Navigation
Exploring the moral status of the environment and non-human animals.
If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to use it for timber, does its life still have value? Or is the entire planet just a giant toolbox for human needs?
In environmental ethics, the first question is: who has moral standing? Anthropocentrism is a human-centered view. It suggests that only humans have intrinsic value (value in themselves). In this view, nature has instrumental value—it is valuable only as a tool to help humans. If we save a forest, we do it for our oxygen or recreation, not for the trees. Conversely, Ecocentrism argues that the environment and its ecosystems have intrinsic value regardless of their usefulness to us. An ecocentrist believes we have a direct moral duty to the land, water, and non-human species because they are part of a complex, living system that deserves respect on its own terms.
Quick Check
If you protect a coral reef specifically because it attracts tourists and boosts the economy, which ethical framework are you using?
Answer
Anthropocentrism (because the reef's value is based on its utility to humans).
The Tragedy of the Commons is an economic and ethical dilemma where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, deplete a shared resource. Imagine a pasture open to all. Every herder wants to add one more cow to maximize their profit ( benefit). However, the cost of overgrazing is shared by everyone. Mathematically, the individual gain is always greater than the individual's share of the collective loss. This logic explains why nations struggle to stop climate change: while everyone benefits from a stable climate, each individual nation or company gains more immediate wealth by burning fossil fuels. The 'tragedy' is that rational individual choices lead to collective ruin.
Consider a shared fishing pond with fishermen.
1. Each fish caught is worth $\$100\ in total future revenue.
3. For the individual, the benefit is $+\$100\$10 / 10 = \$1+\$100 > -\$1$, the 'rational' choice for each person is to overfish, even though the pond will eventually be empty for everyone.
Quick Check
In the Tragedy of the Commons, why don't individuals voluntarily stop consuming the resource?
Answer
Because the immediate personal benefit of consumption outweighs the individual's small share of the collective long-term cost.
Philosopher Peter Singer revolutionized ethics by arguing that the boundary of our moral concern should not be 'humanity,' but sentience—the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment. Singer coined the term Speciesism, which he defines as a prejudice or bias in favor of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species. He argues that if a being can suffer, there is no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. Just as racism and sexism are wrong because they ignore equal interests based on irrelevant traits, Singer argues that speciesism is a logical error in our moral reasoning.
Singer uses a 'Challenge of Marginal Cases' to test our logic: 1. We usually say humans have rights because they are 'rational' or 'intelligent.' 2. However, some humans (infants or those with severe cognitive disabilities) may have less 'rationality' than an adult chimpanzee. 3. If we still give those humans rights but deny them to the chimpanzee, we aren't using 'intelligence' as our criteria—we are using 'species.' 4. Therefore, to be consistent, we must base rights on the ability to feel pain (), which both groups share.
Which term describes the value of a forest if it is only seen as a source of timber and oxygen for people?
According to the logic of the Tragedy of the Commons, what is the 'rational' choice for an individual using a shared resource?
Peter Singer argues that a being must be able to use language and logic to deserve moral consideration.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the difference between 'instrumental' and 'intrinsic' value to a friend or family member without looking at your notes.
Practice Activity
Identify one 'Commons' in your daily life (e.g., a shared kitchen, a public park, or clean air) and think about how the 'Tragedy of the Commons' logic might apply to it.