HANS JONAS AND THE ETHICAL PRINCIPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IN TIMES OF ECOLOGICAL CRISIS Geni Maria Hoss

Introduction

Considering the development generated by technological advances, we are urged to reflect thoroughly about the ethical implications of the biosphere in the whole process. Among other important thinkers of the last century who were concerned about this issue is Hans Jonas (1903-1993), having as mentors, Husserl and Heidegger, among others. Before, however, we must remember that Fritz Jahr who in 1927 had pointed out the essential principle of developing the theme of ethical relations of human beings with animals and plants: "Respect every living being on principle as a goal in itself and treat it, if possible, as such" (JAHR, 1927). However, it is no good having an isolated and disconnected discourse here and there. Great names appeared in the 20th century, which developed the theme under several aspects, more widely and consistently, trying to present efficient forms that could be used as an argument in the large global scenario. There were names like Albert Schweitzer, (1875-1965), winner of the Nobel Peace Prize of 1952, which called attention, among others, to the reality of the indissolubility of human beings with their environment and centralizes their reflections on the theme of respect for life: Respect in face of other forms of life. Unilateral anthropocentrism, or as presented by Hans Jonas, the "anthropocentric narrowing" is without any doubt an important constraint in the development of ethical relations with all elements of the biosphere.

The new dimensions of responsibility that Hans Jonas presents consider the changes in all of the scopes generated by scientific advances, which grant super powers to human beings, however, without them many times having power over the consequences of exercising power. Human beings are not isolated from other living beings, they are living beings and share with them the interdependence that allows for their subsistence or condemns them to extinction. Hans Jonas does not only question the power of interference and possible change of the being itself, but also the acceleration of the processes so that the metabolism [Stoffaustausch] is affected in its normal course, not being able to regenerate and recreate in a process, whose rhythm is regulated by the cycle of Nature itself. The human being is not "sovereign and owner of Nature", as affirmed by mathematician and philosopher Ren Descartes (1596-1650), at the beginning of the Enlightenment, but is responsible for the whole of Nature, i.e. the equilibrium of the whole biosphere depends on the human being. Knowing the reach of being able to do something and the suppositions of the consequences, which this knowledge allows, offers the human being an important role in the process of ecological preservation, i.e. the preservation of his own home and of all other living beings. "It is a prerogative of human freedom to say no to the world" (JONAS, H. p. 148). The world the biosphere is equipped with the values inherent to its purpose, but the human being is able to respect these values and even regenerate them. This is the importance of reflecting about the responsibility of human beings for and on behalf of the planet. According to Jonas, the human being, due to superiority of thinking is destroying the "symbiotic equilibrium". Therefore, human beings are being a threat to themselves. He Hans Jonas as a representative of the ethical "Basic-NeedsArgument", part of basic needs like food, shelter, health, finally natural conditions, which are threatened by the style of living and being of humanity in the industrial age, reflects about the possibilities, although uncertain, generated by technology.

Living the present according to the future, to duty, and bringing the future to the present is an important element of ethics presented by Hans Jonas. Hence, the ethics not only of occupying and questioning about the living being, but also with the one not existent yet, and the non-existent in relation to the one existing today, because there is no future responsibility in relation to the non-existent today. Therefore, in this perspective, there is no relation in the law-duty reciprocity, specific to living in the same biosphere because the non-existent has done nothing for the existent here and now. But do you think he has the right of being one day? Who should guarantee him this right? Ethics of the Environment of the biosphere is presented in the post-modernity as the only chance of survival of all living beings. Hans Jonas and the Ethical Principle of Environmental Responsibility in Times of Ecological Crisis. An analysis of the present time in view of its trends of globalization and the destruction of Nature, points to an urgent change of paradigm. According to Hans Jonas, a new conscience is a necessary presumption to prevent an ecological catastrophe. The dialectics of Enlightenment reached the point of converging towards a catastrophe. In this context, Hans Jonas reflects about the new principle, the Responsibility Principle, which goes beyond the reciprocal relations of subjects, also known as being responsible for Nature. The ethics need to react to the challenges of Ecology and to an altered view of the world through technological advances. If on the one hand the world is in danger because of the atomic bomb, modern medicine benefits and is continuously challenged to answer ethical questions related to the possibilities created in the last few years. The philosophical argumentation of Hans Jonas parts from the need and imperative of time. Human beings specifically feel responsible for the things that put their life at risk. This is why it is necessary to reflect about the challenges of today before there is a catastrophe, an imminent possibility. The position of Hans Jonas philosophical thinking is in the pre-

