Ecofascism: A look at "land ethic" as policy
Hank was having a great evening until his date mentioned the beautiful sunset.
Comic credit: created by me
I am very curious to get fellow steemians' views on land ethic. If you have time and are interested please feel free to leave comments with your thoughts. I've written up a summary on Leopold and Callicott and their beliefs that a land ethic is necessary.
Honestly, I've gone back and forth on whether policy is necessary or not for the preservation of nature or if a truly free-market can protect the environment. Very curious to hear your thoughts.
There has been concern among many philosophers that a “land ethic” leads to ecofascism. Ecofascism, the concept that if land and animals were to be given moral considerabilty, just as humans, implies mankind would begin to do whatever is deemed necessary in accordance to what is right for the land. In essence, people would give up personal rights for the rights of land. A type of “Hitler for the environment” could occur, and the end of equality for mankind would be at our doorstep.
However, does a land ethic simply instill a necessary policy in today’s society that traditional western philosophy does not? What is land ethic? Is it necessary? Is anthropocentrism amoral?!
What is a land ethic? (Explained by Leopold) and is it that dirty word “ecofacism!”
Ecofascism, the idea that a person is sacrificed for the good of the land, has been linked to Leopold who has been accused of writing a land ethic that calls for land to have priority over human life. This is simply not true. His holistic approach of a land pyramid calls for consideration of all things. It is an up and down circuit that is not closed consisting of humans, animals, plants and land. Leopold is not calling for ecosfascism, rather, he is calling to morally consider the land along with humans and animals.
“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It’s wrong when it trends otherwise." -Leopold, who would be on a high horse if he didn't care so dearly about its intrinsic value.
This quote by Leopold, has drawn much scrutiny and has proven to be battlegrounds for an ecofascist argument. However, is Leopold speaking of ecofascisism, or, instead is he making the argument that we need to give land its do worth. Land has an intrinsic value and we should treat it as such.
Anthropocentrism – What is morally considerable?
Anthropocentrism and speciesism is the idea that only humans are directly morally considerable. According to anthropocentrism, nature is only indirectly morally considerable. That is to say the only way that nature is considerable is by how it affects humans. This has been a staple in western philosophy.
Leopold calls for the abolishment of anthropocentrism, he also believes that the abolishment anthropocentrism does not implement a form of ecofascism. Leopold’s point, simply put, states that anthropocentrism cannot justify some actions, whereas, a land ethic can. Conservation is a good example to illustrate his point. Leopold states that anthropocentrism lacks moral truth and its relationship with conservationism. For instance, can anthropocentrism and conservationism live in harmony together? Or does it converge because its reason will always differ. According to Leopold, the land ethic does converge because it always has the same reason, moral truth. He also states that dominant western beliefs that have anthropocentric philosophies view land merely as a commodity.
Oh! The Good Ol' Days: Ladies as a commodity
“The Story of Odysseus and the slave-girls” as an example.
When god-like Odysseus returned form the wars in Troy, he hanged all on one rope a dozen slave-girls of his household whom he suspected of misbehavior during his absence.
Leopold’s point here is that not all women had been under the umbrella of ethical structure. The slave-girls were merely a commodity, as we know three thousand years later, much has changed.
“This hanging involved no question of propriety. The girls were property. The disposal of property was then, as now, a matter of expediency, not of right and wrong”
As society has adapted new social rules as the treatment of humans has changed. Leopold implies the same needs to be applied to land and feels these social rules should be expanded to land. In choosing to treat women with the same respect as men, women do not need to be chosen over men and lead to fascism in that sense either. Rather, according to Leopold, they need to be considered equally.
Leopold calls for three different stages to moral relations; one is individual and individual relations, two is individual and societal relations and three is individual and nature relations.
The first deals with issues that can be seen as between an individual and their interpersonal relationships with other humans. Don’t steal, don’t kill, those types of things.
The second moral relationship is between an individual and society, describing issues such as social obligations of an individual in a democracy. The third moral relation being a relationship between individual and nature relations, describing individual’s responsibility to the land or “land ethic.”
The third, or the land ethic, he calls being on the way and not yet arrived, “The extension of ethics to this third element in human environment [that is, the land ethic] is, if I read the evidence correctly, an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity”
Callicott - Leopold Supporter, Environmental Fascist in Sheep's Clothing
J. Baird Callicott, also argues that Leopold’s holistic land ethic is not a case of ecofascism.
“The land ethic is intended to supplement, not replace, the more venerable community-based social ethics, in relation to which it is an accretion or addition”
-Callicott, Honorary MD, internal medicine after getting such a good look at Leopolds organs with his head wedged that far up his ass.
Callicott notes that we have choices to make. For instance, it is clear that if there were a man and a dog on a sinking boat and for some reason you must choose only one that can live, of course you choose the man, because the man will live a more fulfilling and meaningful life.
Leopold states “a land ethic implies respect for…fellow members and also for the community as such.” illustrating that there is a holistic approach taken upon by Leopold that is completely unused or believed in popular western thought according to Callicott. Callicott also takes note that this thought is not foreign to the likes of Darwinian theories and ethics. David Hume also notes that “we must renounce the theory which accounts for every moral sentiment by the principle of self-love” The reason behind Callicott mentioning this is his belief that western philosophy is grounded in self-love rather than a holistic approach.
