Main Ideas in Leopold

Main Ideas in Leopold

Hello, and welcome back for this video on main ideas in Leopold!

Background on Leopold So let’s start with some background on Aldo Leopold. Leopold, was an American forest manager, ecologist, and writer who lived during the late 1800s and early 1900s. He worked for the US Forest Service in Arizona, New Mexico, and Wisconsin, and served as a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Leopold’ s most famous book is A Sand County Almanac, which tells the story of a year on his farm in rural Wisconsin. The book includes detailed descriptions of the local ecosystem and an outline of his views on environmental ethics. As we will see, Leopold promotes an ethical view that stresses care for the natural environment.

The Story of Odysseus Let me mention a little background about an analogy which he provides at the very beginning of the text, and which can help us understand some of his ethical concerns. Towards the beginning of the assigned reading, Leopold uses a story from Ancient Greece to illustrate one of his main ideas. In the story, the warrior Odysseus returns from war and kills twelve slave girls that he suspects of betraying him during his absence. This action is not viewed as wrong by anyone in the story, since at that time slaves were viewed as the property of their master. Leopold uses the story as an analogy for the way people currently view nature. He notes that many people view nature as property, and believe that land owners have a right to manipulate or destroy plants, animals, and natural ecosystems, as long as these are on their land. In the same way that ethics has evolved to include concern for slaves, and nearly all humans, Leopold predicts that ethics will evolve to include concern for nature as well.

The Community Concept One key theme from the reading is that Leopold views nature as a community, with plants, animals, soil, and water each playing a cooperative role in a given area. This is similar to the concept of an ecosystem, in which many parts of nature are closely interrelated.

On p. 498 of our reading, Leopold (1949/2010) says that:

The human species should view itself as a “plain member and citizen” of the natural community.

Rather than try to dominate and exploit all of nature, he tells humans to play a more limited and cooperative role in the ecological community.

Limits of an Economic Approach Some people view nature in purely economic terms, as a source of commodities that can be bought and sold by humans. On this view, it is only worth preserving nature if we have an economic use for it. However, Leopold identifies some shortcomings of this approach:

• For one thing, some plants and animals, such as backyard birds, are valued by humans, but are not bought and sold in the economy.

• Also, if we try to preserve only species that have an economic use, we will through off the stability of the ecosystem. For example, if we do not care about bugs in the soil, many other species could be effected.

In place of a purely economic approach, Leopold advocates care and respect for all parts of the natural environment.

The Land Ethic as an Ethical Theory On p. 504 in the reading, Leopold makes a general statement about right action. According to the land ethic:

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (Leopold, 1949/2010, p. 504).

Technically, this is not a full ethical theory, since it does not say much about actions in the human community that have little effect on the environment, such as lying and stealing. However, it is meant as a general principle to keep in mind when acting. In this context, we can note that the land ethic conflicts with some of the other ethical theories that we have studied in the course. It obviously diverges from cultural relativism, since many environmentally destructive actions are socially acceptable in modern society. In some cases, it can also conflict with theories such as utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, and

Noddings’ ethics of of care. This could occur in cases where human needs and interests are in tension with the good of the environment. It might seem that Leopold’s view would be a good fit with Regan’s animal rights form of the categorical imperative, since both extend moral concern beyond the human community. However, there are also points of disagreement here. For example, if deer are reducing the diversity of native plants in a given forest, Leopold might recommend hunting the deer. In contrast, Regan might prioritize the rights of the individual deer over the good of natural diversity.

Conclusion This brings us to the end of the video, so thank you for your attention and engagement with the material covered. You should now be in a good position to move on to the rest of the course tasks for the module.

Main Ideas in Sartre

Background on Sartre Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French philosopher from the middle years of the twentieth century. As a writer and professor, he helped develop and popularize the philosophy of existentialism. Sartre also lived through the German invasion of France during World War II. In addition to his academic work, he wrote plays and novels about existentialism. Sartre’s starting assumptions In the first paragraphs of our selection from Sartre’s book Existentialism and Human Emotions, Sartre mentions two of his core beliefs:

– First, Sartre assumes that God does not exist. Hence, he holds that we cannot answer ethical questions by looking to God for wisdom or direction.

– Second, Sartre also rejects determinism. While some people might suggest that human action is determined by factors such as our DNA, our emotions, our upbringing, or our environment, Sartre does not find this view convincing. Rather, he believes we have free will to make personal choices about how we are going to live our lives.

Freedom and responsibility In light of the above points, Sartre says that humans are “condemned” to be free. Free will is in one way a benefit, but Sartre stresses the burden of responsibility that comes with freedom with his use of the word “condemned.” According to Sartre, we did not choose to be born with free will, but we have it now and are responsible for how we use it.

