I find the holistic ethics perspective most appealing, as it uses a systems approach to gauge what is morally acceptable. Although my understanding of ecology is fairly basic, I see how an ecosystem orientated ethics can grant moral standing to the land in more scientific terms, which might be appealing to people hesitant to accept that nature has that inherent value. This perspective also neatly integrates the human into the systems framework, allowing for added commitment to ensuring that we do not destroy any piece of the system that has proven vital to our own survival. Holism seems like a more functional perspective that allows for human use of natural resources so as long as those removals do not interfere with the system’s function. Some human practices already seem to use the basic framework for this perspective. For example, biological or organic styles of farming appear to be holistic ethics in practice, as each farming method works to maintain the health of the soil, water and land while still acknowledging that those resources can and should be used.
But to me this perspective does not provide any certainty on what are the best possible ecosystem conditions. The perspective might rely too heavily on simplifying the complexities within ecosystems and the additional complexities of the interrelationships between each of them. Determining moral action or where to grant moral standing might be difficult without fully considering all these factors, yet even that might not lead to a correct understanding given that quantifying “good” is difficult in this model. That lack of measurement might be a barrier to determining how the system functions best for the greatest number of organisms, which begins to sound like eco-utilitarianism. In some ways, I think the non-anthropocentric perspective is more clear in definition and application than the holistic approach, as plants and animals are simply granted moral standing similar to a humans status and thereby must be treated according to the same ethical standards. Using a more structured framework that has some clear principles could be best in developing an ethical perspective that appeals to a greater number of people.
But to me this perspective does not provide any certainty on what are the best possible ecosystem conditions. The perspective might rely too heavily on simplifying the complexities within ecosystems and the additional complexities of the interrelationships between each of them. Determining moral action or where to grant moral standing might be difficult without fully considering all these factors, yet even that might not lead to a correct understanding given that quantifying “good” is difficult in this model. That lack of measurement might be a barrier to determining how the system functions best for the greatest number of organisms, which begins to sound like eco-utilitarianism. In some ways, I think the non-anthropocentric perspective is more clear in definition and application than the holistic approach, as plants and animals are simply granted moral standing similar to a humans status and thereby must be treated according to the same ethical standards. Using a more structured framework that has some clear principles could be best in developing an ethical perspective that appeals to a greater number of people.
The perspective that I find most frustrating is the utilitarian. That simple measurement, “the greatest good for the greatest number of people,” seems to dilute the importance of developing an ethical perspective that acknowledges the complexities in making moral decisions. Not only is this perspective completely human-centered, but in contemporary application it also avoids granting any sort of “value” beyond what is quantifiable, even if that component (e.g. air and water pollution) clearly relates to human beings. The perspective adopts a cost-benefit analysis that undercuts the relevance of other, not easily measured factors such as the future costs of pollution or the externalities of burning fossil fuels. In this way, determining the “good” has largely been a process reliant on data or “facts” that might not be comparable to other ways of measurement, like pleasure, which immediately causes an action’s supposed consequences to lack an important dimension.
There are surely benefits and cons for each idea. Whether it be Holistic Ethics or non-anthropocentric approach. It is difficult to often weigh the long term effects of our actions when faced with a difficult decision in the present. It is important though that this become a priority in future activities if we are to have a chance at preserving our environment for the future.
ReplyDelete(Maybe or maybe not continuing off the above comment) Indeed it seems that Holistic Ethics should become a greater priority. I speculate that many of the world's ecologists/biologists/climatologists would agree. Yet we still find ourselves in a difficult position because it's hard to avoid the voice of self-interest nor the economists/religious leaders/sociologist. I believe as time goes on and models of these humanist fields factor all the variables, the latter group (at least the economists and sociologists) will come to agree that a Holistic Ethical approach is a necessary one. Unfortunately we, the ones making the decisions today, need to determine whether we should do what we always have done and wait for these stragglers to give us the OK.
ReplyDelete