19
Human interventions into water systems and cycles (including the option not to
intervene) are subject to water ethics (this picture puts water ethics in close neighbourhood to the ethics of technology (Parodi 2008 ; Potthast 2013 ).
Consequently, a differentiated typology of human interventions into water systems regarding criteria for ethical refl ection would be required but is still desiderate.
Rough characterisations would distinguish between intended and non-intended
interventions. Intended interventions into water systems include direct measures
such as building dams for different purposes, deviating rivers and the installation of
huge irrigation systems, but also indirect measures regulating or de-regulating water
trade and other elements of water governance. Non-intended interventions comprise
of the side effects of human action resulting out of other actions. Examples are the
creeping groundwater pollution by herbicides and antibiotics from medical and
agricultural use, the heating of rivers by nuclear power plants or industry and the
pollution of the oceans.
In a situation of normative uncertainty (see above) – for example: the planned
regulation of a river leads to protest by ecologists; the planned construction of a
hydroelectric power station is rejected by local people; water usage for irrigation in
the upstream area of a river causes or increases scarcity of water in the downstream
area – the task of ethical refl ection is to analyse the normative foundations of the
different and possibly confl icting options on the table to provide support in their
assessment and comparison, and to contribute to deliberation and
decision-making.
Water ethics thus involves a necessary anthropocentric perspective by looking at
human intervention, intended or non-intended. Saying this may cause immediate
protest by ecologists and sections of bio- and eco-ethics (e.g. Leopold 1949 ; Katz
1997 ; Armstrong 2006 ). Frequently, the anthropocentric perspective of former morals is blamed for negative developments in the natural environment we witness
today: loss of biodiversity, climate change, pollution of waters, etc. Usually, other
perspectives than an anthropocentric ethics are proposed to improve the situation,
such as eco- or bio-centred ethics. However, the basis discourse model of philosophical ethics (Habermas 1991 ) cannot be other than anthropocentric because only
humans can participate in discourse and deliberation. For example, animals or water
systems cannot take the role of an active discourse partner. We humans have to take
stewardship over them to bring their assumed “perspectives” into the ethical discourse. In this sense water ethics must also be anthropocentric – which, however,
should not be confused with postulating for human dominion over nature. Issues of
water protection in the interest of future generations, of maintaining biodiversity or
of functioning eco-systems may be subject to this discourse as well as confl icts
between upstream and downstream users. “Anthropocentric” means that it is up to
us humans to take responsibility seriously – because, as far as we know, there is no
other species on Earth able to do this. Thus, exploring and assessing options for taking over responsibility for water systems and water cycles by human interventions
into water systems is the target of water ethics.
Because human intervention into water systems usually is done by implementing technologies (dams, river regulation, water distribution grids, irrigation
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…
Human interventions into water systems and cycles (including the option not to
intervene) are subject to water ethics (this picture puts water ethics in close neighbourhood to the ethics of technology (Parodi 2008 ; Potthast 2013 ).
Consequently, a differentiated typology of human interventions into water systems regarding criteria for ethical refl ection would be required but is still desiderate.
Rough characterisations would distinguish between intended and non-intended
interventions. Intended interventions into water systems include direct measures
such as building dams for different purposes, deviating rivers and the installation of
huge irrigation systems, but also indirect measures regulating or de-regulating water
trade and other elements of water governance. Non-intended interventions comprise
of the side effects of human action resulting out of other actions. Examples are the
creeping groundwater pollution by herbicides and antibiotics from medical and
agricultural use, the heating of rivers by nuclear power plants or industry and the
pollution of the oceans.
In a situation of normative uncertainty (see above) – for example: the planned
regulation of a river leads to protest by ecologists; the planned construction of a
hydroelectric power station is rejected by local people; water usage for irrigation in
the upstream area of a river causes or increases scarcity of water in the downstream
area – the task of ethical refl ection is to analyse the normative foundations of the
different and possibly confl icting options on the table to provide support in their
assessment and comparison, and to contribute to deliberation and
decision-making.
Water ethics thus involves a necessary anthropocentric perspective by looking at
human intervention, intended or non-intended. Saying this may cause immediate
protest by ecologists and sections of bio- and eco-ethics (e.g. Leopold 1949 ; Katz
1997 ; Armstrong 2006 ). Frequently, the anthropocentric perspective of former morals is blamed for negative developments in the natural environment we witness
today: loss of biodiversity, climate change, pollution of waters, etc. Usually, other
perspectives than an anthropocentric ethics are proposed to improve the situation,
such as eco- or bio-centred ethics. However, the basis discourse model of philosophical ethics (Habermas 1991 ) cannot be other than anthropocentric because only
humans can participate in discourse and deliberation. For example, animals or water
systems cannot take the role of an active discourse partner. We humans have to take
stewardship over them to bring their assumed “perspectives” into the ethical discourse. In this sense water ethics must also be anthropocentric – which, however,
should not be confused with postulating for human dominion over nature. Issues of
water protection in the interest of future generations, of maintaining biodiversity or
of functioning eco-systems may be subject to this discourse as well as confl icts
between upstream and downstream users. “Anthropocentric” means that it is up to
us humans to take responsibility seriously – because, as far as we know, there is no
other species on Earth able to do this. Thus, exploring and assessing options for taking over responsibility for water systems and water cycles by human interventions
into water systems is the target of water ethics.
Because human intervention into water systems usually is done by implementing technologies (dams, river regulation, water distribution grids, irrigation
2 Water Ethics – Orientation for Water Confl icts as Part of Inter-…