To clarify on the land ethic and our duties towards it, Callicott makes the argument that “prioritizing the duties generated by membership in multiple communities” is important. Callicott believes that we have second order duties that we need to fulfill as moral agents. He believes these second order duties are divided into two categories, SOP-1’s and SOP-2’s. “The first, SOP-1, requires an agent to give priority to the first-order principles generated by the more venerable and more intimate community memberships. Thus, when holistic environment-oriented duties are in direct conflict with individualistic human-oriented duties, the human-oriented duties take priority…
An example:
A man’s child is very sick, he has to care for the child. The man will choose to care for his child rather than fulfilling an obligation to the broader community.
SOP-2, requires an agent to give priority to the stronger interests at issue. When the indication determined by the application of SOP-1 is reinforced by the application of SOP-2, an agent’s choice is clear.”
An example:
“It is more important to save an arm than a baby toe.”
The SOP-1’s and 2’s are to be put in place with a land ethic further ensuring that there would be no cases of ecofascism just as Leopold has done with his three different levels of moral relations according to Callicott. Callicott notes that anthropocentrism lacks moral truth and is inconsistent in regards to conservationism, therefore is dangerous. According to Callicott, no argument can be made that an anthropocentric approach will not deplete the resources on earth. He believes a land ethic is necessary to sustain and preserve the resources we have.
They both conclude that to look at nature as a commodity is dangerous that will eventually deplete human life or strip its quality.
Thanks for reading. Looking forward to your comments.
LOL @ the punchline!
In my view, the only morally legitimate way to deal with taking care of the earth is for private property owning individuals in communities to best decide how things should be managed, what rules to live by, etc.
Looking at "publicly owned" services, buildings and property tells us right away that an overarching political (violence backed) plan is not going to work. Think of how people drive their own, newly purchased car, versus how they treat rental cars. Look at the USPS post boxes compared to the FedEx ones.
The main thing, though, is that it is morally illegitimate for one individual to coerce another individual in regard with what cannot cannot be done with his property. If Joe Blow, however, is polluting the local water source with runoff from his factory, property owners could rightly claim that this is an aggressive act, and take legal or self-defensive recourse.
Anyway, just one AnCap's thoughts. Loved the comic!
There is a lot of logic behind what you're saying. And the example I used in the comment below on the city of Seattle vs. the private owners on the shore line is a good example - that is what originally got me thinking about it private property rights being the best course of action.
One thing I feel though - is it can be very reactionary if you will - I think it resolves problems - I'm just not sure how quickly those problems are solved - then again, with any system (or no system) that will be the case.
In the case I talked about - those land owners were very wealthy and had the means (time & money) to sue the city and the outcome was great.
I wonder about regular joe's just being ran out based off of their lack of resources.
That's a lot of hypotheticals I know. I lean much more towards private property rights, as well, but that part makes me a little uneasy.
Do you have any reading or something in regard to that issue? I don't have backing one way or another.
Thanks for commenting and glad you liked the comic!
That's a valid concern for sure, and would definitely still happen in a private law based society here and there. My contention is simply that it would be drastically less frequenct due to the free markert naturally curbing such behavior.
For a (maybe simplistic) example, once all the regular Joes are run off, the more parasitic elements in the community now have no one to clean their homes, build their houses, etc, etc. Plus, if even a small Joe owned some property, force could not be used to move him from it, theoretically, in a society based on property rights. As it stands now, that's all that happens.
Anyway that story about the ferry is super interesting. I had never heard of that.
This video is a really good breakdown of private law society:
Cheers for the response!
I loved the comics. Thanks for sharing. Upvoted!
Thanks so much!
Really appreciated!
Where is that part?
But the answer to that is easy: No.
a free market that protects the environment has to include all the costs, like the cost of pollution. Which in itself is only guess work (If people do not go into the forest because of pollution, which price take you for that activity? A cost-free stay in their garden or a 100$ visit with the family to a zoo?).
That is basically impossible because there are too many factors, so it does not work.
But even if you say you can do that cost analysis and put-on-price perfect you have to decide how long a time you take to include.
If you take short term you get an hilariously low price where the math to get the price is more expensive. No protection.
If you go long term (like thousands of years) you get an hilariously high price which would mean you can't do anything.
The only way to get to a price is to make guesses and assumptions and - circle! - define in front what the cost of something destroyed is.
And since the result is based on what you define before, you can simply skip all that and accept that a pure free market cannot protect the environment without ceasing to function.
@lennstar - thanks for sharing your thoughts. You bring up some interesting points, I am certainly no expert on Economics - especially in regards to long term v. Short term, cost analysis etc.
One thing I'm curious about is if a free-market solution can be more intuitive and tailored to specific local municipality needs.
One example that comes to mind is from my hometown in Seattle. The city runs the ferries that run through the canal, the speeds they were going were destroying the beach front.
Locals sued the city and had speeds reduced to preserve the beachfront.
I'm not necessarily for one way or another. I found that to be an interesting case however.
Thanks again for commenting.