Study Resource 2, Environmental Ethics

ANIMAL LIBERATION: A TRIANGULAR AFFAIR (1980) By J.Baird Callicott The 'triangular affair' in the title refers to the conflict between three positions: (i) Ethical humanists- Moral standing only to humans; (ii) Humane moralists or animal liberationists- Moral standing is extended to animals; and (iii) Leopold's land ethic- primary moral concern is to land. Callicott defends the land ethic from the criticism of animal liberationists. He supports land ethic and believes that it is most practicable, though there would be difficulties in implementation- economic reforms and radical change in our attitudes would be required. He proves why animal liberation is 'utterly unpracticable'. PREFACE (1994) The preface are some revisions that Callicott made to his position later (14 years post-the article). (A) Land ethic is not misanthropic. It does not attempt to replace human morality with land ethic. It supplements our human ethics with the land ethic by expanding the boundaries of community to soil, water, plant, animals and collectively: the land. (B) Callicott is a communitarian. He says that by the communitarian premises, we now have duties and obligations to domestic animals as well. The following are part of mixed community, a term introduced by Mary Midgley: farm animals, work animals and pets. (C) The land ethic also advances the need to adopt a vegetarian diet. Why? Rainforests are felled to make pasture for cattle. Ruination of watercourses and grasslands by the livestock. Increase in soil erosion and ground water depletion due to raising of field crops for animal feed. (D) There should be more bears but one bear for every two persons is extravagant. He believes that a communitarian moral philosophy helps in unifying our ethical concerns. ARTICLE: Part 1- Environmental ethics and animal liberation Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic is acknowledged to be representative of environmental ethics. The greater an environmental ethical system resembles the land ethic, the more environmental it can be called. Under the land ethic, nonhuman natural entities are subject to direct ethical considerability under the land ethic. Positioning animal liberation within land ethic: The animal liberation seems to be a part of the environmental ethics. It demands equal moral consideration for all species of animals. Callicott calls this the phenomenon of hyperegalitarianism- the introduction of speciesism (analogy with racism and sexism) and human chauvinism (analogy with male chauvinism). This is considered to be the next step in the political-liberalism movement. Even Leopold uses political reference for his land ethic when he says that Homo sapiens have to cease to believe that they are the conquerors of the land community and be plain members and citizens of it. Leopold sees land ethic as an evolutionalry possibility where the land as a whole along with its constituted will be given moral consideration. We can at a level see animal liberation as breaking down this evolutionary walk into parts: first, for animals; then, for plants; much later for rocks, soil and other earthly compounds and far in the future, the water and other elementary bodies. The problem with positioning animal liberation within land ethic: (A) Leopold always saw the land ethic, as an ethic of the land as a whole- not for separate constituents at different times. The treatment of animals in factory farms didn't pose any moral qualms for Leopold. He was concerned more about the negative impacts of wood lot and streams. (B) Leopold continued to hunt and eat meat even after introducing land ethic. Why? Stupidity: Leopold did not see that his land ethic implied vegetarianism and no to hunting. But he cannot be considered this stupid with consideration of the intellectual capacities exhibited in his works. Hypocrisy: In being a hypocrite, Leopold would have done his best to keep these as secrets but he flaunted his love for hunting and eating animals openly. Regulated and disciplined sport hunting and a fortiori meat eating: These can be considered a part of land ethic without inconsistency. If this is the case, then the theoretical foundations of animal liberation as environmental ethic and land ethic as environmental ethic is different. Exposition of different foundations of animal liberation and land ethic: Both the systems- animal liberation and land ethics- have different theoretical foundations as well as cosmic visions as well. The similarities which animal liberation seem to have with land ethic are only on the surface- at a deeper level, they might not even be complementary to each other. Part 2- Ethical humanism and humane moralism (1) Criticism of ethical humanism: Ethical humanism says that only human beings deserve moral standing because they are not conscious, self-aware, moral or rational like human beings. Only those beings which fit this criteria can be given moral standing. Animals are beasts and not persons- they can be used as means. Humane moralists (those who extend moral standing to animals as well) point out: (A) There are many human beings who do not qualify by this criteria like infants, mentally challenged and so on. Would it be fine by the ethical humanists if they were used for vivisection and as means alone? (B) Moreover, there are higher-order animals which can qualify the criteria. Can we give them moral standing? To both of these, the ethical humanists would say 'no!'