Morality, intrinsic value and human obligation: Neither we, nor the environment, ever got the memo

Background/Question/Methods

As soon as the human species appeared on this earth it has sought an understanding of itself in relationship to the rest of the world. Some have seen humans as superior, others as simply a small part of a greater system, as well as countless variations in-between. Never the less, the goal has been always to assign human morality based in purpose and value to the whole of a purposeless universe. Past approaches only further confounded the problem and reared inconclusive results. Ethics has yet to construct a theory that is weighted and scalable while at the same time accounting for interactions between scales. Peter Singer’s “expanding circles” is not truly hierarchical, but utilitarian and leaves much up to the discretion of the person applying it. Many disciplines have a hierarchical approach that which philosophy lacks. Consequentially, ecological ethics has been based almost entirely on case studies and has no overarching ethical theory. In a world were reality is complex, imperfect and heavily at risk from anthropogenic activity, can a true hierarchy, independent of culture, be constructed to prioritize ethical concerns and stakeholders? This integrative and interdisciplinary analysis sought to use current biological and philosophical understandings in order to (1) identify why past ethical approaches have failed, (2) approach the solution within an evolutionary context and (3) propose a new ecological ethic that is applicable in both theory and practice.

Results/Conclusions

This analysis found that past attempts to address environmental ethics concerns contain numerous inconsistencies (e.g., sentientism would value a panda above the bamboo it eats), arbitrary assignments of value (e.g., anthropocentrism would state that humans have an adaptive trait of greater value than any other evolved trait) and ignore moral evolution in a larger context. An ethical hierarchy is indeed obtainable and intrinsic value is not necessary to obligate humans to earth’s natural systems. I propose a culturally independent, nested hierarchy in which decision making can be fluidly assessed to promote the greater “good” for all (human and nonhuman alike). Its underlying premise states that the ability to conceptualize is a driving force behind such obligation. This presentation will highlight areas of importance in building such a model and present the fundamental results and conclusions to this newly emerging perspective. In a modern era of climate change and social unrest, having this kind of framework is essential for the individual, policy making, management, and even directing research.