Reflecting on Nature: Routley and Williams

1. Bernard Williamsvs.Richard Routley Moral Monism vs. Pluralism

2. Moral Monism vs. Pluralism Monism: We can apply our ethical view of humans to non-humans. E.g. Taylor, Sandler, Williams Pluralism: We need multiple ethical views for different kinds of natures: human, animal, land. E.g. Leopold, Callicott, Routley

3. [Theoretical Physics] Monism vs. Pluralism • Do we require distinct disciplines/criteria to understand physical reality? • Yes! “Standard Interdisciplinary Research” • No! “Reductionist Research” • E.g. Brian Cox: ‘The Table of Elements is Redundant.’

4. Routley’s Argument for Pluralism Humans “do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness…” It is immoral to interfere with a wilderness. So, the basis of human ethics is insufficient for an environmental ethic. Thus, we need an environmental ethic independent of a human ethic.

5. Routley: Basis for an Environmental Ethic: The Last Man Thought Experiment • The last man causes the extinction of all living things, but is not himself harmed. • According the human ethics, the last man was not immoral. • According to environmental ethics, the mas man was immoral. • Thus, we need an environmental ethics to evaluate some actions. (Pluralism)

6. Problem: Why “environmental?” • Why do we need an “environmental” ethic? • Perhaps we just need some non-anthropocentric, non-chauvinistic ethic? E.g. Divine Command (God wills morality)? • It seems we could verify that the Last Man was wrong by virtue of God’s command to care for his creation.

7. Response: Diamonds vs. Trees (Attfield) The last man causes the extinction of all trees, but is not himself harmed. The last woman causes the extinction of all diamonds. According the Divine ethics, the last man and woman were not immoral. According to environmental ethics, only the mas man was immoral. Thus, we need an environmental ethics to evaluate some actions.

8. Motivation for a Non-anthropocentric Pluralist Ethic: Other Animals have their own ethic because they are Self-conscious Animals Orangutans: Maternal Love Magpies: Self-Knowledge Humans: Self-Reflection All of the great apes: [[Existentialism]] Bottlenose dolphins: Suicide Orcas Elephants: Grief

9. Problem 1: Is Self-Consciousness a “Human-Centered” Ethic? E.g. Kant All of the “emotions” of animals are just human-projected. Humans cannot know what it is to be a bat, only to be a human inside a bat’s body. Only those who are self-conscious are ends to themselves. (Kant) Humans and untold numbers of animals are “self-conscious.” So, Humans and untold numbers of animals are ends to themselves.

10. Problem 2: Self-Consciousness is not a strong criterion for rights. • NO • Children up to the age of 2 fail the mark test, demonstrating a lack of self-consciousness. • Those with significant cognitive disabilities fail the mark test, demonstrating a lack of self-consciousness.

11. Neo-Kantians: To Potentially Treat Others as Ends Kant really held that the criterion for being an end was the potential to treat others as ends. Animals do not have the potential to treat others as ends. Young Children, Elderly, and “Disabled” (specially-able) do have the potential to treat others as ends. So, that potential to treat others as ends provides grounds for being treated as an end.

12. But, can we have an anthropocentric animal rights? Yes! (Kant) “[W]e have duties towards animals in so far as we thereby promote our duties to human behavior. Thus when someone has his dog shot, because it can no longer earn its keep….he does damage kindness and humanity in itself.”

13. Monistic Environmental Ethics Routley’s Problem Lurks: Humans “do not feel morally ashamed if they interfere with a wilderness…” Sum of Williams: 1. Our treatment of the environment reflects our treatment of humans as ends (Kant), or sentient (Mill), or virtuous (Aristotle). 2. Thus, based on human ethic, we should treat the environment ethically.