17
In short, we need a water ethic – a guide to tight conduct on the face of complex decisions
about natural systems we do not and cannot fully understand (Postel 2010 , p. 222).
Poul Harremoës ( 2002 ) expects that a water ethics – in his understanding a more
responsible and refl ected behaviour of water users orientated to the precautionary
principle – would make over-regulation by the state unnecessary. Most of the
approaches, however, assume in broader sense that a water ethics shall help to protect and conserve water systems as the basis of present – and even more – future life
on Earth. The call for a new water ethics expresses far-ranging concerns about
increasing degradation of water systems – and is an indicator of severe dissatisfaction with protection measures implemented so far and also with our decision- making
capabilities on water issues today.
The largest part of water ethics until the present has been related to the fi eld of
environmental ethics. An early and infl uential work by the U.S. American ecologist
Aldo Leopold ( 1949 ) postulating a “land ethic” was the point of departure. His
motivation was to develop a new type of ethic, where the boundaries of the communities shall be extended from humans to include soils, waters, plants and animals
(Priscoli Delli et al. 2004 , p. 9). Armstrong ( 2006 ; 2009 ) used this postulate as template to develop a water ethic and reasoned:
A thing is right if it preserves or enhances the ability of the water within the ecosystem to
sustain life; and wrong if it decreases that ability (Armstrong 2006 , p. 13).
However, also the reference to life as such or to “each organism” might not be
very helpful because measures usually support some forms of life but would threaten
others. The life as such cannot be sustained – only specifi c forms of life (ecosystems, organisms etc.). Therefore, additional criteria would be required to allow
for the determination of priorities. Armstrong, however, refuses to start this debate.
This is indeed the most acrimonious question of any water ethics, which has to deal
with such typical confl icts, ambiguities or even dilemmas. There is no simple way
to “sustain life” but we have to ask questions such as “sustain what life under which
circumstances and at what price?”
Some authors look for an overall answer to this question in the direction of ranking the value of the natural principally higher than the value of the artifi cial. Human
intervention, in this perspective, only can diminish the value of nature. Even the
image of nature restoration is bad because it is human intervention. Statements of
the kind
The ethical principle of stewardship teaches respect for creation and moral responsibility
for that creation. However, it also calls for wise use of creation and complete unwillingness
to modify nature (Priscoli Delli et al. 2004 , p. 16).
express a romantic picture and ignore completely that “complete unwillingness to
modify nature” is a strange postulate looking at the reality of human intervention into
nature. Instead of a “complete unwillingness to modify nature” we need the willingness
to take responsibility for our modifi cations of nature and to act accordingly. The valid
question of water ethics is not how to sustain life (Armstrong above) and to leave nature
untouched but is for the responsibility of human intervention into water systems.
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…
In short, we need a water ethic – a guide to tight conduct on the face of complex decisions
about natural systems we do not and cannot fully understand (Postel 2010 , p. 222).
Poul Harremoës ( 2002 ) expects that a water ethics – in his understanding a more
responsible and refl ected behaviour of water users orientated to the precautionary
principle – would make over-regulation by the state unnecessary. Most of the
approaches, however, assume in broader sense that a water ethics shall help to protect and conserve water systems as the basis of present – and even more – future life
on Earth. The call for a new water ethics expresses far-ranging concerns about
increasing degradation of water systems – and is an indicator of severe dissatisfaction with protection measures implemented so far and also with our decision- making
capabilities on water issues today.
The largest part of water ethics until the present has been related to the fi eld of
environmental ethics. An early and infl uential work by the U.S. American ecologist
Aldo Leopold ( 1949 ) postulating a “land ethic” was the point of departure. His
motivation was to develop a new type of ethic, where the boundaries of the communities shall be extended from humans to include soils, waters, plants and animals
(Priscoli Delli et al. 2004 , p. 9). Armstrong ( 2006 ; 2009 ) used this postulate as template to develop a water ethic and reasoned:
A thing is right if it preserves or enhances the ability of the water within the ecosystem to
sustain life; and wrong if it decreases that ability (Armstrong 2006 , p. 13).
However, also the reference to life as such or to “each organism” might not be
very helpful because measures usually support some forms of life but would threaten
others. The life as such cannot be sustained – only specifi c forms of life (ecosystems, organisms etc.). Therefore, additional criteria would be required to allow
for the determination of priorities. Armstrong, however, refuses to start this debate.
This is indeed the most acrimonious question of any water ethics, which has to deal
with such typical confl icts, ambiguities or even dilemmas. There is no simple way
to “sustain life” but we have to ask questions such as “sustain what life under which
circumstances and at what price?”
Some authors look for an overall answer to this question in the direction of ranking the value of the natural principally higher than the value of the artifi cial. Human
intervention, in this perspective, only can diminish the value of nature. Even the
image of nature restoration is bad because it is human intervention. Statements of
the kind
The ethical principle of stewardship teaches respect for creation and moral responsibility
for that creation. However, it also calls for wise use of creation and complete unwillingness
to modify nature (Priscoli Delli et al. 2004 , p. 16).
express a romantic picture and ignore completely that “complete unwillingness to
modify nature” is a strange postulate looking at the reality of human intervention into
nature. Instead of a “complete unwillingness to modify nature” we need the willingness
to take responsibility for our modifi cations of nature and to act accordingly. The valid
question of water ethics is not how to sustain life (Armstrong above) and to leave nature
untouched but is for the responsibility of human intervention into water systems.
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…