20
technologies, geo-technologies, etc.) including their societal elements such as
regulations, rules for action, acceptance patterns, the best place of water ethics in
the system of applied ethics (Nida-Rümelin 2005 ) is, accordingly, the ethics of
technology (Grunwald 2013 ) (with strong links with environmental ethics).
Beyond this water ethics is related also to philosophy of nature, with ethics in the
fi eld of the economy, with risk ethics and also with bio-ethics – and, of course, with the
overall debate on sustainable development. Additionally, in an ethical discourse on
water issues further groups of people must be involved: scientists (e.g. from geography,
hydrology and engineering), social scientists (e.g. from cultural studies and economics)
and, perhaps, humanities and cultural sciences bringing in knowledge about inter-cultural and inter-religious understanding. Furthermore, dealing with “real world” problems in an ethical discourse needs to involve groups and people affected, stakeholders
and decision-makers etc. (see the principle of participatory water governance below).
2.3.3 Substantial and Procedural Aspects of Water Ethics
What we can learn from the existing papers on water ethics is that sets of principles
might be used as checklists, e.g. to analyse water management options and to compare them. These principles express specifi c ideas, requirements and norms on how
we currently imagine options of responsible interventions into water systems, or
which types of interventions we would not consider responsible. They could be used
to determine criteria of responsible action.
Those principles are “substantial” in a sense – they promise to provide guidance
in cases of normative uncertainty. However, there are severe problems unanswered.
First the question arises which system of principles we would like to adopt for what
reasons. Second, those systems do not tell us how to proceed in cases of tension and
trade-offs – and the experience shows that the fi eld of sustainable development is
full of them (Grunwald and Kopfmüller 2012 ). In the specifi c fi eld of water it is easy
to imagine confl icts, for example, between today’s use of water and the assumed
interests of future generations. Third, high uncertainties in the assessment of the
consequences of today’s actions for future water and ecosystem developments will
prevent any fi xed substantial system of principles from being helpful in the long run
(Grunwald 2007 ). And fourth, any principles will remain abstract to the specifi c
constellation of a given water confl ict, while ideas for solutions to the confl icts
always have to include contextual specifi cities and need participation of groups and
persons affected (Schmidt and Shrubsole 2013 ).
Thus, the set of substantial principles has to be in a sense, fl exible, must not be
too strict and has to be complemented by added procedural elements. The combination of substantial and procedural elements allows the combination of providing
orientation and being fl exible and adaptive to specifi c situations.
Drawing on the literature on water ethics available (mainly UNESCO 2011 ;
Groenfeldt 2013 ), the author would like to propose to use the following set of principles (closely related with the proposal made by Groenfeldt 2013 ) to be used in
water ethics discourses as guiding heuristics:
A. Grunwald
technologies, geo-technologies, etc.) including their societal elements such as
regulations, rules for action, acceptance patterns, the best place of water ethics in
the system of applied ethics (Nida-Rümelin 2005 ) is, accordingly, the ethics of
technology (Grunwald 2013 ) (with strong links with environmental ethics).
Beyond this water ethics is related also to philosophy of nature, with ethics in the
fi eld of the economy, with risk ethics and also with bio-ethics – and, of course, with the
overall debate on sustainable development. Additionally, in an ethical discourse on
water issues further groups of people must be involved: scientists (e.g. from geography,
hydrology and engineering), social scientists (e.g. from cultural studies and economics)
and, perhaps, humanities and cultural sciences bringing in knowledge about inter-cultural and inter-religious understanding. Furthermore, dealing with “real world” problems in an ethical discourse needs to involve groups and people affected, stakeholders
and decision-makers etc. (see the principle of participatory water governance below).
2.3.3 Substantial and Procedural Aspects of Water Ethics
What we can learn from the existing papers on water ethics is that sets of principles
might be used as checklists, e.g. to analyse water management options and to compare them. These principles express specifi c ideas, requirements and norms on how
we currently imagine options of responsible interventions into water systems, or
which types of interventions we would not consider responsible. They could be used
to determine criteria of responsible action.
Those principles are “substantial” in a sense – they promise to provide guidance
in cases of normative uncertainty. However, there are severe problems unanswered.
First the question arises which system of principles we would like to adopt for what
reasons. Second, those systems do not tell us how to proceed in cases of tension and
trade-offs – and the experience shows that the fi eld of sustainable development is
full of them (Grunwald and Kopfmüller 2012 ). In the specifi c fi eld of water it is easy
to imagine confl icts, for example, between today’s use of water and the assumed
interests of future generations. Third, high uncertainties in the assessment of the
consequences of today’s actions for future water and ecosystem developments will
prevent any fi xed substantial system of principles from being helpful in the long run
(Grunwald 2007 ). And fourth, any principles will remain abstract to the specifi c
constellation of a given water confl ict, while ideas for solutions to the confl icts
always have to include contextual specifi cities and need participation of groups and
persons affected (Schmidt and Shrubsole 2013 ).
Thus, the set of substantial principles has to be in a sense, fl exible, must not be
too strict and has to be complemented by added procedural elements. The combination of substantial and procedural elements allows the combination of providing
orientation and being fl exible and adaptive to specifi c situations.
Drawing on the literature on water ethics available (mainly UNESCO 2011 ;
Groenfeldt 2013 ), the author would like to propose to use the following set of principles (closely related with the proposal made by Groenfeldt 2013 ) to be used in
water ethics discourses as guiding heuristics:
A. Grunwald