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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Although there is a potentially important distinction to be made between “applied” and “practical” ethics, these terms are used interchangeably here.
“Ecological” refers here to the biological and ecological research commonly conducted within the domain of the life sciences. The ecological ethics framework, however, can certainly also accommodate the dilemmas and norms of the technical and physical environmental sciences such as environmental engineering, environmental toxicology, and related fields.
See Keeley [5] for a framing of this particular issue in the conservation science community.
The term “ecological ethics” is often used in different ways. Most commonly, it is employed as a synonym for “environmental ethics” to describe in general the moral position dealing with values or duties toward various elements of the natural world. But it is also used as a description of a particular form of environmental ethics, e.g., one or another strand of ecotheology, or deep ecology/biocentrism (e.g., [12]. “Ecological ethics” is used here to refer not to a substantive philosophical view or an ideological stance, but to describe a practical and professional ethics for ecologists and conservationists--and thus is roughly on the same logical and institutional plane as biomedical ethics, environmental ethics, engineering ethics, and so on.
References
Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2005a). Ecological ethics: Building a new tool kit for ecologists and biodiversity managers. Conservation Biology, 19, 1803–1812.
Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2005b). Why we need an ecological ethics. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 3, 332–337.
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.
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.
Keeley, J. E. (2006). Fire management impacts on invasive plants in the Western United States. Conservation Biology, 20, 375–384.
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.
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.
Hoddle, M. S. (2004). Restoring balance: Using exotic species to control invasive exotic species. Conservation Biology, 18, 38–49.
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.
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.
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.
Curry, P. (2006). Ecological ethics: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Routley, R. (1973). Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic? Proceedings, 15th World Congress of Philosophy, 1, 205–210.
Passmore, J. (1974). Man’s responsibility for nature: Ecological problems and western traditions. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 6, 131–148.
Rolston, H., III. (1986). Philosophy gone wild: Essays in environmental ethics. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Rolston, H., III. (1988). Environmental ethics: Duties to and values in the natural world. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Rolston, H., III. (1994). Conserving natural value. New York: Columbia University Press.
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Callicott, J. B. (1989). In defense of the land ethic: Essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Callicott, J. B. (1999). Beyond the land ethic: More essays in environmental philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Westra, Laura. (1994). An environmental proposal for ethics: The principle of integrity. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Katz, E. (1997). Nature as subject: Human obligation and natural community. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Stone, C. (1987). Earth and other ethics: The case for moral pluralism. New York: Harper and Row.
Callicott, J. B. (1990). The case against moral pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 12, 99–124.
Varner, G. E. (1991). No holism without pluralism. Environmental Ethics, 13, 175–179.
Norton, B. G. (1995). Why I am not a nonanthropocentrist: Callicott and the failure of monistic inherentism. Environmental Ethics, 17, 341–358.
Callicott, J. B. (1980). Animal liberation: A triangular affair. Environmental Ethics, 2, 311–338.
Sagoff, M. (1984). Animal liberation and environmental ethics: Bad marriage, quick divorce. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 22, 297–307.
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.
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.
Jamieson, D. (1998). Animal liberation is an environmental ethic. Environmental Values, 7, 41–57.
Varner, G. (1998). In nature’s interests? Interests, animal rights, and environmental ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elliot, R. (1997). Faking nature: The ethics of environmental restoration. London: Routledge.
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.
Norton, B. G. (1991). Toward unity among environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.
Light, A., & Katz, E. (Eds.). (1996). Environmental pragmatism. London: Routledge.
Frodeman, R. (2006). The policy turn in environmental ethics. Environmental Ethics, 28, 3–20.
Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1993). Method in ecology: Strategies for conservation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1999). Molecular systematics, ethics, and biological decision making under uncertainty. Conservation Biology, 13, 1008–1012.
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.
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.
Farnsworth, E. J., & Rosovsky, J. (1993). The ethics of ecological field experimentation. Conservation Biology, 7, 463–472.
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.
Swart, J. A. A. (2004). The wild animal as a research animal. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 17, 181–197.
Varner, G. E. (2008). Utilitarianism and the evolution of ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9102-5.
National Research Council. (2003). Decline of the Steller sea lion in Alaskan waters: Untangling food webs and fishing nets. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
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
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.
Anonymous. (2006). Court settlement puts sea lions back under scrutiny. Nature, 442, 121.
Dalton, R. (2005). Animal-rights group sues over ‘disturbing’ work on sea lions. Nature, 436, 315.
Dalton, R. (2006). Sea-lion studies come to halt after court judgment. Nature, 441, 677.
Thompson, P. B. (2008). Agrarian philosophy and ecological ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(4). doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9094-1.
Leopold, A. (1949). A sand county Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
Research for this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF grant # SES 0527937). The authors would also like to thank Stephanie Bird, Kim Cuddington, and Elizabeth Farnsworth for their helpful suggestions and comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Minteer, B.A., Collins, J.P. From Environmental to Ecological Ethics: Toward a Practical Ethics for Ecologists and Conservationists. Sci Eng Ethics 14, 483–501 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9087-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9087-0