環境倫理學

1. 環境倫理學 鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授 國立臺南大學 環境 與生態學院生態科學與技術學系

2. 環境倫理 • T00. 簡介：環境倫理與哲學 • Part I 倫理與科學 • T01. 道德哲學(moral philosophy)：理性與感性 • T02. 道德考量(moral consideration)：倫理與科學 • T03. 倫理與經濟：公有財 (The Common Good) • Part II 倫理推定(presumptions)的建構與驗證 • T04. 責任 (duty)：自然和未來世代 • T05. 品性 (character)：生態美德 • T06. 關係 (relationships)：同理心與正直 • T07. 權利 (rights)：人類與動物 • T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來 Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

3. 環境倫理學 • Part III 自然學習 (Learning from Nature) • T09. 生活：可持續消費 • T10. 環境政策：政府、機構和NGOs • T11. 健康環境：空氣與水 • T12. 農業：土地與食物 • T13. 公有地：適應式管理 • T14. 城鄉生態學：綠色建構 • T15. 氣候變遷：全球溫化 Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

4. Part II 倫理推定(presumptions)的建構與驗證 T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來 鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授 國立臺南大學 環境 與生態學院生態科學與技術學系

5. T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來 責任 (Duty) 好行為 Right action 責任論的 Deontological 權利 (Rights) 倫理 Ethics 品行 (Character) 做好 Being good 目的論的 Teleological 關係 (Relationships) 後果 Consequences Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

6. T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來 • This approach to ethics does not presume that any action is intrinsically right or wrong, but proposes that the action which will likely have the best consequences is “right”. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

7. T08. 後果 (consequences)：預測未來 • 8.1 Utilitarianism • 8.2 animal suffering • 8.3 cost-benefit analysis • 8.4 biocentric consequentialism • 8.5 scientific consequences Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

8. 8.1 Utilitarianism • David Hume (1711-1776) first proposed a theory of utilitarianism, following by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). • Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. • It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. • According to the greatest happiness principle,… the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable, is an existence exempt as free as possible frompain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

9. Problems • How happiness or pleasure is to be measured? • No action is prohibited as wrong? • Concerns future generations? • We cannot know the consequences of acting. Our prediction are uncertain, we are ignorant of the consequences. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

10. Rule and preference utilitarianism • Alternative forms of utilitarian reasoning, now known as act utilitarianism, have been devised to try to deal with these difficulties in predicting consequences. • Rule utilitarianism relies on past events for consequential evidence of what an ethical rule should be. • Preference utilitarianism assesses the desires of those likely to be affected by a decision, in order to predict whether or not the decision will lead to consequences that yield more happiness. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

11. 8.2 animal suffering • Bentham was the first utilitarian to express concern about the suffering of animals. • Among contemporary philosophers Peter Singer is the leading advocate for including animals in consequential calculations of pleasure and pain, and for ending the tyranny of humans over animals. • The animal liberation movement is not saying that all lives are of equal worth or that all interests of humans and other animals are to be given equal weight, no matter what those interest may be. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

12. Peter Singer • Singer argues that the suffering of animals used in research generally outweighs the benefits for human beings, • and he advocated vegetarianism because factory farming causes unnecessary animal suffering. • Most people are surprised to learn that in the US alone about thirty-seven million cattle are slaughtered each year for food. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

13. Assessing pain • There are difficulties with including animal suffering in a utilitarian calculation of what actions will yield the greatest happiness. • Mary Midgley suggest that moral consideration is justified only when we recognize consciousness in an animal. • Recognizing an animal as conscious like us, she argues, gives us a reason to include it in our moral community. • We have a duty to ensure that the feelings of conscious animals are considered. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

14. Wild animals • Do we have a duty to protect wild animals from causing more suffering by preying on one another? • Singer argues that animal suffering is an ethical reason for not eating meat, but he also states that we have no responsibility to interfere in nature to protect animals from one another. • Rolston agrees with Singer’s conclusion, but for the different reasons. • Pain and pleasure are not he only criteria of value, not even the principal ones. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

15. Rolston • Rolston agrees with Midgley that our relationship with animals leads to duties that recognize intrinsicvalues. • We have a duty to minimizing the suffering of domesticated animals in our care. • But we do not have the same duty to try to reduce the suffering of wild animals in their natural habitats. • Any suffering that we impose on wild animals should be comparable to their suffering in nature. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

16. 8.3 cost-benefit analysis • The commercial value of medicinal substances in tropical forests is often greater than the value of using the land for agriculture after logging the forest. • To ensure fiscal accountability in the US, the National Policy Act of 1969 mandates cost-benefit analysis for all federal projects related to the environment. • Nonmarket values, limited knowledge, economic discounting to estimate future costs and benefits. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