reflection. The theory of responsibility begins with Me and with my moral duty. However, above all, it means dealing with ethics from the perspective of the collective and of the future. Only those who have a future project rooted in moral convictions can say they fulfill the maximum responsibility in relation to being or of coming into being. The presumption towards a relation of responsibility is the continuous criticism of reason. The rational individual, according to Hans Jonas, is facing the dilemma: he either uses his intelligence for unlimited advance at the expense of ecological catastrophes, or he controls and guides the possibilities of development. This does not mean that research must stop, but should include thoughts about the possible consequences of research in the macro and micro dimensions. Hans Jonas proposes as the center of ethical reflection of the foreseeable danger, a look towards the possible planetary impact, and the consequences for all humanity, among other scenarios, which could guide the ethical principles and new duties on the new power. He calls this heuristics of fear. He urges the establishment of comprehensive and consistent ethical principles that guarantee the existence of future life on the planet. What needs to be prioritized and preserved in the human being in view of the dangers and threats of reaching an ethical want for respect due to all the forms of life that compose the biosphere? Nature gives signs of alert and Hans Jonas hopes these are enough to propose a positive reaction in the sense of saving the planet. Fear prevails over reason and requires fast and efficient responses. This perception of Hans Jonas originated from the enormous ecological problems and from the disproportionate ecological awareness of humanity to such a point that it is reaching extinction. "We only know about what is at stake, if we know what is at stake", (Jonas, p. 8). Jonas also expands his ethics in the vertical sense, i.e. the universal and transcendent cosmos is the horizon ethics can reach, considering the consequences of the actions of human beings. He is not worried about the theory of perfection, of happiness, of moral dignity, but with the possibility of existence in itself because of the danger that the world / cosmos is under. He says that we need to worry initially about the sustainability of

the world in the future. It is worth saving the world before saving the individuals. The anthropocentric ethics gives place to a paradigm of supraindividual ethics. This considers a necessary leap to the being-with-theworld, where a true relation of equal value is established, "Mitwelt", i.e. the respect and mutual enchantments are not established in a disparate relationship centered on a unique element of Nature, in the case of anthropocentrism, the human being. Jonas parts from the responsibility of person to person, however, extended to the biosphere in a holistic view, contemplating the Wholeness, Continuity and Future. He highlights the self-organization of Nature. This organizes itself and has its own purpose. For this reason, the human being cannot suppress it or exploit it indiscriminately. Thus, Nature requires the paradigm of acting responsibly, i.e. ethics of duty. The Categorical Imperative of Hans Jonas is founded on the duty of acting sensibly. It is the ethics of responsibility that should act as the criterion of human behavior. Like Kant (1724-1804), for Hans Jonas a moral precept, as formulated in the Categorical Imperative, should have universal validity. For Jonas, it is necessary to expand the formalism of Kants ethics to an ethics of feeling, of intuition, including respect for life. In the place of formal ethics, Jonas presents ethics of values and feelings. The dimension of a responsibility for the future, i.e. a perspective of time should have its space in the categorical principle. While Kant previews contemporariness as the horizon of ethics, in a relationship of subjects, as living beings of time and space that are close, Hans Jonas predicts the consequences, even though uncertain, of the todays actions for the future generations. The Responsibility Principle in Hans Jonas does not depend on a certain aspect, but always arouses a reflection of the whole: "It acts as if the effects of its action are compatible with the permanence of a life authentically human on the earth". "The Categorical Imperative simply proposes that there are human beings, stressing at the same time the what of existence". (Jonas, p.92). It talks about the idea of being and not of acting. In practical ethics, it does not deal with a metaphysical reflection

about existing or not existing, but is based on the premises that they exist, ethics is necessary to question the quality of existence. The first principle of "ethics of the future" does not reside firstly in the ethics of acting, but in the Metaphysics of teaching to be. The existence of human beings implies in ethics by the means in which they can exist and the convenience of their habitat. Can the non-being have preference over the being? Here we can apply the question made by Leibniz: Why is there something rather than nothing? The being-in-the-world is independent from any thesis of its own origin. According to Hans Jonas, the Responsibility Principle requires wisdom, knowledge and humility. The comfort generated by modern technology, in a hedonist perspective, reduces the natural capacity of the human being to a healthy option between the desires of daily life and the latter purposes, which require from him wisdom and determination. The incorporation of new needs in our concrete life requires an ethical evaluation and consequent decision for the present and future. Being aware of the impossibility of predicting correctly, you need to recognize the ignorance and act according to the speculations, although they offer no certainties. A possible irreversibility of the consequences should motivate human beings into seeking scientific knowledge for informed ethics, but at the same time they should be aware of a paradigm that integrates the vigilance of their super-powers to act responsibly. The new powers granted to human action through scientific and technological advance result in an impact at collective and not only at individual level, at global and not only at local level, therefore with incomparable magnitude, under the form of a public policy. The policy, in turn, regarding responsibilities is changed by the almost unlimited possibilities of human action. Are Governments prepared to face these new challenges and requirements? What principles and interests govern the current political decisions regarding Environmental protection?

