Ethics Theory
and
Business Practice
9.1 Environmental Ethics – Part One
Some Contrasting Ways of Valuing
the Natural World
aims
• to explain the difference between
anthropocentric and biocentric approaches to
environmental ethics
• to explore some implications of
anthropocentrism and biocentrism for
business
the growing importance of
environmental ethics for business
• expectations of influential stakeholders
• the environmental impact of business
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9hetZuPzS4
why does the natural world matter?
• an anthropocentric response: the natural
world matters because of what it provides for
humans
• a biocentric response: the natural world
matters in its own right, regardless of what it
provides for humans
some anthropocentric rationales
1.
2.
3.
4.
resource anthropocentrism
enlightened anthropocentrism
aesthetic anthropocentrism
emotional anthropocentrism
1. resource anthropocentrism
nature exists for humans to use as a resource
• Aquinas: animals and plants occupy lower levels
in the universal hierarchy, so humans are entitled
to use them to meet their needs
• Locke: humans need to transform nature in order
to make it more productive for their use
• Mill: humans must control and shackle nature so
as to defuse the dangers that it presents
businesses should harness the
natural world and put it to
productive human use
2. enlightened anthropocentrism
• the natural world derives its value from its
usefulness to humans, but we need to be careful
how we use nature otherwise future generations
will suffer the consequences
• tends to focus more on long-term preservation of
natural resources than on short-term exploitation
of them
business should put the natural
world to productive human
use, but should also be careful
to preserve scare resources for
future use
theory in practice
the Marine Stewardship Council: a case of
enlightened anthropocentrism
3. aesthetic anthropocentrism
valuing nature as a source of artistic pleasure
• the beautiful
• and the sublime
• the picturesque
• and the not so picturesque
• businesses which offer
customers the opportunity to
experience beauty in nature
are performing a valuable role
• other businesses should ensure
that their activities do not
diminish people’s opportunity
to experience the beauty of the
natural landscape
4. emotional anthropocentrism
• intimate connection with the natural world is
essential to the emotional well-being of
humans
• which is particularly important in an
increasingly urbanized world
• hence the need to preserve pristine
landscapes
• where humans can reconnect with nature
• businesses which give people
the opportunity to experience
nature in the raw are playing a
worthwhile role
• other businesses should avoid
either contaminating the wild
spaces that humans might
want to visit or preventing
human access to them
www.youtube.com/watch?v=knzUMCZX8-w
theory in practice
wind farms: an enlightened way of meeting
human energy needs; or a blight on the
landscape?
some biocentric rationales
1. last-person argument
2. redefining the moral community
3. challenging anthropocentrism’s atomistic
presupposition
1. last-person argument
• suppose that you are the last person left on earth
• suppose, moreover, that you are in a position to
inflict widespread environmental devastation
after your death
• anthropocentrism implies there would be no
reason not to inflict this devastation
• which conflicts with ethical intuition
• so the natural world must matter in its own right
after all
(Sylvan, 2003/1973)
• businesses should not view the
natural world as a resource to
be exploited for human use
• they should respect its intrinsic
value and avoid doing anything
that might impair that value
2. redefining the moral community
• the very notion of ethics presupposes the idea
of a moral community
• and anthropocentrism limits this community
to humans
• but what grounds do we have for this
restriction on the moral community?
• the usual response refers to the fact that only
humans possess human rationality
• but what’s so great about human rationality?
speciesism
• one group of beings specifies a criterion of
value that only they meet (such as human
rationality)
• they use that criterion of value to evaluate the
worth of all beings
• and they find that, according to that criterion
of value, they are of greater worth than other
beings
(Ryder, 2011)
• animals and other non-human
creatures are deserving of
ethical consideration, so
businesses which impact on
non-human creatures should
treat them with respect
• animals are not just there for
human use; they matter in
themselves
3. challenging anthropocentrism’s
atomistic presupposition
atomism:
• an assumption that human beings can stand apart
from nature
• taking from it what they need when they need it,
but otherwise leading their lives in isolation from it
• which misunderstands the unavoidable
interconnections that pervade our world
• interconnections which mean that humans and
nature are so deeply implicated in mutual
dependency that neither can be considered apart
from the other
biotic pyramids
(Leopold, 2003/1949)
humans and
larger mammals
plants, insects, birds
and small mammals
absorption of energy
• businesses should consider the
impact of their activities on
nature
• they should be aware that in
altering nature they may
damage the balance within
complex eco-systems upon
which everything and
everybody depends
theory in practice
is krill the only species endangered by the
over fishing of krill?
key points
• how we define business’s environmental
responsibilities depends to a large extent
about how we attribute value to the natural
world
• anthropocentrism attributes value to the
natural world insofar as it serves the needs of
humans, while biocentrism accords intrinsic
value to nature
references
Aquinas, T. (2010/1264-73) ‘Humans as Moral Ends’, in D.R.
Keller (ed.), Environmental Ethics: the big questions. Chichester:
Wiley Blackwell. pp. 63-64.
Leopold, A. (2003/1949) ‘The Land Ethic’, in A. Light and H.
Rolston (eds) Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Malden:
Blackwell. pp. 38-46.
Locke, J. (1988/1690) Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mill, J.S. (2010/1874) ‘The Amoral Status of Nature’, in D.R. Keller
(ed.), Environmental Ethics: the big questions. Chichester: Wiley
Blackwell. pp. 73-77.
Ryder, R.D. (2011) Speciesism, Painism and Happiness: A Morality
for the 21st Century. Exeter: Societas.
Sylvan (Routley), R. (2003/1973) ‘Is There a Need for a New, and
Environmental, Ethic?’, in A. Light and H. Rolston (eds)
Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell. pp. 4652.