12
A.Brenner
with nature. These people have the custom of apologizing to trees before cutting them
down.
Such a custom is not found in modern civilizations - it would be incomprehensible
in our society. However, in modern societies you fmd other elements of a deep relationship between nature and man. In this regard modern religions revive the idea that the
whole of nature, man, animals and plants have a common creator: God. For the faithful,
creation is a gift from God and its destruction is a sin against God.
In our context the idea of creation has a great weakness: it is valid only for religious
people. It is evident that people who do not believe in God would not respect a religious
law. Anyway, the thought of creation is interpreted in the different religions in a different way. Religions are inevitably particularistic.
In view of the ecological crisis, there is the need for a universal theory, a theory
which is entitled to have total validity irrespective of different world views or ,different
interests. This is the criterion of modern philosophy. In the field of ethics it was Immanuel
Kant who first introduced the concept of universality: with the categorical imperative
Kant gave us a rule for acting which is valid in every place and every time. The categorical imperative gives the order: act in the way that you would want, that the principle
governing your acting could be a general law, governing all such actions all the time
(Kant 1974). This sentence has a pure logical function. It is the aim of the categorical
imperative to avoid such acts which have an internal inconsistency. These are acts which
Kant said you cannot want them.
For the classical ethical rules Kant succeeded in proving that it is not possible to
act against the rules without involving oneself in a logical contradiction. A person,
for example, who lies, does harm not only to other people but also to himself: he constructs a fictional world which depends on the fact that he is part of a minority which
profits from the general acceptance of rationality. To lie, to harm people, all of this is
possible, as it happens every day, but you cannot find rational reasons for it. Such acts
are arbitrary, non-objective and in a philosophical way you can say they remain solitary.
The importance of Kantian ethics is established for micro-ethics, that is the part of
ethics that is concerned with the relationship between individuals. Philosophy has not
yet sufficiently discussed the relation between man and nature, and between the present
generations and the future ones. Are there also macro-rules?
If we discuss ecological problems we have to use the same criterion that we learned
from Kant: should we cut down the tropical tree, shall we continue to produce dangerous substances and other questions have to be answered in accordance with the Kantian
categorical imperative. So we see that logical consistency, which would provide a criterion, is identical to the idea of having a future: is it possible to extend a special act to the
future? Can you imagine making other projects with the same structure in every place
and in a large number? This is the criterion we could learn from philosophy. In the
ecological debate we know a similar criterion, that of sustainability. Philosophy has to
pick up this idea and make it a criterion for action. This means that we have to orientate
our action towards the criterion of sustainability. Our action is measured by the following questions: is a concrete action justified by the criterion of sustainability? Is it also
consistent if we consider its consequences in the long run?
Then we immediately realize that many actions are not justified: felling the tropical
forest and destruction of the ozone layer cannot be sustained in the the long run. How-
A.Brenner
with nature. These people have the custom of apologizing to trees before cutting them
down.
Such a custom is not found in modern civilizations - it would be incomprehensible
in our society. However, in modern societies you fmd other elements of a deep relationship between nature and man. In this regard modern religions revive the idea that the
whole of nature, man, animals and plants have a common creator: God. For the faithful,
creation is a gift from God and its destruction is a sin against God.
In our context the idea of creation has a great weakness: it is valid only for religious
people. It is evident that people who do not believe in God would not respect a religious
law. Anyway, the thought of creation is interpreted in the different religions in a different way. Religions are inevitably particularistic.
In view of the ecological crisis, there is the need for a universal theory, a theory
which is entitled to have total validity irrespective of different world views or ,different
interests. This is the criterion of modern philosophy. In the field of ethics it was Immanuel
Kant who first introduced the concept of universality: with the categorical imperative
Kant gave us a rule for acting which is valid in every place and every time. The categorical imperative gives the order: act in the way that you would want, that the principle
governing your acting could be a general law, governing all such actions all the time
(Kant 1974). This sentence has a pure logical function. It is the aim of the categorical
imperative to avoid such acts which have an internal inconsistency. These are acts which
Kant said you cannot want them.
For the classical ethical rules Kant succeeded in proving that it is not possible to
act against the rules without involving oneself in a logical contradiction. A person,
for example, who lies, does harm not only to other people but also to himself: he constructs a fictional world which depends on the fact that he is part of a minority which
profits from the general acceptance of rationality. To lie, to harm people, all of this is
possible, as it happens every day, but you cannot find rational reasons for it. Such acts
are arbitrary, non-objective and in a philosophical way you can say they remain solitary.
The importance of Kantian ethics is established for micro-ethics, that is the part of
ethics that is concerned with the relationship between individuals. Philosophy has not
yet sufficiently discussed the relation between man and nature, and between the present
generations and the future ones. Are there also macro-rules?
If we discuss ecological problems we have to use the same criterion that we learned
from Kant: should we cut down the tropical tree, shall we continue to produce dangerous substances and other questions have to be answered in accordance with the Kantian
categorical imperative. So we see that logical consistency, which would provide a criterion, is identical to the idea of having a future: is it possible to extend a special act to the
future? Can you imagine making other projects with the same structure in every place
and in a large number? This is the criterion we could learn from philosophy. In the
ecological debate we know a similar criterion, that of sustainability. Philosophy has to
pick up this idea and make it a criterion for action. This means that we have to orientate
our action towards the criterion of sustainability. Our action is measured by the following questions: is a concrete action justified by the criterion of sustainability? Is it also
consistent if we consider its consequences in the long run?
Then we immediately realize that many actions are not justified: felling the tropical
forest and destruction of the ozone layer cannot be sustained in the the long run. How-