. Thus, there seems only to be a biased favour for human species at work- called speciesism (in analogy with racial prejudice). (2) Criticism of humane moralism: Rationality, self-consciousness and the criteria of the ethical humanists has nothing to do with the benefit it is according (that of moral standing). If a being is capable of suffering, then it should be given moral standing. Why? Human beings have duties and rights because they move towards pleasure and away from pain. Thus, every human being is obligated to behave in a manner which would produce pleasure and reduce pain. In the same way, for every being which can undergo pain, this rule applies. Pain is pain, no matter of which species. Thus, sentience is their criteria to choose which beings are subject to moral considerability. Once a person agrees to this, he has to stop hunting, eating meat (of animals grown in inhumane conditions) and visiting zoos. Humane moralists do not care about lower-order animals, trees and other living beings which do not seem to suffer. Thus, both ethical humanists and humane moralists are apply a criteria of moral considerability but just different ones. Thus, humane moralists and ethical humanists both have an atomistic view of nature, in contrast to the holistic view of land ethic. Moreover, land ethic does not have a pecking order of nature, as these do. In land ethic, there is a functional system of value- that is, value is accorded to every being depending on the function/contribution made by it to the whole. Thus, if a mineral plays a greater role in balance of the land, then it would have greater importance than a dog. Part 3: The first principle of the land ethic Benthamic viewpoint of both humane moralism and ethical humanists: the basic principle of increase pleasure and reduce pain has been preserved and molded into different forms for these ethical theories. In the land ethic, the basic principle is that: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Here, the good of the biotic community as a whole is the criteria for right and wrong. The ecological system as a whole matters in making any ethical decisions. By this criteria, it is alright to hunt animals whose overpopulation could cause imbalance in the ecosystem and to grow trees which are important for the biotic community. It is also ethical to keep away cattle from the lands, lest they overgraze. Part 4: The land ethic and the ecological point of view Atomistic presentation of world prior to coming up of ecology: Ecology is the philosophical context and the conceptual foundation of the land ethic. Ecology includes body of empirical experience and theory. Ecology focuses on the relationship between and among things and teaches us to move towards a holistic view of the world. Before the emergence of ecology as a science, the world was seen as a collection of separate objects- animals, plants, inanimate and so on without the conception of their relationship to one another. Such an atomistic representation of things leads to competing claims to 'rights' of separate individuals, each pursing its 'interests'. Ecology allows us to see the land holistically, as a unified system of integrally related parts. Even though there are parts, they are related to each other intricately. Analogy of human community (responsibility): Just like the human community, the different elements of biotic community depend on one another economically for their survival. Just like we can call people collectively as communist, capitalist or socialist, they also come together to form their identity like tundra, desert and so on and tend towards their survival together. Constituents of the biotic community- human beings, as moral agents- are also to acknowledge their membership in this community and are bound by duties to the whole. Just like we feel conscience towards our social community, we can also feel the same conscience towards our biotic organic whole. Animal liberationists also share this view that human beings belong to the community of animals and use this aspect of Darwin's theory against the idea of superiority of human beings. Criticism of animal liberation: (A) Animal liberationists say that pain is the only criteria to decide who is a subject of morality. If pain is the ultimate standard to decide who should get rights and who doesn't, then shouldn't animals be given the same rights as us in virtue of being capable of feeling pain? (B) While animal liberationists have come in terms with the animality of human beings, they have not updated themselves to modern biology and are still stuck with extending the horizon only to animals. They have not recognized the existence of biotic community as a whole. (C) Benthamite philosophy followed reductive method and says that interests of the whole is sum