Volume XII · The Essentials of Animal Ethics · chapter 5
Differences Between Environmentalism and Consideration for Animals
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Environmentalism and consideration for animals have different ultimate goals: one values certain configurations of ecosystems and species in themselves; the other, the well-being of sentient beings. Balance, biodiversity, and "looking at the whole" are not the same as caring for animals.
Taking care of "nature the right way" is different from taking care of animals. The table shows how these two things get mixed up and why they do not always go together.
Preserving a historic house and caring for the people who live in it are different goals: sometimes they coincide, sometimes not.
- P1 The anthropocentric position wants the environment to be better for humans; the sentience-centered one, better for sentient beings; the environmentalist one, kept in certain configurations even if that is worse for them.
- P2 Environmentalist programs do not aim to save sentient beings, whether they are the majority or the minority.
- P3 Balance and biodiversity do not measure the well-being of animals.
- C So environmentalism and animal advocacy differ in their ends, not just in their means.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “Environmentalism and animal advocacy want the same thing; they only disagree about the means.”
Answer They have different goals. Animal advocacy values the well-being of sentient beings; environmentalism values nonsentient entities such as ecosystems and species.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume XII, p. 18 of the PDF edition · English translation
The term “” is applied to views that are very different from one another. Sometimes it is used to refer to positions that aim to preserve the environment as a resource for humans or for animals of other species. At other times it is used to refer to positions holding that certain nonsentient entities (such as ecosystems and species, for example) have value in themselves, and not as a resource. In what follows, we will use the term “environmentalism” in this second sense, since it is these perspectives18 that are usually confused with the defense of animals, and the aim of this section is to make their differences explicit19. Much of the confusion arises from failing to see what the ultimate goals of each of these views are (that is, which things are valued in themselves) and which things are valued only as a means to achieve these goals. The following table sets out the ultimate goals of each of these positions:
| Position | The environment should be maintained... |
|---|---|
| Anthropocentric | In the configuration that is best for humans |
| Sentience-centered | In the configuration that is best for sentient beings in general |
| Environmentalist | In certain configurations*, even if this is worse for sentient beings in general |
*Each variant of environmentalism values different configurations20. Examples of criteria used are: the degree of complexity, rarity, the time it took to form, how little it has been modified by human actions, and its degree of aesthetic properties.
Most programs and legislation concerning have environmentalist goals. This is due in part to the predominance of the idea that animals do not matter individually (only ecosystems and species do). In these programs, animals will be harmed or benefited depending on what is most efficient for achieving environmentalist goals21. However, environmentalist programs are commonly misunderstood as aiming to benefit beings. The following tables clarify the main confusions about this question.
| Mistaken common belief | What each position actually aims at |
|---|---|
| Environmentalism and animal advocacy both aim at the good of animals, but disagree about the means to achieve this goal: environmentalism agrees with killing a minority to save the majority, and animal advocacy disagrees. When environmentalist programs kill animals, they do so because this is the only way to save many animals from then on (that is their goal). (V, ch. 2 and 8). | Environmentalism and animal advocacy have different goals. Animal advocacy values in itself the well-being of sentient beings. Environmentalism values in themselves nonsentient entities, such as ecosystems or species. The goal of environmentalism is to keep ecosystems in certain configurations it values, even if this is not what is best for their inhabitants. The goal of environmentalist programs is not to save sentient beings (whether the majority or the minority). Among animal advocates, on the other hand, there are both those who defend killing a minority if that is the only way to save a majority and those who reject this position. |
| Animal advocacy is centered on individuals, and environmentalism is centered on the “whole” (such as species and ecosystems). This means that environmentalism prioritizes saving the majority of sentient beings, even if this requires killing a minority (since it prioritizes the whole), and animal advocacy opposes this (since it prioritizes the individual). (V, ch. 2 and 8). | Consideration for individuals does not necessarily imply prioritizing one individual over many. It means only that the focus of moral consideration is sentient beings (that is, individuals), and not nonsentient entities. This is compatible both with positions that prioritize saving the majority and with those that prioritize the minority under certain conditions (for example, because they are in a worse situation). Likewise, consideration for the “whole,” as found in environmentalism, is not consideration for the majority (or for any individual). It is consideration for the species as an abstract entity (and not for its members) and for ecosystems (and not for their inhabitants). |