The new imperative of Hans Jonas is directed to the public policy considering a remote term. Without disregarding the immediate actions, it is concentrated on the ultimate effects of continued human activity, in the future. Universalization is not hypothetical, but is submitted to the collective as a whole, meeting the real measure of coming into effect. Governors and legislators are the protagonists of a sustainable world. The Best State is also the one that promotes and ensures the future through public policies of Environmental protection, which are consistent, comprehensive and everlasting. It is possible to base a future dimension on the common aspiration in the perspective of a global ethos, thus allowing future generations to enjoy a fascination for Nature and guarantee its survival, as in the guarantee given to current generations. In order to understand Hans Jonas thoughts, we need to run through the itinerary of the reflections that he presents and, in addition, analyze the reading made by Kant, identifying similar and distinct elements in the elaboration of his Categorical Imperative, highlighting, in Hans Jonas, responsibility in the political scope with the horizon focused on the future. Ecological problems have always been known, but there was no notion of the extension of the actual damage these would cause to human beings, because the reading was made more or less precisely, without considering the great impact on the Environment and its inter-relations with the whole biosphere. With the industrial revolution, problems related to the Environment intensified and, only then, these issues were brought to the scope of philosophical reflections as a way of developing ethical relations between human beings and their Habitat. Among various factors to be considered, we have mentioned three which are always on the daily agenda of the main conferences on the Environment: 1. Both renewable and non-renewable resources are being used more and more; 2. The ecosystem is affected by emissions and pollutants;

3. Human space is constituted from migrations due to industries, and is always advancing. In this scope, human beings interfere in the processes of global amplitude. These concerns, in one form or another, are already on the agenda of events and conferences, considering the need of taking action in face of the current ecological panorama. In 1972, the Club of Rome, called attention, dramatically, to the ecological problems in Europe, generated by the industrialization of the North. ECO-92, Rio-92, Earth Summit, is one of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (CNUMAD, in Portuguese), held in Rio de Janeiro. Its main objective was to seek a means of conciliating the socio-economic development with the preservation and protection of the Earths ecosystems. In April 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), disclosed the second part of the report on climate change on Earth. The study presents data that proves that human beings are responsible for Environmental changes: 90% of Environmental changes are anthropogenic, i.e., caused by humankind itself. In all of these environments the finding is the same: In a planetary vision, you need to reflect on the responsibility of human beings regarding the common home and develop a vision of the Earth as Mother Country, the Gaia, which allows them and every living being to exist, live and survive with quality, if they have a sense of responsibility for today and also regarding future generations. Therefore, a reflection is necessary on the ethical responsibility of human beings in their relation with the biosphere. Considering all of the other species on Earth, it is essential to understand that the human community has, without any doubt, a crucial role both for our own survival and the survival and integrity of the terrestrial community as a whole. (O'Sullivan, 1999, p.49)

It is important to reflect about the ethics of acting not only individually, but, overall, collectively, where the dynamics, both cumulatively and inter-relationally of the technological development, encourage a responsibility for the consequences of this in a planetary dimension.

10

Bibliographical references BOFF, Leonardo. Ethos mundial: um consenso mnimo entre os humanos. Rio de Janeiro: Sextante, 2003. ______ tica e moral: a busca dos fundamentos. Rio de Janeiro: Vozes, 2003. CAPRA, Fritjof. O ponto de mutao: a cincia, a sociedade e a cultura emergente. So Paulo: Cultrix, 1988. DEMO, Pedro. ticas multiculturais: sobre convivncia humana possvel. Petrpolis: Vozes, 2005. GORE, Albert. Uma verdade inconveniente: o que devemos saber (e fazer) sobre o aquecimento global. Barueri, SP: Manole, 2006. JAHR, F. Bio=Ethik. Eine Umschau ber die ethichen Beziehung des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze. Kosmos 1927.

JONAS, Hans, Leben, Wissenschaft, Verantwortung Ausgewhlte Texte, Stuttgar: Reclam, 2004 ______Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1979 ______Das Prinzip Leben, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1997 ______Philosophie: Rckschau und Vorschau am Ende des Jahrhunderts, Frankfrut a. M.: Suhrkamp Taschendbuch MORIN, E, Cabea bem Feita: Repensar a Reforma, Reformar o pensamento, Bertrand do Brasil, ______Educar na era planetria: O Pensamento complexo como mtodo de aprendizagem pelo erro e incerteza humana, So Paulo: Cortez; Braslia: Unesco, 2003.

11

______Os sete saberes necessrios educao do futuro. So Paulo: Cortez; Braslia: Unesco, 2000. ______O mtodo 6 tica, Porto Alegre: Sulina, 2005. ______O paradigma perdido : a Natureza humana. 5 ed. Portugal: Europa - Amrica, 1973. _____Para sair do sculo XX. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira, 1986. ______O Desafio do Sculo XXI: Religar os Conhecimentos, Lisboa: Instituto Piaget, 1999. O' SULLIVAN, E. Aprendizagem Transformadora: Uma viso

educacional para o sculo XXI. So Paulo: Cortez; So Paulo: Instituto Paulo Freire, 2004.