Environmental Philosophy. Roderick Nashs book titled The Rights of Nature and Ernest Partridges book titled Responsibilities of Future Generations present a historical perspective of the evolution of environmental ethics from American phi

Authors Avatar

        Roderick Nash’s book titled The Rights of Nature and Ernest Partridge’s book titled Responsibilities of Future Generations present a historical perspective of the evolution of environmental ethics from American philosophers.  The historical perspective is important because it illustrates not only the importance of caring for the natural environment but also how ethics is manifested in the realm of environmental science.  In addition, it also implies actions to be presently done and to prevent future environmental conflicts.  The historical perspective is not only crucial but also necessary for my methodology of my thesis on the relationship between public indifference and environmental ethics.  In order to understand how the historical perspective is applicable to my research project, this paper will first define environmental ethics.  Second it will present a synopsis and analysis of Nash’s book.  Third, it will analyze Partridge’s book and show how it is relatable to Nash’s book.  Finally, it will conclude with an application of both Nash’s and Partridge’s book into my research project.  

Definition of Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics is defined in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy as “the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings, the values and moral status of the environment and its non-human contexts.”  Unlike normative ethical theories such as consequentialism and deontology, environmental ethics attempts to be distanced from human-oriented ethical views.  Yet, the foundation of environmental ethics is also founded on two fundamental moral questions which also occur in many normative ethical theories.  These questions are: “What kinds of things are considered intrinsically valuable and what makes an action right or wrong?” 

Environmental ethics is a naturalistic ethic, which is “when humans ask about appropriate respect toward those who are other than human.” In environmental ethics, the natural environmental and its contained contents are considered intrinsically valuable.   When this way of thinking occurs, the concern for the natural environment becomes the central focus of what actions are determined to be ethical or unethical.  This is done by human beings questioning themselves on the appropriate respect towards natural environmental aspects that are not human.  There are two ways of looking at environmental ethics: the historical perspective and the analytical perspective.  The historical perspective of environmental ethics will be the focus of this paper.  One of the prominent philosophers who look at environmental ethics from a historical perspective is Roderick Nash.  

Nash’s book         

Before discussing Nash’s book, one must understand his historical background.  Roderick Nash is currently a history and environmental studies professor at the University of California Santa Barbara.  His interest in environmental studies began when he witnessed a massive oil spill in Santa Barbara in 1969.  Since then, Nash began to research on environmental studies and the ethics that revolve around it.  Some of his works include the following:

  • Wilderness and the American Mind (1967).
  • The American Environment: Readings in the History of Conservation (1968).

The Call of the Wild 1900-1916 (1970).

Environment and Americans: The Problem of Priorities (1972).

The Big Drops: Ten Legendary Rapids of the American West (1989).

The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (1989).

American Environmentalism: Readings in Conservation History (1990).

The Nervous Generation: American Thought 1917-1930 (1990).

  • From These Beginnings: A Biographical Approach to American History, Volume I and II. (1999)

However due to the subject matter of my research project this paper will examine Nash’s book The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics, where it “concerns the history and implications of the idea that morality ought to include the relationship of humans to nature.”  Nash states that the history of environmental ethics should be understood as an “evolution of ethics from the natural rights of a limited group of humans to the rights of parts of all of nature.”  In order to understand Nash’s perspective, this section will first define the ‘evolution of ethics’ process.   Then, it will present an evaluation of Nash’s perspective.  .  

Nash states that the history of environmental ethics should be understood as an “evolution of ethics from the natural rights of a limited group of humans to the rights of parts of all of nature.”  In order to explore this view more in greater detail the concept of natural rights of human beings and rights of parts of all of nature must be understood.  Although there are many natural rights theories, Nash takes a historical development approach to view natural rights and its ethical relevancy.  In the beginning of the development of natural rights and its ethical relevancy, people of the white race and of elite class were considered to be objects that are worthy of respect and capable of making moral decisions.  Over time, people began to push natural rights and its ethical relevancy outward to include oppressed minority groups and eventually the natural environment.  This push was done through a series of legal acts, wars and the recognition that human beings are rational creatures capable of making moral decisions.  The push for the natural environment as being a natural right and ethically relevant was emerged from a theory called environmental ethics.  

The emergence of environmental ethics is “explained in part by the rise of the science of ecology and its diffusion into a widespread popular enthusiasm.” Some examples of popular enthusiasm of the diffusion of the rise ecological science are the following works and organizations: Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), Greenpeace, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and so on.  The rise of ecological science is stemmed from two schools of thought.  The first school of thought contains that “some people believe that it is right to protect and wrong to abuse nature from the standpoint of human interest.”  This view is usually taken by environmental advocacy groups such as Greenpeace or other groups.  Moreover, it is stemmed from the idea that human beings live in the natural environment.  If there is any detrimental harm done in the natural environment, then it will have a direct impact not only on the human natural habitat but also on human health.  When these detrimental environmental harms become serious, it will result in fatal consequences.  When fatal consequences occur, not only the natural environment is destroyed but also the amount of human diseases is increased.  It is a human interest to maintain their health.  Causing detrimental harm to the natural environment is going against human interest.   Therefore, it is in the human interest to protect and preserve the natural environment.  

Join now!

The second school of thought contains that “nature has intrinsic value and consequently possess at least the right to exist.”  In other words, “the human-nature relationship should be treated as a moral issue.”  When this occurs, the natural environment is considered to be capable of moral deliberation.  In addition, human beings have a responsibility to articulate and defend the natural environment. In other words, environmental ethics requires people to extend ethics to the environment by exercising concern and self-discipline.   This position is often taken by philosophers who are biocentrists, ecological egalitarian and deep ecologists.

Evaluation of Nash

When it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay