Deep Ecology Movement: Devall

• Bill Devall's "The Deep Ecology Movement" advocates for a radical shift in the human relationship with nature.
• Published in 1980, the work explores deep ecology as a radical environmental philosophy.
• Deep ecology attributes intrinsic value to nature, promoting biocentrism where all life has equal worth.
• The movement calls for fundamental changes in human attitudes and policies towards the environment.

Shallow vs. Deep Ecology

• Shallow ecology focuses on environmental conservation for human benefit.
• Deep ecology recognizes the intrinsic worth of all beings, not just humans.
• Deep ecology proponents call for fundamental changes in values, policies, and lifestyles.

Key Principles of Deep Ecology

• All life has intrinsic value, not just instrumental value for humans.
• Diversity is beneficial, encouraging the flourishing of nonhuman life.
• Modern industrial societies exploit nature unsustainably, leading to excessive human impact.
• Radical policy changes are necessary, including population reduction and altered economic structures.
• Humans must shift from domination to coexistence, forging a new relationship with nature.

Critique of Anthropocentrism

• Most environmental policies center on humans, focusing on sustainability for human benefit.
• Deep ecology rejects this approach, advocating for nature's protection for its own sake.
• Deep ecology calls for ecocentrism, where ecosystems are morally significant.

Spiritual and Ethical Transformation

• Deep ecology requires a shift spiritually and philosophically.
• Humans must recognize themselves as part of nature, not separate from it.
• This perspective is supported by Eastern philosophies, Indigenous perspectives, and systems thinking.

Criticism and Counterarguments

• Critics argue that reducing human population and limiting industrial growth may be impractical or extreme.
• Balancing human and ecological needs poses a challenge, as prioritizing all life equally complicates decisions like using medicine.
• Prioritization becomes problematic when human survival is at stake, requiring determination of when humans should minimize harm to nature.

Conclusion

• Devall promotes deep ecology to challenge anthropocentrism and demand radical changes in human attitudes toward nature.

• Deep ecology seeks to protect nature for its own sake, unlike shallow ecology that focuses on human benefits.

• Elliot Sober's "Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism" critically examines philosophical challenges in environmentalism.

• The 1986 study analyzes environmentalist ethical theories.

• Sober questions whether environmental ethics can be logically justified.

• Sober questions assigning intrinsic value to nature.

• Sober explores the tensions between individualistic and holistic environmental approaches.

Can Nature Have Intrinsic Value?

• Many environmentalists claim that nature has intrinsic value, independent of human perception.
• Sober challenges this, arguing all value judgments are human-made raising the issue of whether nature has value without humans.

Individualism vs. Holism in Environmental Ethics

• Traditional ethics focus on individual rights, like animal and human rights.
• Environmental ethics often emphasize wholes, like ecosystems or species, over individuals.
• Sober questions whether this collectivist approach is justifiable.
• He questions, if species are protected over individuals, can individual animals or humans be sacrificed for ecological balance?

Problems with Ecocentrism

• Many environmentalists argue for protecting ecosystems as a whole, even if it harms individuals.
• Sober points out that this clashes with traditional ethical views.
• He highlights a moral dilemma on how we treat nature - whether protecting individuals or prioritizing ecological balance at the cost of individual suffering?
• An example of ethical dilemma is posed by whether predators should be allowed to kill prey without intervention.

The Problem of Moral Motivation

• Even if environmental ethics are accepted, the question remains why people should care.
• Most people support environmentalism for practical reasons (preventing climate change, preserving resources), not purely for nature’s intrinsic value.
• If environmentalism is based on pragmatic concerns, it raises the question of whether it needs a moral foundation.

Criticism and Counterarguments

• It is debated whether assigning value to nature should be avoided even if all value judgments are human-made.
• It is debated whether prioritizing whole ecosystems over individuals could justify harmful actions.
• It is debated whether environmental ethics should be based on practical rather than moral reasoning if most people care about the environment for self-interest.

Conclusion

• Sober raises philosophical challenges for environmental ethics.
• Sober questions whether nature has intrinsic value.
• Sober questions whether ecocentrism is justifiable.
• Sober questions whether environmentalism should focus on moral arguments or practical concerns.

Comparison of Devall and Sober

• View on Nature's Value: Devall believes nature has intrinsic worth, while Sober questions whether intrinsic value makes sense.
• Ethical Approach: Devall advocates biocentrism, while Sober challenges both individualistic and holistic ethics.
• Policy Implications: Devall calls for radical changes, while Sober questions the need for a moral basis for environmentalism.
• Critique of Anthropocentrism: Devall strongly opposes human-centered ethics, while Sober challenges its assumptions but doesn't completely reject it.
• View on Individual vs. Whole Ecosystems: Devall prioritizes ecosystems and species over individual rights, while Sober questions whether ecocentrism justifies sacrificing individual well-being.

Final Thoughts

• Bill Devall argues for deep ecology, which promotes intrinsic value in nature.
• Elliot Sober challenges key environmentalist assumptions, questioning whether nature has intrinsic value.
• Sober questions whether environmental ethics should focus on practical concerns rather than moral theory.