Respect for animals and environmentalism: complementary or opposed?

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume V, p. 7 of the PDF edition · English translation

1.1. Basic differences in foundations

Animal advocacy is often seen as a form of environmentalism. It is also not uncommon for animal advocacy and environmentalism to be seen as complementary perspectives, though different ones. Below we will see why both beliefs are mistaken. Consideration for animals and environmentalism are grounded in diametrically opposed ideals, which very often generate conflicting prescriptions in practice¹.

To understand this divergence, it is essential to define what we mean by environmentalism, since the term is used in several different senses. For example, there are positions holding that the value of the environment lies in its being an important resource for humans² or for sentient beings in general³ (that is, for all beings capable of suffering and enjoyment). These positions are sometimes called environmentalist. By contrast, there are positions holding that at least some aspects of the environment (such as ecosystems or species) have intrinsic value (that is, that they have value regardless of whether or not they benefit sentient beings). These positions are also called environmentalist.

In the first type of position, the center of moral concern is not the environment (which is seen as a resource, a means, whether for humans or for sentient beings in general, depending on the position). For this reason, throughout this work we will use the term environmentalist positions only for those of the second type, since in these the center of moral concern is the environment itself (or at least certain aspects of it). It is these positions that are often confused with consideration for animals. Below we will see why consideration for animals and environmentalism start from diametrically opposed foundations.

Environmentalist positions advocate preserving the environment not because animals need it as a resource. On the contrary: in most environmentalist positions it is animals that are seen as mere resources for preserving nonsentient entities such as

species and ecosystems. For this reason, these positions will advocate keeping the environment in a certain configuration, even if what is best for the animals living there would be to keep it in another.

Consideration for animals, by contrast, is grounded in respect for them as sentient individuals, capable of having positive and negative experiences. The aim is to avoid harming them and to seek to benefit them, and the environment is seen as a resource for them. It is a proposal to extend to nonhuman animals what is already accepted for humans: respecting individuals, preventing them from suffering, preventing them from dying. In environmentalist positions, by contrast, what is valued intrinsically are certain nonsentient entities.

Thus, the key concepts for understanding the differences in foundations between consideration for animals and environmentalism are the concepts of intrinsic value and instrumental value. The main divergence is this: what animal advocacy values intrinsically (the good of animals), environmentalism values only instrumentally (in order to preserve species or ecosystems); on the other hand, what environmentalism values intrinsically (certain aspects of the environment), consideration for animals values only instrumentally (as a resource for sentient beings).

1.2. Variants of environmentalism

1.2.1. Regarding which entities have intrinsic value

Environmentalist positions differ from one another in several respects⁴. One of these concerns which nonsentient entities are valued intrinsically. In this regard, environmentalist positions are usually classified as either holist or biocentrist⁵.

In holism⁶, what is valued intrinsically are wholes such as ecosystems or species. It is important not to confuse this with valuing the inhabitants of ecosystems and the members of species. What is valued in holism are ecosystems or species as nonsentient entities. This means that, according to these approaches, as long as the ecosystem or the species does not go extinct (or does not have its properties that environmentalism considers valuable altered), there is no problem at all with killing a large number of animals (since according to these positions individuals have no intrinsic value, but only value as components of ecosystems and/or specimens of species). Biocentrism⁷, by contrast, values intrinsically each individual living organism (each animal, each fungus, each plant, and so on). In this sense, the main difference is between environmentalist approaches centered on valuing wholes and those centered on valuing each organism.

1.2.2. Regarding what gives them value

The various environmentalist positions also diverge regarding what makes an entity acquire intrinsic value. These characteristics are also usually used to measure the degree of that value. Commonly used criteria include⁸: degree of rarity; of complexity; of biodiversity; of ecological balance; the time it took to form; the degree to which it exhibits certain aesthetic properties; the degree to which it represents certain ideals; not having originated from human practices; the degree to which it has not been altered by humans; the degree to which it contains only animals and plants of species native to the area; and so on.

These criteria are used by both holist and biocentrist approaches. For example, one commonly used criterion is the degree to which the entity in question has not been altered by humans (the less altered, the more value is assigned). This criterion is used both by some holist approaches⁹ (to say which ecosystems and/or species have intrinsic value and how great that value is) and by some biocentrist approaches¹⁰ (to say which animals, plants, or fungi have intrinsic value and how great that value is).

Despite all these differences, what makes all these positions examples of environmentalism is that they value some kind of nonsentient entity intrinsically.

1.3. Animal ethics and environmental ethics

The difference between consideration for animals and environmentalism is also reflected in the distinction between animal ethics and environmental ethics. As we have seen, the moral consideration of nonhuman animals is grounded in the criterion of sentience. Issues affecting sentient beings are what is discussed in the field of animal ethics. Environmentalist positions, on the other hand, are characterized by valuing certain nonsentient entities intrinsically (such as species, ecosystems, plants, and so on). Issues affecting nonsentient entities are what is discussed in environmental ethics, a field in which environmentalist positions predominate.

1.4. Environmentalist practices that involve exterminating animals

The theoretical divergence between environmentalism and consideration for animals has many practical implications. Below are some examples of conflicting attitudes on the part of environmentalists and animal advocates. This practical conflict arises precisely because these perspectives have opposing theoretical foundations.

First, it is not uncommon for environmentalists to advocate practices that involve causing suffering and/or death to animals. For example, as long as it is done sustainably, the consumption of animals is encouraged by many prominent environmental organizations¹¹, despite all the suffering and death it causes.

Animal experimentation is also frequently promoted by environmental groups¹², which results in an enormous number of animals being forced to suffer intensely and to die in experiments meant to test how polluting certain chemicals are in the environment¹³. There are even environmental organizations that support animal experimentation when the effect of the chemical is already known¹⁴, and that oppose the application and development of methods that substitute for the use of animals¹⁵.

Many of the leading proponents of environmentalism are advocates of hunting¹⁶. They argue that it is a way of connecting with a way of life in its natural state, of controlling populations, and of maintaining ecological balance. Some hold that hunting is something sacred¹⁷. Others go so far as to argue that hunting is not only permissible but an obligation¹⁸.

In addition, environmentalist population control programs typically involve killing animals, completely ruling out the option of sterilizing them. For example, all around the world there are environmentalist programs to exterminate animals belonging to species classified as invasive¹⁹.

These attitudes are often met with surprise. However, they should come as no surprise at all since, as we have seen, environmentalism and respect for animals start from diametrically opposed foundations. It is hardly surprising that, with such divergent foundations, the attitudes prescribed by each position conflict enormously.