of the interests its parts. But this reduction cannot even apply to our body as a whole. The health of the body as a whole is ensured through exercise and metabolic stimulation which can cause pain in some parts. These parts have to sacrifice their comfort for the good of the whole. In the same way, the society as a whole requires discipline, individual restraint and sacrifice for its survival. However, the society itself divides into groups in such a manner that these groups seek the highest pleasure at the cost of the society as a whole (the interests of every person are not taken care of then). Similarly, what would happen if we liberated the animals from the factory farms and experimentation halls they are in? What would it cost to the animals and the society as a whole? Part 5: Ethical holism A system as a whole cannot be affected without affecting at least some of its parts. In a holistic environmental ethic which takes as its aim the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community is morally concerned with its constituents. The good of the whole (biotic community) is the standard by which we give relative value to each of these components and this helps in ‘adjudicating’ the mutually contradictory demands of the parts. For instance, the honey bees who play a greater role in well-being of the biotic community are given consideration over rabbits or moles which are great in number, distributed globally, have efficient reproduction, and are only sometimes part of the natural economy. Natural economy, here, refers to the system of preferential consideration of species on the basis of their contribution to the well-being of the biotic community as a whole. Thus, the good of the whole is not separated from the survival and welfare of its parts like animals, plants, rivers, seas, mountains and atmosphere. What value does the biotic community as a whole have in ethical holism? One might say if we are only creating the holist approach for human interests, if the ultimate value of holism is only for humans- then Callicott says that ‘all value is as it were in the eyes of the beholder’. There are two types of values: instrumental and intrinsic (Callicott does not use this word). Are we only valuing the biotic community because its well-being as a whole is critical for our survival or do we see that the biotic community is valuable in itself, independent of our interests? Leopold says that land ethic requires ‘love, respect and admiration for land and high regard for its value’. For Leopold, the land ethic is the birth of ecological conscience over and above our interests. Population explosion: The population of human beings has increased to such an extent that it is infringing upon the good of the biotic community. Callicott gives the view of Edward Abbey (author of Desert Solitaire)- who says that it is a better choice to kill a human being today (keeping in mind the overpopulation) than a rare species of snakes. Such a view is also extended by Garret Hardin, who introduces the lifeboat ethics and wilderness economics. He says that at no cost can there be mechanization of the remaining wildlife, even if it means that a wildlife adventurer has to lose his life while adventuring into the forest, for danger is part of the risk he took up when he decided to venture in. While this is based on a utilitarian calculation, it is also seen as a biologist’s concern for the ‘ecological dislocations’ caused by human overpopulation. In contrast to the utilitarian idea of Bentham and Mill along with deontological ethics of Kant which believed the equality of men to be sacred and inviolable, Plato’s social and moral system is more holistic. As for Leopold, Plato also regards that the body, soul and society have similar structure and corresponding virtues. Plato is known for suggesting infanticide for those infants born without permission of the state, for restricting use of medicines to only treating wounds and seasonal issues. He was completely indifferent to the individual for the sake of the whole. He also suggested the system of eugenics which involves a phony lottery (where the numbers chosen are shown to be random but are actually rigged and decided already) where the state chose the best pair to bond and produce offsprings. One could also not form a family because it would hurt the military and bureaucratic efficiency as well as group solidarity. There was also to be complete abolition of private property. Such an ignorance of the individual is justified by saying that the good of the whole is what matters to the legislature and the society is much like the body which follows this method of holism at two levels: physically, the well-being of the whole body matters over that of the individual parts and mentally, one has to restrain the passions to follow a morally responsible life. Thus, like Plato’s social system, land ethic is the ideal environmental system for well-being for the land as a whole. Part 6: Reappraising Domesticity Reappraising domestic animals: "Perhaps such a shift of values [as implied by the attempt to weId together the concepts of ethics and ecology] can