October 26, 2001
Jim Donahue: "Survey of Environmental Ethics"This was an excellent forum in which President James A. Donahue expanded upon the ideas he formulate in a chapter called "Environmental Ethics and Contemporary Moral Discourse" in An Ecology of the Spirit (Univ. Press of America, 1994), 161-175. I will try to do his presentation justice, but there was so much good information that I simply could not get it all down. It is a good thing that he agreed to come back again and do a second TREES forum.
Jim laid out three basic issues that should be dealt with in a Christian environmental ethic: assumptions about God, the moral status of the environment, and the correlation between advocacy and critical scholarship on environmental issues.
Beliefs about God. What is the relationship between the intrinsic beliefs Christians hold about God viz. a viz. stances on environmental issues? Where do assumptions about God get you when thinking about environmental issues? What is the connection between beliefs about God, morality, and action in the world? What implications do our construct of God hold for the environment?
Moral Status of the Environment. What does it mean to talk about moral agency viz. a viz. the environment? How do we relate to the environment? How are we a part of the environment?
Correlation between Advocacy and Critical Scholarship. Everyone interested in environmental issues has a vested interest in the overall environment? What is the balance / interplay between advocacy and critical thinking within any given environmental ethic?
So why is it that environmental issues do / do not grab any given persons interest? What is it about agency or our conceptions about our place within the larger environment that do / do not lead to environmental action? Perhaps inaction is due, in part, to: the inability to connect the personal and the social; the failure to connect past, present, and future responsibility to take care of the planet; the lack of understanding the "evolution" of the cosmos or the way in which the natural world operates; and the lack of imagination in contemporary Christian ethics.
Survey of the Conversation in Contemporary, Christian Environmental Ethics
Jim identified three main conversations taking place in the realm of ethics, the: Communitarians and Libertarian, Universal (Foundational) and Particular (Non-foundational), and Classicalists and Revisionists. He also identified some basic ideas that should be dealt with in any construction of a Christian Environmental Ethic: 1) It must be grounded in a realization that all life is part of Gods creation and is influenced by Gods activity; 2) A theory of human nature in which all life (not just human) has intrinsic value; 3) A relational ordering of the natural world in which humans participate rather than dominate; 4) An understanding of a cosmic narrative; 5) A sense of the intrinsic relatedness of all persons and things (web of relations); 6) Imagination as central to the ethical task; 7) An understanding of and need for a sense of place; 8) A theology that affirms the immanence and transcendence of God; 9) An inherent sense of human limits, an inherent sense of the tragic side of life; 10) An inherent sense of sacramentality in creation.
He then went on to summarize the three contemporary conversations and how they might deal with some of the (10) ideas listed above.
Communitarian and Libertarian
The main line of division among the communitarians and the liberals is an anthropological one. Are individual humans prior to "the whole" (defined as community, society, ecosystem, etc.), entering into a community that is made up of fully formed individuals (as the libertarian ethicists would argue)? Or, are humans defined by "the whole," by the rich web of relationships that they are a part of (as communitarians would argue)? On this basic division, two very different ethical systems are formed.
In the Libertarian system, societies and communities are created by fully formed individuals entering into relationships. Each individual has rights and deserves respect. The right for the individual is prior to the end good; the right for the individual is an end in itself. In the Communitarian system, the human person is primarily a social being, a being created out of a rich web of relations. The good of the whole is prior to the individual right. In this system, one cannot know "the good" apart from the end good for "the whole" (however constructed). Out of the Communitarian perspective comes a notion of the common good: how society ought to be organized to promote the well-being of all life.
In a Libertarian system value is placed on the individual, as an autonomous and independent self. Value is placed on inalienable rights that if respected, will allow the individual to come to full fruition. In a Communitarian system, value is placed on the community, and an individual will come to full fruition only in a healthy community.
Libertarian thinking makes environmental ethics difficult because of the idea of an atomistic self with inherent rights. However, it does acknowledge the intrinsic values of "selves." Communitarians thought is more capable of considering the environment and non-human life as part of that which makes up the community; however, there is potential here for sectarianism and authoritarianism.
Universal (Foundationalists) and Particular (Non-Foundationalists)
For foundationalists, being is related to universally held facts: the bible says "be fruitful and multiply" therefore we ought (in all times and in all places) to have many children;" whereas for non-foundationalists, being is related to shared languages and local communities: "because we live on an overpopulated planet, it is not good to have too many children." Out of foundationalism comes an ethic of virtue and character and out of non-foundationalism comes an ethic of norms and principles.
An example of foundationalism is classic historicism. This type of thinking makes is probabilistic for the development of an environmental ethic. How can a healthy attitude toward the environment, which is constructed differently in different cultures and in different communities within those cultures, be built into a foundational theology that decrees "this, not that" for all time and in all places?
Narrative theology, a non-foundationalist type of theology, on the other hand, makes it possible to reflect upon the environment from our own locations. Foundationalist theologies fail to address the multifaceted nature of human moral agency in the world, they are too reductionist. Non-foundationalist theologies, however, have the ability to speak from within a particular community / culture. However, narrative theologies and contextual theologies must resist the temptation toward particularasim (us vs. them). Perhaps connecting narrative and contextual theologies with a communitarian understanding of "the common good" would be helpful in preventing particularism.
We did not get to the Classicalist and Revisionist part of the discussion because we wanted to have time for questions and answers. But, Jim's article is available in the GTU library (though it may be out at this time). If any of those present would like to elaborate on the presentation and/or correct my mistakes, PLEASE do so.
Our discussion led us into questions about "imagination" and "creativity." Are these inherently good qualities to have when constructing a theology / environmental ethics? Or, should we talk about an ecological imagination and / or "sustainable" creativity, as C. A. Bowers discusses in his book Educating for an Ecological Sustainable Culture (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995). Imagination and creativity have borne both solar panels and weapons of mass destruction. In any event, it was a good conversation.
Close Window