Environmental Ethics

The environmental crisis — climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, resource depletion — is arguably the defining moral challenge of the twenty-first century. Environmental ethics examines the moral relationship between human beings and the natural world. Do we have moral obligations to nature? Is the natural world valuable only insofar as it serves human interests, or does it have intrinsic value? This lesson explores the key concepts, religious perspectives, and philosophical frameworks for thinking about our responsibilities to the environment.

Stewardship

The concept of stewardship is the most widely held religious approach to the environment. It holds that human beings are not the owners of the earth but its stewards or caretakers, entrusted by God with the responsibility to care for creation on God\'s behalf.

Biblical basis: Genesis 2:15 states that God placed Adam in the Garden of Eden "to work it and take care of it." This verse is the foundation of the stewardship model — humanity has been given responsibility for the earth but must exercise that responsibility wisely and sustainably.
Accountability: As stewards, human beings are accountable to God for how they treat creation. The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30) illustrates the principle that God\'s gifts must be used wisely and productively — squandering or abusing them is a betrayal of trust.
Islamic stewardship (khalifah): In Islam, human beings are khalifah — vicegerents or trustees of the earth on behalf of Allah. The Quran states: "It is He who has made you vicegerents of the earth" (Quran 6:165). Muslims have a duty to maintain the balance (mizan) of creation and not to cause corruption (fasad) on the earth.
Jewish stewardship (bal tashchit): The principle of bal tashchit ("do not destroy") derives from Deuteronomy 20:19, which prohibits the destruction of fruit trees during a siege. This has been expanded in rabbinical tradition into a general prohibition against needless waste and environmental destruction.

Dominion

The concept of dominion derives from Genesis 1:28, where God commands humanity to "fill the earth and subdue it" and to "have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing." This text has been interpreted in two very different ways:

Exploitative dominion: The historian Lynn White Jr. (1907–1987), in his influential article "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis" (1967), argued that Christianity bears "a huge burden of guilt" for the environmental crisis. The doctrine of dominion, White argued, encouraged the view that nature exists solely for human use and exploitation, stripping the natural world of any sacred significance. White traced the roots of Western technological domination of nature to the Christian belief that God gave humanity absolute authority over the earth.
Responsible dominion: Many theologians have responded to White by arguing that "dominion" does not mean exploitation but responsible governance. Dominion is modelled on God\'s own care for creation — it is a kingly authority exercised with wisdom, justice, and love, not a licence for destruction. The Hebrew word radah (dominion) implies the care of a shepherd for a flock, not the tyranny of a despot.

Deep Ecology

Deep ecology, developed by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess (1912–2009) in 1973, challenges the anthropocentric (human-centred) assumptions of traditional environmental ethics. Deep ecology holds that:

The non-human world has intrinsic value — value that is independent of its usefulness to human beings. Every living organism has a right to flourish, regardless of its utility.
The richness and diversity of life forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and non-human life on earth.
Human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening. A fundamental change in policies and values is necessary.
Deep ecology calls for a radical shift from an anthropocentric worldview (nature exists for human benefit) to a biocentric or ecocentric worldview (all life has equal moral standing).

Criticisms of deep ecology: Critics argue that biocentrism is impractical — if all life has equal value, then farming, medicine, and even breathing (which kills microorganisms) become morally problematic. Deep ecology has also been criticised for potentially devaluing human life and for romanticising pre-industrial societies.

Environmental Ethics