I thank my parent organization, the Biswanath College, for giving me the opportunity to pursue my research work at the Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India in the department of Humanities and Social Sciences. Without the help and support of the Biswanath College, it would not have been possible for me to continue my research work.
Introduction
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "environment" as "the objects or the region around anything" (Jamison, 2008, pp. 1-2). Environmental pragmatism is the open-ended inquiry into the specific real problems of humanity's relationship with the environment." (Light & Katz, 1996, p. 2) The environmental pragmatists find that the anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric viewpoints do not come up with possible solutions and environmental ethical concerns should go further.
Negotiating The Extreme Views – Anthropocentrism And Non-Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism
In the first kind, man is placed between God or divine angels and other non-human beings in nature, in a hierarchical order or great chain of being. Descartes believed that all other non-human beings are like machines that can only perform mechanical work.
Kinds of anthropocentrism
- Intergenerational Environmental Ethics
So there is this lack of reciprocity and therefore there is no moral obligation to future generations. On the other hand, some other philosophers argue for moral obligation to future generations even in the absence of reciprocity.
Non-Anthropocentrism
- Sentientism
- Bio-centrists
- Ecocentrists
- Deep Ecology
At the top of the pyramid are human beings and therefore man should be a nature rather than an exploiter (Gibson, 1998). Based on Leopold's land ethic, which insists on the integrity, stability and beauty of nature, J.
Kinds of intrinsic value
Philosophers can consider various qualities as the basis of intrinsic value for moral consideration. For example, the first way of understanding speaks of intrinsic value as a case of ultimate evaluation. It remains to be seen within the non-anthropocentric group how they will understand the idea of intrinsic value.
Is it the case that all non-anthropocentrists will go for the idea that intrinsic value is independent of the value setter. In doing so, they arrive at a position that the issue of intrinsic value can be a non-issue at the level of political formulations. Rather, a mere recognition of intrinsic value will do as a value that exists against instrumental value.
But Mclean is against any such assignment of intrinsic value to either man or earth.
Principles of environmental pragmatism
- Moral pluralism
- Decreasing implication of theoretical debate
- Discussion of practical issues of policy consensus (political and social)
- Contextualism
- Anthropocentric
- Sustainability
- Conclusion
He insists that intrinsic value is one of the types of value and it cannot be the foundation of environmental ethics (Weston, 1996). The holist emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature without paying any attention to the situation. John Baird Callicott is one of the important figures who try to defend monistic attitude towards environmental ethics.
Non-anthropocentric value is abstract and static and it recognizes the intrinsic value of nature. These philosophers think that with intrinsic value alone the integrity of the ecosystem can be preserved. It is dependent on the people and society as a whole to maintain the integrity of the environment.
In such a context, Norton's convergence hypothesis between anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric is relevant to the ecological integrity of nature.
Enviromental Pragmatism And The Value Pluralism
Value pluralism or Moral pluralism
In most cases in environmental ethics discourse, the topic is addressed from competing moral positions, that is, competing value claims. These types of consensus-building approaches are essential in the policy-making process of environmental issues between different groups. Callicott's monistic approach to environmental ethics, as well as that ecocentric position, fails to address many of the persistent problems associated with environmental ethics.
Although it may sound sacred to have an intrinsic value approach to the ecosystem, it is difficult to substantiate the intrinsic dignity of the ecosystem. By overemphasizing the holistic environment, he even avoids the rights and interests of the individual species. About the advantage of the value pluralism it can be said that it can take the important elements of different theories for different situations.
But some recent criticism reveals that Callicott's recent writings take a pluralistic stance when it is necessary to address cross-cultural environmental ethics.
The problems of the value pluralism
When comparing two or more ideas or things, comparative words or degrees such as 'better than', 'worse than' or 'as good' are usually used. Moral conflict decisions mean that when there are two or more alternatives facing a human being, then it is difficult to make a morally right decision. It is difficult in the sense that if a moral decision has been made, then the other alternatives remain as a regretful decision.
It is regrettable in the sense that the decision on another alternative has been missed. (Williams, 1986). It is justified by the fact that what is chosen is more valuable than anything else, and therefore there should be no regrets. Schober believes that there need not be a case of regret if one chooses an alternative from the available alternatives.
