18
an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions’ (Washington Post 14
December 2016).
An example at the other end of the ideological spectrum would be a communalistic and egalitarian society where the common good supersedes individual desires.
Resources come to be shared on an equitable basis, and Nature and humanity coexist in accord such that the human species have no privileged role. Human rights in
such a society will be a very different construct compared with a libertarian one. In
the latter, policing, if indeed it exists, will be aimed at maximising individual liberty; in a communalistic society, the role of policing is to maintain egalitarianism
possibly at the expense of individual liberty. Responsibilities towards the common
good in a communalistic society are prioritised over individual rights.
It should be mentioned that close to the ideology of communalism and egalitarianism is communitarianism. Contrary to liberalism, communitarianism (relating to
social organisation in small communities) maintains that the attitude of uncontrolled
free-market economy and consumerism towards the environment should be reconsidered. Treating the environment as an inexhaustible source of profit without thinking about the (near) future seriously endangers the planet and threatens to drive
society into economic and demographic catastrophe. According to the proponents
of communitarianism, for example, Etzioni (2015), measures introduced by state
institutions should be combined with community efforts (i.e. efforts at the level of
individuals, families and local communities). Only in this way can a reasonable and
morally responsible balance be achieved between the free-market economy, the
present-day exploitation of natural resources and the prospects of preserving the
ecological equilibrium, giving future generations a chance to live.
These are of course extreme, and probably mythical, examples, and there are
natural constraints which make their extremity impossible. For example, an extreme
libertarian society would need to preserve some common resources and take into
account the common good for individuals to prosper
1
. An extreme egalitarian society which refused to prioritise its own species would find it difficult to survive if no
action was taken against parasites.
These two examples represent very different philosophical perspectives about
the relationship between human beings and the Natural world. The libertarian
example can be termed an example of anthropocentrism where Nature has no intrinsic value but exists to serve human needs. Anthropocentrism is often understood to
reflect instrumentality, i.e. Nature as subservient to human needs. But a ‘weak’ form
of anthropocentrism distinguishes between human instrumentality and humancentredness. In the latter, there is scope for respect for other species in relation to
human survival, so a sense of centredness is perhaps unavoidable (Dobson 2007).
1 It is worth noting that such a system comes close to the political views of Margaret Thatcher. This
quote is from an interview she gave to Woman’s Own magazine on September 23rd 1987 ‘… who
is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and
no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our
duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal
business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations…’
R. Levinson et al.
an engineering problem, and it has engineering solutions’ (Washington Post 14
December 2016).
An example at the other end of the ideological spectrum would be a communalistic and egalitarian society where the common good supersedes individual desires.
Resources come to be shared on an equitable basis, and Nature and humanity coexist in accord such that the human species have no privileged role. Human rights in
such a society will be a very different construct compared with a libertarian one. In
the latter, policing, if indeed it exists, will be aimed at maximising individual liberty; in a communalistic society, the role of policing is to maintain egalitarianism
possibly at the expense of individual liberty. Responsibilities towards the common
good in a communalistic society are prioritised over individual rights.
It should be mentioned that close to the ideology of communalism and egalitarianism is communitarianism. Contrary to liberalism, communitarianism (relating to
social organisation in small communities) maintains that the attitude of uncontrolled
free-market economy and consumerism towards the environment should be reconsidered. Treating the environment as an inexhaustible source of profit without thinking about the (near) future seriously endangers the planet and threatens to drive
society into economic and demographic catastrophe. According to the proponents
of communitarianism, for example, Etzioni (2015), measures introduced by state
institutions should be combined with community efforts (i.e. efforts at the level of
individuals, families and local communities). Only in this way can a reasonable and
morally responsible balance be achieved between the free-market economy, the
present-day exploitation of natural resources and the prospects of preserving the
ecological equilibrium, giving future generations a chance to live.
These are of course extreme, and probably mythical, examples, and there are
natural constraints which make their extremity impossible. For example, an extreme
libertarian society would need to preserve some common resources and take into
account the common good for individuals to prosper
1
. An extreme egalitarian society which refused to prioritise its own species would find it difficult to survive if no
action was taken against parasites.
These two examples represent very different philosophical perspectives about
the relationship between human beings and the Natural world. The libertarian
example can be termed an example of anthropocentrism where Nature has no intrinsic value but exists to serve human needs. Anthropocentrism is often understood to
reflect instrumentality, i.e. Nature as subservient to human needs. But a ‘weak’ form
of anthropocentrism distinguishes between human instrumentality and humancentredness. In the latter, there is scope for respect for other species in relation to
human survival, so a sense of centredness is perhaps unavoidable (Dobson 2007).
1 It is worth noting that such a system comes close to the political views of Margaret Thatcher. This
quote is from an interview she gave to Woman’s Own magazine on September 23rd 1987 ‘… who
is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and
no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our
duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal
business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations…’
R. Levinson et al.