17. Nonmarket values • Nonmarket values involving ecosystems include the depletion of nonrenewable resources, the loss of ecosystem functions, and the extinction of species. • Cost-benefit analysis also ignores human rights. • Relying on cost-benefit analysis, for instance, will characteristically require placement of toxic wastes near poor people. • Our ethical presumption is the ecosystem integrity and human rights are of intrinsic worth. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

18. Limited knowledge • Although it is fairly easy to assess the costs of building nuclear power plants, but very hard to know that the financial costs of storing nuclear waste safely for centuries if the power plants are built. • 萬一災變？機率？風險？代價？ Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

19. Discounting • In financial markets, a dollar acquired today is worth more than a dollar we will acquire in a year. • The dollar can be put in the bank, and thus be worth perhaps $1.05 in a year. • 倘若資源量無限，永不匱乏。 • 資源愈早開發，轉變為現金，愈有利。 Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

20. 8.4 biocentric consequentialism • Singer does not rely on cost-benefit analysis in making utilitarian arguments. • His reasoning that our way of raising animals for food causes unnecessary suffering for these animals. • Intensive animal production is a heavy use of fossil fuels and a major source of pollution of both air and water. • Moral philosopher Robin Attfield agrees with Singer that ethical decisions can be made without cost-benefit analysis by using reason to predict and weigh likely consequences. • Biocentric consequentialism (intrinsic values) Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

21. State of the world • If the consequential benefits are significant, Attfield argues, we have a duty to adopt the practices that lead to the good state of the world. • Stone argues for a pluralist approach to ethics. • Our brains have evolved to think about moral issues by relying on feelings of empathy and reasoning about what is intrinsically right and good, as well as on our ability to forecast the possible consequences of our actions. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

22. 8.5 scientific consequences • In 2001 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme, • proposed that human activity was “likely” causing global warming. • In 2007, however, the panel “declared that the evidence of a warming trend is ‘unequivocal’, and that human activity has ‘very likely’ been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years”. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

23. Climate change • The shift from “likely” to “very likely” as a scientific conclusion has strengthened the argument that governments and their citizens must take action to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. • We rely on science for predictions of likely consequences, but need to keep in mind that scientific information presents a perspective on the world and does not simply reveal what is. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

24. The limits of science • Scientific conclusion are limited by what we know, by what we are looking for, and by how we go about it. The answers you get depend on the questions you ask. • Science does not give us the whole picture, but only perspectives on it. • If we describe our energy problem as a supply problem, we will likely conclude that we need to find and develop new sources of energy…… • If we define our energy problem as excessive demand, we will focus on ways of reducing our energy use….. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

25. Science is human • Science is done by scientists, who are influenced by funding for their research, their desire to have successful careers, and their personal convictions (信念), as well as by the results of their experiments and observations. • Biologist Rupert Sheldrake observes that: “The objective method is supposed to remove all psychic interests of the scientists from what they’re doing. In fact, most scientist are heavily engaged in what they’re doing if only for reason of personal ambition(野心).” Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

26. In doing ethics • Scientific reports may be affected by politics. • Economic interests may try to confuse the public about scientific conclusions. • Scientific reports about the environment that predict the likely consequences of an action (or inaction) give us probable, possible, or uncertain outcomes. • Therefore, in doing ethics we rely on empathy and critical reasoning to construct moral presumptions before drawing on science and other consequential arguments to test these presumptions. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

27. Worksheet for doing Environment Ethics • Describe the environment issue you are addressing • Construct an ethical presumption • Consider the consequences • Make your decision • If your analysis confirms your presumption, act on it. • If not, revise your presumption before acting on it Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

28. Construct an ethical presumption • Duty: to other persons, future generations, nature • Character: virtues of gratitude, integrity, frugality • Relationships: the extent of our moral community • Rights: social conditions necessary for human dignity • State your reasoning as an ethical presumption. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

29. Consider the consequences • List the likelyconsequences of acting on this presumption • Are these probable or only possible consequences? • Are the long-term consequences largely uncertain? • Distinguish and weigh the pro and con arguments • Rely on reason on assess nonmarket values. • Use cost-benefit analysis for market goods. • Internalize externalities in market prices. • Avoid passing on costs to future generations. • If the pros outweigh the cons, then the presumption is confirmed. If not, challenge the presumption. Ayo Env. Ethics 2011

30. 問題與討論 Ayo NUTN website: http://myweb.nutn.edu.tw/~hycheng/