![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In this paper I use the concept of ecological resilience as a basis for a moral approach to the environment. Particularly, I propose a reformulation of Leopold'ss moral principle, central to ecocentrism, through the lense of ecological resilience. I will do this by, first, reviewing the main assumptions of ecocentrism and resilience ethics. I will then focus on the concept of resilience and its philosophical description, and I will try to further develop resilience ethics by reformulating the resilience principle and answering some potential problems by proposing the notion of ecological desirability.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Throughout the paper I will use the terms ‘community of life’, ‘biotic community’, ‘ecological whole’ and ‘ecosystem’ interchangeably.
2. Felipe Bravo-Osorio, ‘Environmental Ethics and Science: Resilience as a Moral Boundary’, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (2017): 121-134.
3. Aldo Leopold, ‘The Land Ethic’, A Sand County Almanach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1949).
4. See p. 321, John B. Callicott, ‘Animal liberation: A triangular affair’, Environmental Ethics, 2(1980): 311–338.
5. As Tom Regan has pointed out (see. Regan, Citation1983), this approach faces the ‘eco-fascism’ objection: in ecocentrism, given that biotic communities have a moral priority, then if sacrificing large amounts of human beings will bring well-being to the overall community, we should do so. Callicott answers this objection in (Callicot, Citation2013). However, I think Leopold’s idea behind the land ethic already goes a long way in explaining away eco-fascism: the land ethic (and ecocentrism) is meant to be an extension of ethics, not a replacement. It does not imply a negation of the moral relation humans have between them.
6. See for instance, John B. Callicott, In Defense of the Land Ethic: Essays in Environmental Philosophy (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989).
7. Bravo-Osorio (Citation2017).
8. Holmes Rolston III, ‘Environmental Science and Environmental Advocacy: From “Is” in science to “Ought” in ethics’ in A. Nordgren (ed.) Science, Ethics and Sustainability: The responsibility of science in attaining sustainable development (Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 1997), pp. 137-153.
9. Crawford S. Holling, ‘Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience’ in Schulze P. (ed.) Engineering within Ecological Constraints, (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996).
10. Lance Gunderson L. ‘Ecological Resilience – in Theory and Application’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31 (2000): 425-439.
11. For a more detailed metaphysical description of ecosystems see John Collier & Graeme Cumming, ‘A Dynamical Approach to Ecosystem Identity’ in Gabbay D., Thagard P. & Woods J. (eds.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Ecology, (San Diego: North Holland, 2011), pp. 201-218.
12. See for instance, David Lewis, ‘Finkish Dispositions’, The Philosophical Quarterly 47 (1997): 143-158.
13. Here I will be adopting Prior, Pargetter and Jackson’s definition of causal basis (see Elizabeth Prior, Robert Pargetter & Frank Jackson “Three Theses about Dispositions’, American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (Citation1982): 251–257).
14. Didier L. Baho, Craig R. Allen, Ahjond S. Garmestani, Hannah B. Fried-Petersen, Sophia E. Renes, Lance H. Gunderson & David Angeler, ‘A Quantitative Framework for Assessing Ecological Resilience’, Ecology and Society 22 (2017): 1-17.
15. See Lance H. Gunderson, Craig R. Allen & Crawford S. Holling, Foundations of Ecological Resilience (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2010).
16. Besides Baho et al.’s, there has been other quantification proposals for resilience that would constitute alternative resilience-inducing properties. For instance, Levine et al., 2015, points to biomass heterogeneity as the main factor in determining resilience in rainforest biomes, particularly the Amazon basin. Other candidates are departure of landscape structure, species abundance and community structure (Cushman & Garigal, Citation2019). For more on the project of quantifying resilience see (Angeler & Allen, 2016).
17. See, for instance, Allesina S & Tang S. ‘Stability Criteria for Complex Ecosystems’ in Nature, Vol. 483, No. 7388, 2012, pp. 205-208.
18. See Richard Hobbs, Lauren M. Hallet, Paul Ehrlich & Harold Mooney, ‘Intervention Ecology: Applying Ecological Science in the Twenty-first Century’, BioScience 61 (2011): 442-450.
19. See p. 434, Gunderson et al. (Citation2010).
20. See William B. Willers (ed.) Unmanaged Landscapes: Voices for Untamed Nature (Washington D.C.: Island Press, 1999).
21. See John B. Callicott ‘Choosing Appropiate Temporal and Spatial Scales for Ecological Restoration’, Journal of Biosciences 27 (2002): 409-420.
22. According to Bravo-Osorio, environmental decision-making can be grounded in scientific knowledge, and how, even if a moral attitude toward nature can be nurtured, this attitude will be blind and ungrounded without ecological knowledge. Proper information and knowledge become thus a moral cum scientific obligation.
23. Bryan Norton, ‘Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism’, Environmental Ethics 6 (1984): 131-148.
24. See Robert Elliot, ‘Faking Nature’ Inquiry 25 (1982): 81-93.
25. p. 261, Leopold (Citation1949).