be achieved by reappraising things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free.” Here, Leopold is talking about domestic animals which are said to be natural, wild and free but are actually unnatural and tame. We need to evaluate (re-appraise) the position of these domestic animals. Animal rights movement does not take into account the distinction between suffering of wild and domestic animals. This distinction between them plays an integral role in the land ethic. The wild counterparts of domestic animals are of greater significance. Domestic animals as living artifacts: In the land ethic, the domestic animals are considered to be living artifacts- those artifacts which are man-made and thus can be counted in the group of other man-made objects like table and chair. Callicott says that it doesn’t make sense to talk of domestic animals being ill treated in factory farms and so on and is akin to talking about natural behaviour of tables and chairs. Logical impossibility of liberating domestic animals: It is not possible to compare the slavery of blacks to the caging and treatment of domestic animals. The blacks were metaphysically free but this is not the case with domestic animals. Domestic animals have been bred to ‘docility, tractability, stupidity and dependency’. Therefore, to talk about their liberation is a ‘logical impossibility’ keeping in mind that they were bred to be not-free and grown with qualities to fit this condition. Practical impossibility: If the domestic animals were let free, then they will not be able to survive. They would be wandering without care in the streets and would starve/freeze to death due to the weather conditions. It will not be possible to control their reproduction and since the animals had been bred to live in certain conditions without being allowed to take care of their young ones before, they would find themselves incapable of taking care of the infants they give birth to. Callicott says that the survivors would end up building and strengthening their ‘ancentral genetic traits’ and would compete in wildlife for food and space. Thus, the latter would stop being domestic and become wild. Ill-effect on the plants: Once the domestic animals will be free, they would use up most of the grains and with no meat to eat, we would have to clear up more land and destroy the wildlife as well as ecological balance. Alternative to freeing the domestic animals: Instead of freeing the domestic animals, we might decide to sterilize them and ensure they don’t have any more babies- taking care of the last generations. But this would only mean their extinction caused by our absurd conscience. The land ethic is only concerned with the naturally evolved species and not humanly bred species. It stands against commercial trafficking in wildlife, zoo, slaughter of whales and other marine mammals. However, domestic animals are only seen as extension of human beings into the natural world (living artifacts). Final blow at the foundation of attitude towards domestic animals: Flawed definition of good and bad Mill and Bentham used the Greatest Happiness Principle and said that that which leads to greatest amount of pleasure is good and that which leads to pain and reduces pleasure is bad. Bentham also based his animal ethics on this. Pain and pleasure as integral for survival: However, this definition of good and bad is flawed from the viewpoint of ecological biology according to Callicott. He points out that pain is primarily information- which communicates the stress, trauma and injury that the body is going through helping the organic structure to adapt to ensure survival and it is also a sign of the exertion one is putting the body through to ‘stay in shape’. Pleasure is also a reward we get for maintaining our organic system properly like pleasure of eating, grooming and others as well as for ensuring social cooperation like pleasure of conversation and others and also to ensure continuation of our species like pleasure of reproduction and so on. An animal which underwent no pain would be an ecological failure, expressing a ‘lethal dysfunction of the nervous system’. Thus, the idea that pleasure is good and pain is bad is primitive. In humans: In humans, pain and pleasure are ‘psychological substance of living’- it is to appropriately react to life itself. Nature itself works as a whole in this manner- by using pleasure and pain as its barometer to further survival. These are the natural biological laws o and principles. To attempt to want pleasure and give up pain is an eco-biological impossibility and would be fatal if it were possible. This acceptance of the ways of nature is characteristic of the tribal people. ‘Tolerance for pain was cultivated, virtue and magnanimity were prized, lithic, floral and faunal spirits were worshipped, population was routinely optimized by sexual continency, abortion, infanticide and stylized warfare and other life forms, although certainly appropriated, were respected as fellow players in the magnificent and awesome, if not altogether idyllic, drama of life’- Callicott says that though we cannot practice this