Whether we make good or bad choices, we have no one to praise or blame but ourselves. This responsibility fits with Sartre’s view that there is no God guiding events and that our actions are not fully predetermined by our DNA, our emotions, our upbringing, or our environment. Freedom and everyday life On one hand, the claim that we have free will can seem like common sense. You probably

believe, for example, that you have the free will to choose right now whether to keep reading these notes or do something different like get a snack or browse the internet. Similarly, you probably think that you are free to decide what major or career to pursue.

However, Sartre’s point is that freedom can be scary or even overwhelming when we zoom out and think about our lives as a whole and some of our most important decisions.

Often, people justify actions big and small by saying things like “that is just how I was raised,” “this is what everyone else does,” “it’s only natural to do this,” or “I just feel like I have to do this.” Sartre’s claim is that we are free in a deep sense and cannot excuse our actions in the ways just mentioned. If we choose to do something, for good or bad, we should recognize that it is our own free choice and take full responsibility for it. The undecided young man To illustrate the challenge of freedom, Sartre describes the case of a young French student facing a difficult decision.

The story is set during World War II after the Nazis have occupied France. The young man is trying to decide between (a) staying home to care for his mother or (b) leaving to join the Free French army that is continuing the struggle against the Nazis.

The young man’s brother was killed by the Nazis, so he feels strongly the value of fighting the Nazis and helping to liberate France. However, his brother’s death also leaves the young man as the only surviving child, so he feels the need to stay with his mother as well. The challenge of reaching a decision Using this example, Sartre highlights several challenges to making an ethical decision.

– For one thing, he suggests that ethical theories like those we have studied in the course cannot help much because they are too vague. On pp. 330-331 (the paragraph that begins “Who could help him choose?”), Sartre (1957/2010) refers to the “greater good” (utilitarianism) as well as Kantian ethics. In both cases, he says that the theories could arguably be used to support either option facing the young man. In the case of utilitarianism, it is hard to predict the consequences of the different actions, and in the case of Kant’s ethics, it may come down to treating some people instead of others as ends in themselves.

– When ethical theories are vague, many people would go with their feelings or instincts. However, Sartre says these cannot help much either. This is because our feelings are not fixed or predetermined, but are themselves the result of our choices. If the young man

reads certain newspapers or spends time with certain friends, he may feel a strong impulse to go fight the Nazis. But, if he chooses different friends or newspapers, he may develop different feelings.

– Sartre says the same thing about asking for advice. Going to a teacher or priest might seem like a good way for the young man to make a decision. But, he would have to choose which person to go to for advice, knowing in advance that different people have their own biases.

– Finally, Sartre considers the idea that certain signs, omens, or circumstances might be used to help reach a decision. However, Sartre says that this will not help either, since these signs can usually be interpreted in different ways.

In the end, Sartre implies that none of the strategies just considered can help the young man to make his decision. Rather, it comes down to his own free will.

This relates back to Sartre’s remarks on responsibility. The young man cannot point to anything outside his own will—like an ethical theory, an instinct, or a trusted advisor—to justify his decision one way or the other. Rather, according to Sartre, the choice is his and his alone. This kind of existentialist freedom might seem liberating, but it can also be felt as a burden by someone like this young student who is forced to make a difficult decision.

Choosing an ethical theory

We can connect this theme to a similar question related to the course. We have encountered several competing ethical theories that claim to explain ethics and to provide sound guidance for ethical decision-making. However, as we have seen, these famous theories sometimes conflict with each other. There are situations, for example, where cultural relativism would recommend one action, utilitarianism another, and care ethics a third.

This leaves us with the challenge of negotiating these different viewpoints. In this regard, I encourage you to consider your own thoughts and convictions on which ethical theory is most compelling.

– Some students may feel a strong attraction to one theory in particular, and perceive good reasons why that theory, rather than the others, is correct.

– Other students may see some truth in a few different theories and look for a way to combine them into a consistent unified whole. For example, maybe there are some rights we should never violate (Kant), but that when it comes to doing good, we should be guided by considerations of virtue (Aristotle/Confucius).

– Finally, some students may be unsure of which theory to follow and identify more with Sartre’s perspective. In regard to ethical theories, Sartre would presumably say that there is no “right” way to choose between viewpoints, and that we just need to make our own free choice and accept responsibility for that.

I myself am not inclined to Sartre’s view here, since I think there are good reasons why some ethical views are better than others. Still, Sartre’s perspective is a common one and worth considering alongside the other alternatives we have examined in the course…