| Animal advocacy defends helping wild animals without worrying about the consequences, and environmentalism prescribes not helping them for fear that doing so could cause even more suffering. (V, ch. 4). | The difference between these positions has nothing to do with one of them considering the long term and the other not. Both can consider the long term. What distinguishes them is their goals. Claiming that a certain form of help should not be carried out because it could cause more suffering in the long term is a concern for sentient beings (and is therefore not an environmentalist concern). |
| Despite their differences, environmentalism and animal advocacy converge in practice, since animals need the environment, and environmentalism aims to preserve it. (V, ch. 3). | This will happen in some cases, but not in others. It is possible to preserve the environment in the most diverse configurations. The configurations sought by environmentalism often do not coincide with the one that is best (or even good) for animals. |
| The greater the degree of ecological balance and biodiversity, the better for animals. That is why environmentalists aim at these things: because their goal is the good of animals. (V, ch. 5). | Environmentalism does not value ecological balance and biodiversity out of concern for the good of animals. It values these things in themselves, or as a means of keeping ecosystems in certain configurations (which are what it values in themselves). Moreover, a greater degree of balance and/or biodiversity often does not coincide with what is best (or even minimally good) for animals. These concepts are based, respectively, on variation in population size over time and on the diversity of species. This does not indicate that the well-being of animals in these situations is necessarily positive. |
| Environmentalism is scientifically informed by ecology, whereas animal advocacy is anti-scientific. (V, ch. 6, VII, ch. 19). | In fact, any normative view needs to be scientifically well informed since, otherwise, it will not achieve the goals it pursues. Ecology is a science that describes how interactions in ecosystems take place. This knowledge can be used in an attempt to pursue environmentalist goals, but it can also be used in an attempt to benefit sentient beings. |
| If it is shown that ecosystems and species have value in themselves, then it is justified to kill animals to preserve species and ecosystems, and it is also wrong to help animals when they are victims of natural processes. (V, ch. 10). | No, because to support such conclusions it would be necessary not only to show that such nonsentient entities have value in themselves, but also that their preservation is more important than preventing the suffering and death of sentient beings. Moreover, there are reasons to prioritize sentient beings, since no nonsentient entity is capable of suffering or of being prevented by death from enjoying things – very serious harms. |
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
According to the table, how does each position want the environment to be maintained?
"Environmentalism is scientific; animal advocacy is not." What is the answer?
Food for thought
What environmental campaign do you know of that might not be good for the animals living in that place?
Author’s notes 4
- 18 For examples of these perspectives, see (1980) and (1999). ↩
- 19 This was the subject of Volume V of this collection. On this, see also (2019). ↩
- 20 These many variants are represented in the anthology edited by Zimmerman et. al. (1993). ↩
- 21 For a discussion of these programs, see (2004) and (2012). ↩
Sources cited in this text 4
The full list for the volume is in the Volume XII references.
- CALLICOTT, J. B. Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair. Environmental Ethics, v. 2, n. 4, p. 311-338, 1980.
- FARIA, C. Muerte entre las flores: el conflicto entre el ambientalismo y la defensa de los animales no humanos. Viento Sur, v. 125, p. 67-76, 2012.
- SHELTON. J. A. Killing Animals That Don´t Fit In: Moral Dimensions of Habitat Restoration. Between the Species, v. 13, n. 4, 2004.
- ZIMMERMAN, M. E.; CALLICOTT, J. B.; SESSIONS, G.; WARREN, K. J.; CLARK, J. (orgs.). Environmental Philosophy: From Animal Rights to Radical Ecology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1993.
Go deeper on each point
The chapters the author points to in the tables above.
- Vol. V The divergence concerns ends, not only means
- Vol. V What do environmentalist extermination programs aim at?
- Vol. V The divergence does not lie in a focus on the short or the long term
- Vol. V Despite their differences, do animal advocacy and environmentalism converge in practice?
- Vol. V Do ecological balance and biodiversity coincide with what is best for animals?
- Vol. V Animal advocacy and environmentalism: the divergence is ethical, not scientific
- Vol. V Questioning environmentalist assumptions
Recommended texts
Keep exploring The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
The Situation of Wild Animals and the Proposal to Help Them
The proposal to help wild animals rests on the idea that the strength of our reasons depends on the…
The Debate on the Proposal to Help Wild Animals (Part 1)
The table answers the most common objections to helping wild animals: outside the scope of ethics,…
The Debate on the Proposal to Help Wild Animals (Part 2)
The second set of objections to helping wild animals denies our responsibility or questions practicality;…