Religious perspectives paragraph: Dominion vs stewardship debate
- Dominion and stewardship refers to the Christian attitude and approach to the environment.
- There are different views in Christianity over the degree to which humans should care for animals and the environment.
The Genesis case for dominion
- The Genesis account of creation begins with God creating the natural world and animals. Genesis then states ‘God saw that it was good’. God then created humans in his image so that they can ‘have dominion … over every living thing’. Once he had created humans too, God proclaimed his judgement that his creation was now upgraded to ‘very good’. So, the picture is an anthropocentric one where humans are the most important things in the universe who have dominion over the rest of it.
- Only humans are created in the image of God.
- The start of Genesis 9 seems clear that animals, like plants, have been given to us by God for food, saying that all plants and every creature which ‘lives and moves about will be food for you’.
Counter:
- However, other Christians argue for stewardship. The stewardship view of dominion is that God has entrusted humans with the task of stewards of creation. A steward is tasked with taking care of something that doesn’t ultimately belong to them.
- Genesis also says that God put man ‘into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and to keep it’ (Genesis 2:15). Since humans are instructed to ‘cultivate’ the world, this suggests we are meant to benefit from it but not destroy it.
Evaluation
- Liberal Christians would not view these passages as the perfect word of God and might turn instead to an approach similar to Fletcher’s of doing what has the most loving outcome for animals and the environment. This was the approach of St Francis of Assisi, he claimed everything worships God in its own way. God communicates to us through the natural world and so it is a sin to destroy it. The natural world is a sign of God’s goodness.
- The liberal approach reconciles these bible passages by giving up on the idea that they reflect the perfect word of God. This solves the debate
- Judaism link: the reform approach to the bible is similar to liberal christianity.
- This approach seems positive in ethics because it guides humans actions by love rather than selfishness.
Shallow ecology paragraph
The secular & religious roots of shallow ecology perspective:
- Shallow ecology – animals/planet only have value insofar as they affect our interests because humans most important/valuable.
- Goes back to Aristotle’s ‘hierarchy of souls’ theory – human souls capable of rational thought and thus more important than animal souls which are not, and plant souls are even lower than animal souls. Aquinas agreed with this – influencing Christian views as well.
- As did Genesis – saying humans alone are made in God’s image and likeness – not the animals.
- However – Aristotle and Aquinas would both agree that if our mistreatment of animals caused us to become less virtuous people and risk our mistreatment of humans, that would be wrong.
- So it might be wrong to torture animals or engage in ‘blood sports’ – not because the animals matter in themselves, but because of how our behaviour towards them affects our behaviour towards humans.
- Same goes for looking after the planet – it’s only important insofar as it affects human life.
Counter:
- Singer’s secular utilitarian critique of shallow ecology
- Best criticism: Singer’s ‘specism’ argument – argues that an anthropocentric view like shallow ecology is irrational – just as irrational as racism/sexism is.
- There is no rational way to think that our species’ interests are more important than those of other species. Just as there’s no rational way to think one race or gender more important than others.
- Singer also makes a critique – and this argument is also made by ‘eco-feminists’ – that an anthropocentric view is encouraging of a domineering selfish unvirtuous attitude not just towards the environment, but in general.
- Viewing the environment as there solely for our needs, encourages in us an attitude of domination.
- Feminists point out that this domination is the same regarding patriarchy. Domination is a general problem in ethics and shallow ecology feeds into that.
- Aristotle and Aquinas did actually have some awareness of this – which is why they said we shouldn’t mistreat animals in ways that make us unvirtuous.
- However Singer and eco-feminists argue their position is incoherent. If we really were to rid ourselves of attitudes that make us unvirtuous, we would need to completely rid ourselves of the perspective that we are more important than other life-forms.
- Only then can we be rid of the domineering attitude in general.
Evaluation
- It’s incoherent to suggest treating the natural world well but only for the benefit that brings us. That attitude encourages a lack of virtue which isn’t good for us. Anthropocentrism is a dangerous concept which gives us power, and unfortunately power is corrupting to humans. It isn’t good for our virtue – and it isn’t enough to encourage us to stop destroying the planet – since we haven’t!
- Singer argues this by pointing to Aristotle’s acceptance of slavery
- In fact, Peter Singer argues it was Aristotle’s hierarchy of souls doctrine that led to his acceptance of slavery. Aristotle said that some humans are as far below other humans as ‘beasts’ are from humans, so enslaving them was good for them.
- Pro-environmentalists would argue this shows the danger of a hierarchical mindset that claims to judge which lives are more important than others. Humans cannot be trusted to safely wield that type of ethical mindset. That hierarchical mindset is inseparable from shallow ecology.
Deep ecology & Gaia
- Mainly a secular perspective
- Naess – eco/bi-centric perspective – taking the perspective of all living things as having equal value.
- Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis
Counter
- Singer rejects the idea that any being has intrinsic value, whether human or animal – because he’s a consequentialist.
- He also thinks it makes no sense for inanimate things like the natural world in general, like mountains or rivers, to have moral consideration. Even plants can’t have moral consideration.
- Only sentient beings which can have interests like feeling pleasure or pain can have moral status.
Evaluation
- Naess and Lovelock are against an anthropocentric perspective.
- They think we should take a eco-centric (naess) or geocentric (Lovelock) perspective on ethics.
- However, this is incoherent because inanimate things like mountains and rivers do not have a perspective.
- There is no such thing as a geocentric perspective, since the earth is not a sentient being which could possibly have a perspective.
- Singer’s approach seems superior. It’s more rational to only take into account the interests and perspective of all sentient beings – since only they can have interests or perspectives.
- This has the strength of avoiding anthropocentrism, but without the incoherence of ecocentrism or geocentricism.
- We don’t need to think the earth has its own intrinsic value or perspective to justify taking care of it for the sake of every living being on it.
- So, Singer’s approach is the most morally effective and logically coherent.