluative concepts are virtues instead of
the consequences or obligation or duty. Environmental ethics is considered virtueoriented because it evaluates our practices, relationships, and policies regarding
the environment in terms of vices and virtues. It emphasizes the cultivation of
environmental virtue, that is, the character traits that promote both human and
non-human prosperity, apart from performing specific actions. One of the core
advantages of a virtue-oriented approach is that it has a richer, more diverse, and
nuanced language compared to consequentialism and duty.
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism focus on what makes an action right or wrong,
while virtue ethics focuses on what makes one a good person and the meaning of
living a good human life. Aristotle believed that each living thing has a specific
telos or purpose that it suits. He argued that the human purpose emanates from our
unique abilities to reason. Consequently, a great human life needs the development
and practice of theoretical reason (Sandler 2009). Aristotle further believes that
moral virtue starts with habit as we imitate moral models. Becoming fully virtuous,
however, requires one to have practical wisdom that enables him or her to assess
the requirements of each session and fully integrate all virtues in one’s action
and thought. Virtue ethics has various strengths, including its ability to focus on
overall moral development instead of individual acts, thus drawing attention away
from tragic moral dilemmas. Notwithstanding, virtue ethics has been criticized on
various grounds. For instance, the concept of a single telos or good for humans
has been questioned. The second criticism is about the universality of Aristotelian
virtues. Some believe that Aristotle’s ethics are largely anthropocentric since, in
his hierarchical worldview, Aristotle ranks humans above other living organisms
(Sandler 2009). Contemporary moral philosophers have extended approaches of
virtue ethics to the environment. For instance, some believe that virtues like
compassion and humility could be expressed in relation to nature and animals, while
others suggest that figures like Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson could be models
for an environmentally virtuous life.
Consequentialists believe that only the consequences of action determine
whether the action is moral or not. Utilitarianism is a branch or form of
consequentialism that argues that a morally right action should maximize utility.
According to Jeremy Bentham, a hedonistic, utilitarian, utility is the presence
of pleasure and absence of pain (Attfield 2014). On the other hand, preference
199
Almanac, today. His work is the foundation for land ethics. Leopold views “land”
as the whole ecological community of natural settings or a place. However, the
boundaries between species, natural communities, and ecosystems are still contested
topics.
9.3 Approaches to Environmental Ethics
The three primary forms of ethical theory are deontological ethics, consequentialism, and virtue ethics (Sandler 2009). They differ in terms of their central evaluative
categories. In virtue ethics, the main evaluative concepts are virtues instead of
the consequences or obligation or duty. Environmental ethics is considered virtueoriented because it evaluates our practices, relationships, and policies regarding
the environment in terms of vices and virtues. It emphasizes the cultivation of
environmental virtue, that is, the character traits that promote both human and
non-human prosperity, apart from performing specific actions. One of the core
advantages of a virtue-oriented approach is that it has a richer, more diverse, and
nuanced language compared to consequentialism and duty.
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism focus on what makes an action right or wrong,
while virtue ethics focuses on what makes one a good person and the meaning of
living a good human life. Aristotle believed that each living thing has a specific
telos or purpose that it suits. He argued that the human purpose emanates from our
unique abilities to reason. Consequently, a great human life needs the development
and practice of theoretical reason (Sandler 2009). Aristotle further believes that
moral virtue starts with habit as we imitate moral models. Becoming fully virtuous,
however, requires one to have practical wisdom that enables him or her to assess
the requirements of each session and fully integrate all virtues in one’s action
and thought. Virtue ethics has various strengths, including its ability to focus on
overall moral development instead of individual acts, thus drawing attention away
from tragic moral dilemmas. Notwithstanding, virtue ethics has been criticized on
various grounds. For instance, the concept of a single telos or good for humans
has been questioned. The second criticism is about the universality of Aristotelian
virtues. Some believe that Aristotle’s ethics are largely anthropocentric since, in
his hierarchical worldview, Aristotle ranks humans above other living organisms
(Sandler 2009). Contemporary moral philosophers have extended approaches of
virtue ethics to the environment. For instance, some believe that virtues like
compassion and humility could be expressed in relation to nature and animals, while
others suggest that figures like Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson could be models
for an environmentally virtuous life.
Consequentialists believe that only the consequences of action determine
whether the action is moral or not. Utilitarianism is a branch or form of
consequentialism that argues that a morally right action should maximize utility.
According to Jeremy Bentham, a hedonistic, utilitarian, utility is the presence
of pleasure and absence of pain (Attfield 2014). On the other hand, preference