However, it is observed that even when one chooses the better of the alternatives with one's reasoning faculty; this does not mean that the option that was not selected has no value.
Conclusion
Assessing convergence hypothesis and its policy implications
Introduction
Provided that anthropocentrism considers the full breadth of human values as they unfold into the indefinite future, and provided that non-anthropocentrism supports a consistent and coherent version of the view that nature has intrinsic value, all sides may be able to to support a common political direction. (Norton B.G., 1991, p. 237). The individual values nature or natural entities according to his or her own context and content. (Norton B. G., 2003). Bryan Norton has divided the anthropocentric view into strong and weak anthropocentrism. (Norton B. G., 1991) Strong anthropocentric claims that people are at the center and only people possess the intrinsic value and all other things, if they possess any value, then they do has it as an instrumental value.
He maintains that strong anthropocentrics 'felt preference' and weak anthropocentrics 'considered preference' about environment. (Norton B. G., 1984) The. Such considered preference shows the sustainable use of the natural resources and thus, for Norton, it is weakly anthropocentric. The view that if reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies, a non-anthropocentric ethic will advocate the same policies as an appropriately broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism.((Norton B. G., 2003, p. 119).
To protect the fullness of life is to protect the distant future of the human species and its evolutionary successors, and vice versa. (Norton B.G., 2003, p. 217).
Relevancy of the convergence hypothesis in the path of policy implementation
But according to Norton, in this world, the consideration of static, intrinsic value can be an obstacle to enacting environmental policies. Callicott takes intrinsic value as the only basis for environmental conservation and insists on this principle alone. From this point of view, policy can only be formulated to save the ecosystem and its intrinsic value.
Norton finds that Callicott and other proponents of intrinsic value take intrinsic value as a basic principle and apply it to environmental ethical issues. In addition, Norton finds Callicott's perspective of intrinsic values to be abstract and one-sided; cannot decide from more than one point of view. Every political decision comes through a democratic consensus and understanding, and if the perspective of internal values will be one-sided and not ready for consensus, it cannot be enough for policy formulations.
It predicts that if person A is a consistent weak anthropocentric and person B is a non-anthropocentric with a consistent notion of the intrinsic value of the environment, then for Norton both A and B will end up endorsing the same environmental policy position. (Norton B.G. , 1991).
Criticism of the convergence hypothesis
In her opinion, in order to preserve this integrity of the environment, it is necessary to accept the intrinsic value of natural things. Because of her emphasis on the intrinsic value of nature, Westra finds it difficult to accept the instrumental value of natural entities. Westra points out that if one could accept the intrinsic value of nature, then there would be no need for such a convergence on the integrity of the environment.
Merely recognizing intrinsic value can solve other relevant problems in maintaining environmental integrity. Thus, mere intrinsic value or a non-anthropocentric attitude cannot in fact maintain the integrity of the environment. They support Norton's weakly anthropocentric stance with the SMS approach to creating pluralistic stewardship for the sustainable development of the environment.
At the same time, it must be said that more empirical studies are needed that will demonstrate the feasibility of the convergence hypothesis in space and cultures.
Conclusion
Because in an evolving environmental situation, it may be essential for the anthropocentric and the ecocentric to come to a consensus for policy implementation. (Norton B. G., 2002). These two anthropocentric and the ecocentric can take care of the policy formation of the environment-related issues. If the anthropocentric and the ecocentric views are considered the basic perspectives for environmental policy making, which one can.
Pragmatists may suggest that depending on the circumstances, situations and the context, the decisions are made. It is my position that flexibility, context dependence and sensitivity in understanding ethical principles are better than immutable, uncompromising, context independent ethical positions, however logically consistent they may be, and as in environmental ethics we are not only dealing with people not, but with animals, our habitat and our universe as a whole. Environmental Pragmatism and Sustainability Issue, Devartha Morang and Dr,Prabhu Venkataraman, Lokayata, Vol.3 , No.2 (September 2013), pp.31-37.
Reflection on the effectiveness of environmental pragmatism, Dr. Prabhu Venkataraman and Devartha Morang, International Handbook of Academic Research and Teaching, Bankok, Vol.21, Spring 2012, pp.196-201.