attitude in our modern life completely, we can give greater value to personal, social and environmental health than to run away from pain, wanting pleasure alone. Callicott lays down what would be required of those who live in such a manner: simple diet, vigorous exercise, conservation and social responsibility. Reappraising human values and concerns: We need to evaluate our ‘civilization’ in terms of our ‘savage’ ancestors. The land ethic calls for resurrecting the tribal cultural experience and to shrink the self-indulgent pleasures sought in modern life. Here, he takes up the issue of vegetarian diet. He warns that the act of eating is the most intimate act of connecting with life and was not taken lightly by the savage people. Against vegetarianism: Callicott says that vegetarian humankind would be an ecological catastrophe. The food chains would reduce- we would consume more plants- our population would increase- we would start agriculture by eliminating wildlife as well- thus leading to ecological destruction. Against supermarket meat and factory farming: This does not mean that we continue to eat the packaged meat we get at supermarkets that arrive in our hands impersonally. The meat from these markets is not only unhealthy to our physical and bodily health, but also for our conscience. The problem that land ethic has with the factory farms is not the suffering that the animals go through but the process of its converting living things from organic to mechanical beings. The pain that these factory animals go through is also underwent by wild animals in predation, starvation, disease and cold. The only immorality that these animals face is of being treated as ‘animal machines’ surrounded by machines than as organic beings. # Criticism: Isn’t this criticism of factory farming equivalent to criticising also the methods used by the factory farms that cause pain and suffering to the animals? Vegetarianism is happy even if we eat unhealthy and chemically coated plants. The choice is not between plants and animals, but about the need to resist factory farming- which involves use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers. Thus, the choice is between organically produced food and mechanicochemically produced ones. Callicott gives three ways in which one can eat animals under the land ethic: (A) Either be a purist like Leopold and live near wildlife- hunt and gather wild plants; (B) Eat from one’s own garden, henhouse, pigpen and barnyard; and (C) Barter or buy organic food from neighbours and friends. Part 7: Conclusion The problem of animal liberation and rights has been generally shown to be a fight between ethical humanists and humane moralists (here is where animal rights supporters are said to lay). This could also be because a certain kind of rights (which has been unjustifiably extended) was given to non-human animals by Leopold in his Land Ethic. The main aim of the paper was to show the difference between environmental ethics and animal liberation. Thus, the debate of animal liberation is triangular and not polar- between animal liberation (humane moralists), land ethic and ethical humanists. Callicott points out that humane moralists and ethical humanists have more in common with each other- as they extend the centrism to animals and humans respectively- than they have in common with land ethic (environmental ethics). Difference between environmental ethics (land ethic) on one side and ethical humanism (anthropocentrism) and humane moralism (animal liberation) on the other side: Different ways of looking at the land: Both moral humanism and humane moralism are atomistic in nature. Environmental ethics (land ethic) is holistic or collective. Environmental ethics places the ultimate value in biotic community and then goes on to assign value to different components according to their contribution to good of this whole. On the other hand, humane moralism and ethical humanism- both give value to individuals first and then give reasons why some individuals should be given value and why others should not be. According to Callicott, ‘this is the most fundamental theoretical difference between environmental ethics and ethics of animal liberation’. In land ethic, both plants and animals are included. Moreover, oceans, lakes, forests, mountains are given greater value than the individuals. Whereas in ethical humanism and humane moralism, only human beings and animals are included respectively. Domestic animals are given prime importance in humane moralism while they are not given in land ethic and are only considered living artifacts. Practical considerations: If all domestic animals were freed as animal liberation appeals, then land as a whole would be ruined. On the other hand, land ethic allows us to use one good (that of the whole) to adjudicate between the competing claims of all components. Implementing and following the land ethic will be difficult: it will require discipline, sacrifice and a radical transformation in our attitudes and lifestyles. However, this will ensure the rightful treatment of our issues. nvironmental Ethics Study Resource 2 16-Sep-2014