Can philosophy shape human action when it comes to environmental issues?
Alex Gerasimchuk
Before considering the relationship of philosophy to the environment and whether it should shape human actions, it is important to consider what the term ‘environmental’ entails. Fundamentally, the human race, its physical environment and the wider cosmos have all originated as a result of a single process or event, whatever that might have been. Going from that first principle of all original things being created as part of a single conception, it then follows that humans, non-human animals, the biotic environment in which we all live and the wider cosmic environment are all natural. Therefore, by the metric of all original inputs being natural, I believe that everything we see around us, including things such as man-made structures, are our environment. Of course, in some sense some environments are more natural than others as they have been shaped by less conscious decision-making. For example, a forest in a remote region of New Zealand is likely to be closer to the original natural conditions than New York city, which was built up by conscious choice. However, even my latter example remains a part of the environment, as it was created as a result of action done by a component of the original ‘natural state’. Bearing in mind that nearly all issues wh ich have some impact on our physical setting (whether it be trees or man- made buildings) are ‘environmental issues’, it is important to consider the society in which this human action takes place. In certain societies which have reached the ‘circumstances of justice’ , I believe that philosophical thought can indeed shape human action as, if people are materially secure, they can begin to explore the virtues and drawbacks of various philosophical systems (namely: the deontological view outlined by Tom Regan; virtue ethics such as those preached by Buddhism, as well as questions pertaining to the value of various environments and whether it should have a bearing on how we treat them). I will explore whether these systems are philosophically justified and if any particular one, or combination thereof, can form a justifiable philosophical framework to govern what actions one takes in one’s dealings with the environment. That being said, if a society is within the circumstances of justice, philosophy can and should be used to shape our decisions, in an effort to make the most justifiable ones possible. If a society is still not within the circumstances of justice and the level of material well-being of its members has not yet reached a certain threshold, then I believe that realpolitik (the politics of personal utility) should shape our decisions rather than philosophy. The concept of ‘circumstances of justice’ was first created by Rawls in his attempt to explain and justify distributive justice. He believed that a society could only start to attempt to create social justice when there was a significant enough level of wealth where all people have an acceptable standard of material living to attempt to engage in redistribution and the creation of fair or socially cohesive policies. I believe that this concept can be extended to cover the necessary conditions for the use of philosophy when dealing with the environment. All members of a society wishing to engage in philosophical thought need to have an adequate standard of living so that any principles which are derived as a result of this thought are sustainable in the sense that people can implement them without suffering a catastrophic reduction in quality of life or, equally as importantly, a great reduction in their capacity to raise their quality of life in the future. However, if we assume that a society is within the circumstances
245
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs