4th Global Conference
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Tuesday 5th July - Thursday 7th
July 2005
Mansfield College, Oxford
Session 4B: Ethics, Rights and Wrongs
Chair: Peggy Lobb
What Religion Contributes to an Environmental Ethic
Lloyd
Steffen
Professor and Chair, Religion Studies,
Lehigh University,
Bethlehem, PA, USA
Environmental ethics seeks to reflect on ways to organize and restrain human action to advance the good of preserving and protecting the natural world. Since harming the environment diminishes the quality of human life, impedes human flourishing, and ultimately threatens human existence itself, self-interest often arises as a critical aspect of such an ethic. The persuasive appeal of such an argument ought not be denied. The question, however, is whether an ethic that appeals to self-interest provides an adequate foundation for a environmental ethic that will endure beyond particular crises or policy disputes and reshape basic human attitudes toward the environment. This paper argues that a consciousness beyond self-interest is required for an enduring environmental ethic and that religion provides a powerful resource for developing the particular kind of consciousness that will enable people to organize and act for the good of the natural world. The paper will reverse the traditional view that from a religious point of view ethical action is derivative of religion and only serves as a subordinated expression of religious commitment. This paper will argue that attention to religion, spirituality, and the inward journey has brought many people today into an encounter with the natural world that has issued in a new consciousness about human inter-connectedness and inter-relatedness with the natural world. This consciousness reflects a spirituality being advanced today in some forms of Christianity, Buddhism, especially “engaged” Buddhism, and religious humanism; and it moves beyond self-interest, traditional “derivative” religious ethics, or even the kind of utilitarian approach one finds in, say, Peter Singer (e.g., One World). The development of a consciousness of human interrelatedness with the natural world is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for the development of an environmental ethic, but such consciousness is necessary for any environmental ethic that would approach the natural world as if that world were irreducibly valuable.
Environmental Wrongs and Animal
Rights
Dan
Perry
Science Mobile (Madanoa) Coordinator
and Computer Maintenance,
Young@Science, Weizmann Institute of Science,
Rehovot,
Israel
Alien species are considered by conservation biologists
to be a major threat to biodiversity. To deal with alien invasions, they
often recommend completely eradicating the invasive species. Animal rights
groups categorically oppose killing animals but have not always responded
to eradication attempts. In the case of the Grey Headed Flying Foxes
at the Royal Botanical gardens at Melbourne Australia, conservation biologists
and animal rights groups cooperated. The solution eventually selected
was beneficial for both sides, and for the animals. Animal rights groups’ opposition
to the Grey Squirrel's eradication in northern Italy brought the attempt
to a halt. As a result red squirrels may disappear from Europe.
It would
be beneficial for both conservation biologists and animal rights groups
if they found some middle ground they could both agree on, but the differences
between animal rights and conservation biologists’ views
make cooperation seem impossible. Scientists in general, and conservation
biologists dealing with invasive alien species in particular, should
consult with social scientists and moral philosophers to gain a better
understanding of the implications of some of their policy decisions.
Once they understand animal rights views, the chance for cooperation
will be much higher. Examining these two cases can supply the key to
future cooperation between the two sides, and can help scientist avoid
future opposition from animal rights advocates.
Human Rights, State Sovereignty and the
Global Commons
Sabina
W. Lautensach & Alexander
Lautensach
Auckland University of Technology and
University of Auckland, New Zealand
The balance of the optimistic and pessimistic
predictions from the continuing global environmental crisis suggests severe
consequences in six areas of global significance: more frequent and severe
weather events, loss of coastal regions, increased incidence of epidemics
and pandemics, more regional droughts, increased rates of soil erosion
and more severe pollution levels. They give rise to three major threats
to human rights and thus to human security in its wider sense. One is
the prospect of severe shortages of food and potable water; the second,
partly as a consequence, is a vastly amplified refugee problem; the third
is a general decrease in the health of humans and ecosystems.
In this
paper we will explore the ethics behind the possible and probable strategies
that major stakeholders will employ once they are increasingly confronted
with those challenges. We include among the stakeholders states, regions,
and intergovernmental organisations. Our descriptive analysis suggests
that states are intrinsically incapable of acting in environmentally
just ways towards prophylaxis and mitigation. Consequently, the principles
of environmental justice in this context demand that the autonomy of
states become curtailed and sovereignty be reinterpreted at the civic
level.