Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 483–501 | Cite as

From Environmental to Ecological Ethics: Toward a Practical Ethics for Ecologists and Conservationists

Original Paper

Abstract

Ecological research and conservation practice frequently raise difficult and varied ethical questions for scientific investigators and managers, including duties to public welfare, nonhuman individuals (i.e., animals and plants), populations, and ecosystems. The field of environmental ethics has contributed much to the understanding of general duties and values to nature, but it has not developed the resources to address the diverse and often unique practical concerns of ecological researchers and managers in the field, lab, and conservation facility. The emerging field of “ecological ethics” is a practical or scientific ethics that offers a superior approach to the ethical dilemmas of the ecologist and conservation manager. Even though ecological ethics necessarily draws from the principles and commitments of mainstream environmental ethics, it is normatively pluralistic, including as well the frameworks of animal, research, and professional ethics. It is also methodologically pragmatic, focused on the practical problems of researchers and managers and informed by these problems in turn. The ecological ethics model offers environmental scientists and practitioners a useful analytical tool for identifying, clarifying, and harmonizing values and positions in challenging ecological research and management situations. Just as bioethics provides a critical intellectual and problem-solving service to the biomedical community, ecological ethics can help inform and improve ethical decision making in the ecology and conservation communities.

Keywords

Applied ethics Ecology Conservation Case studies 

References

  1. 1.
    Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2005a). Ecological ethics: Building a new tool kit for ecologists and biodiversity managers. Conservation Biology, 19, 1803–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2005b). Why we need an ecological ethics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 332–337.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D’Antonio, C. M. (2000). Fire, plant invasions, and global changes. In H. A. Mooney & R. J. Hobbs (Eds.), Invasive species in a changing world (pp. 65–93). Covelo, CA: Island Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Merriam, K. E., McGinnis, T. W., & Keeley, J. E. (2004). The role of fire and fire management in the invasion of nonnative plants in California. Park Science, 22: 32–36; 52.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keeley, J. E. (2006). Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the Western United States. Conservation Biology, 20, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dudley, T. L., DeLoach, C. J., Lovich, J. E., & Carruthers, R. I. (2000). Saltcedar invasion of western riparian areas: Impacts and new prospects for control. In R. E. McCabe & S. E. Loos (Eds.), Transaction of the Sixty-Fifth North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference (pp. 345–381). Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zavaleta, E. S., Hobbs, R. J., & Mooney, H. A. (2001). Viewing invasive species removal in a whole-ecosystem context. TRENDS in Ecology & Evolution, 16, 454–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoddle, M. S. (2004). Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conservation Biology, 18, 38–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McCoy, E. D., & Berry, K. (2008). Using an ecological ethics framework to make decisions about the relocation of wildlife. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9091-4.
  10. 10.
    Norton, B. G. (2008). Beyond positivist ecology: Toward an integrated ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9095-0.
  11. 11.
    Frodeman, R. (2008). Redefining ecological ethics: Science, policy, and philosophy at cape horn. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9100-7.
  12. 12.
    Curry, P. (2006). Ecological ethics: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Routley, R. (1973). Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic? Proceedings, 15th World Congress of Philosophy, 1, 205–210.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s responsibility for nature: Ecological problems and western traditions. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 6, 131–148.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rolston, H., III. (1986). Philosophy gone wild: Essays in environmental ethics. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rolston, H., III. (1988). Environmental ethics: Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rolston, H., III. (1994). Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Callicott, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Callicott, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westra, Laura. (1994). An environmental proposal for ethics: The principle of integrity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Katz, E. (1997). Nature as subject: Human obligation and natural community. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stone, C. (1987). Earth and other ethics: The case for moral pluralism. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Callicott, J. B. (1990). The case against moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 12, 99–124.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Varner, G. E. (1991). No holism without pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 13, 175–179.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norton, B. G. (1995). Why I am not a nonanthropocentrist: Callicott and the failure of monistic inherentism. Environmental Ethics, 17, 341–358.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Callicott, J. B. (1980). Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics, 2, 311–338.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sagoff, M. (1984). Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage, quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 297–307.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Katz, E. (1991). Defending the use of animals by business: Animal liberation and environmental ethics. In W. M. Hoffman, R. Frederick, & E. S. Petry Jr. (Eds.), Business, ethics and the environment: The public policy debate (pp. 223–232). New York: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Varner, G. E. (1995). Can animal rights activists be environmentalists? In D. Marietta & L. Embree (Eds.), Environmental ethics and environmental activism (pp. 169–201). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jamieson, D. (1998). Animal liberation is an environmental ethic. Environmental Values, 7, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Varner, G. (1998). In nature’s interests? Interests, animal rights, and environmental ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Elliot, R. (1997). Faking nature: The ethics of environmental restoration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Light, A. (2000). Ecological restoration and the culture of nature: A pragmatic perspective. In P. Gobster & B. R. Hull (Eds.), Restoring nature: Perspectives from the social sciences and humanities (pp. 49–70). Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Norton, B. G. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Light, A., & Katz, E. (Eds.). (1996). Environmental pragmatism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Frodeman, R. (2006). The policy turn in environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics, 28, 3–20.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1993). Method in ecology: Strategies for conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1999). Molecular systematics, ethics, and biological decision making under uncertainty. Conservation Biology, 13, 1008–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Norton, B. G., Hutchins, M., Stevens, E. F., & Maple, T. L. (Eds.). (1995). Ethics on the ark: Zoos, animal welfare, and wildlife conservation. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bekoff, M., & Jamieson, D. (1996). Ethics and the study of carnivores: Doing science while respecting animals. In J. L. Gittleman (Ed.), Carnivore behavior, ecology, and evolution (pp. 15–45). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Farnsworth, E. J., & Rosovsky, J. (1993). The ethics of ecological field experimentation. Conservation Biology, 7, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marsh, H., & Kenchington, R. (2004). The role of ethics in experimental marine biology and ecology. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 300, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Swart, J. A. A. (2004). The wild animal as a research animal. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 17, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Varner, G. E. (2008). Utilitarianism and the evolution of ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9102-5.
  47. 47.
    National Research Council. (2003). Decline of the Steller sea lion in Alaskan waters: Untangling food webs and fishing nets. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Young, S. 2005. “Weird Science: HSUS Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Invasive Research on Threatened Steller Sea Lions,” press release, Humane Society of the United States, http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/weird_science.html
  49. 49.
    Lee, J. J. (2005). Animal rights group sues over Steller sea lion research. Seattle Times, 7/14/05, http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=websealions14&date=20050714&query=lee+steller+sea+lion. Accessed 8/31/08.
  50. 50.
    Anonymous. (2006). Court settlement puts sea lions back under scrutiny. Nature, 442, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dalton, R. (2005). Animal-rights group sues over ‘disturbing’ work on sea lions. Nature, 436, 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dalton, R. (2006). Sea-lion studies come to halt after court judgment. Nature, 441, 677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Thompson, P. B. (2008). Agrarian philosophy and ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9094-1.
  54. 54.
    Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Life SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations