American Military University - EVSP508: Environmental Ethics Week 3 Forum Topic: Deep Ecology and Ecocentric Ethics

The Assignment
Does nature have intrinsic value? This week, we are exploring the writing of some of the grandfathers of Environmental Ethics. For example, Holmes Rolston writes eloquently about intrinsic value from a philosopher's perspective. The Deep Ecologists have taken the notion of intrinsic value a step further to examine our relationship with the Earth. They criticize "shallow ecologists" or the anthropocentric viewpoint. For this week's discussion, we will focus on the question that has motivated the field of Environmental Ethics for the past 30 years: Does nature have intrinsic value? Using the arguments presented by the philosophers in our readings, please present your thoughts on this question. Be sure to properly cite all reference resources used to build your posts, to include course assigned readings and outside research as appropriate. Follow APA style for all assignments throughout this course. As a reminder, for each weekly forum discussion you are required to post one initial post in an original thread (include a unique title) and respond to a minimum of two your classmates' original threads. Your initial post should be at least 500 words and your responses to classmates posts should be at least 250 words. You are also in charge of moderating your own thread to respond to your classmates' comments, responses, and questions.

My forum posting
There are two reasons why Im very frustrated by this weeks forum topic. First off, the answer to the simple question posed Does nature have intrinsic value? is, to me, so freaking obviously YES, and yet amazingly (again, to me) there is an ongoing debate about that answer, with equally intelligent people forwarding carefully thought out reasons for answering either yes or no! The other frustrating thing for me is that I frankly find that the question and endless debates over its answer are pointless and deflecting attention away from addressing the oncoming calamities for all life on earth. With those frustrations in mind, I return to my Weeks 1 and 2 posts. In both, I voiced support for Rolstons views of intrinsic value, and I called for urgent environmentally pragmatic action to change societal ways of life so that humanity constantly seeks to work in harmony with nature. Yes, theres a trap of sorts for us subscribers to the viewpoint that nature possesses intrinsic value: there seems to be only one honest outcome to going down that logic path complete separation of humanity and nature. I assert that the best although perhaps not perfect route to avoiding that trap is embodied in the last nine words of the preceding paragraph, humanity constantly seeks to work in harmony with nature. Reverentially respecting all life as being equally intrinsically valuable does not require that humans abstain from contacting or using non-humans; it simply requires that humans be aware of and live according to the fact that humans have no more nor no less a privilege to value life and pursue living. Other life-forms cant and therefore dont need to think about the effects of their actions, or of humanspecific non-harmonious impulses like greed and shortcut taking. Humans, on the other hand, can and must think about the effects of their actions, making sure to engage in only those that are harmonious with nature and therefore dont result from destructive impulses (like greed and shortcut taking). Speaking of shortcut taking: I did identify strongly with Naesss (2011) seven defining principles of Deep Ecology, especially the sixth,

Complexity, not complication...Applied to humans, the complexity-not-complication principle favours division of labor, not fragmentation of labor. It favours integrated actions in which the whole person is active, not mere reactions. It favours complex economies, an integrated variety of means of living. (Combinations of industrial and agricultural activity, of intellectual and manual work, of specialized and nonspecialized occupations, of urban and non-urban activity, of work in city and recreation in nature with recreation in city and work in nature...) (p. 131) Appreciating and abiding by the sixth principal means, in my mind, that humans must never or almost never just jump at the easiest, cheapest way to achieve a desired outcome. All factors must be weighed, second and third effects must be accounted for. Factors and effects must be considered in terms of promoting or countering harmony, or the yin and yang concept that I first defined via Wikipedia for last weeks forum posting, and I quote again here: In Asian philosophy, the concept of yin yang... is used to describe how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in turn. In conclusion, I generally identify with Holmes and Naess (2011), who both assign objective intrinsic value to nonhuman life forms. I also generally agree with the principals of Naesss (2011) Deep Ecology. My eyelids grew real heavy and I became irritated by the density of Naesss (2011) writing, and what to me is overanalysis of a fairly simple question. I think that rather than continue their endless debate about subjective versus intrinsic value for nonhuman life, ethicists and other thinkers and doers need to engage in debates on the establishment of policies and systems that maximize humanity-nature harmony. In other words, stop looking at the fire and arguing about its essence; instead collaborate on figuring out how to put the damn thing out! Rolston III, H. (2011). Naturalizing values: organisms and species. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 105-118). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1998). Naess, A. (2011). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecological movement. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 129-133). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1973). Naess, A. (2011). Ecosophy T: deep versus shallow ecology. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 129-133). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1985). Yin and yang. (February 2011). Retrieved from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_and_yang, on December 16, 2011.