Volume V · Differences Between Environmentalism and Consideration for Animals · chapter 2
The divergence concerns ends, not only means
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
The difference between environmentalism and animal advocacy lies in the ends, not just the means: considering individuals isn't always preferring one over many, and considering “the whole” isn't considering the majority, but abstract entities.
Lots of people think environmentalists and animal advocates want the same thing and only disagree about how to get there. But they want different things: some want each animal to be well; others want the species or the ecosystem to be a certain way.
A coach who wants the team to win the championship and a doctor who wants each player healthy may often agree, but they have different goals. Sometimes the coach tells someone to play hurt.
- P1 Environmentalism and animal advocacy are often seen as having the same goal and differing only in means.
- P2 In fact, animal advocacy values sentient beings, and environmentalism values species and ecosystems.
- P3 Considering individuals is compatible both with saving the majority and with other positions; considering “the whole” isn't considering the majority.
- C Therefore, the disagreement is about ends.
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 kills a few to save many animals; animal advocacy only thinks about the individual.”
Answer The goal of environmentalist programs isn't to save sentient beings, whether many or few, but to maintain certain configurations of ecosystems. And among animal advocates, some accept and some reject killing one to save many.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume V, p. 12 of the PDF edition · English translation
2.1. Different goals
All around the world there are environmentalist programs to exterminate in the name of preserving ideals such as and 20. These programs enjoy wide acceptance, including among people who care about animals. One of the reasons this happens is the prevalence of a mistaken idea about what the goals of environmentalism are. According to this idea, kill a good number of animals now only because this is the only way to ensure that, from then on, there will not be an even greater amount of suffering and death for animals. According to this view, animal advocacy and environmentalism share the same goal (achieving the best world for animals), but disagree about the means of achieving it.
However, what environmentalism aims at in killing animals is not a better world for animals. The fundamental divergence between these two perspectives concerns ends, not means. In views centered on respect for animals, what is valued intrinsically is the good of individuals, that is, of beings capable of suffering and enjoyment. In these views the environment is valued as a resource for these beings. In the vast majority of environmentalist positions, exactly the opposite occurs: what is valued intrinsically are certain nonsentient entities, such as species (and not their members) and ecosystems (and not their inhabitants). Environmentalism holds that these entities have intrinsic value. This means that environmentalism does not aim to preserve the environment as a resource for animals. On the contrary, in most environmentalist positions it is animals that are seen as mere specimens of species and as mere resources for maintaining ecosystems21.
It is precisely for this reason that, as we saw in chapter 1, environmentalists generally support the consumption of animals, animal experimentation, hunting, and in general. In doing so, they are not being inconsistent with the environmentalist ideal. Quite the contrary: it is the environmentalist ideal itself that does not value the good of animals intrinsically. Environmentalists who advocate killing animals are merely putting this ideal into practice.
2.2. What "considering individuals" and "considering wholes" mean
If it is so evident that consideration for animals and environmentalism have opposing goals, why is the idea that they share the same goal but disagree about the means of achieving it so prevalent? At least part of this confusion is due to a mistaken interpretation of the following statement: "animal advocacy is centered on consideration for individuals, while environmentalism is usually centered on consideration for wholes". We will see more about this below.
This statement is sometimes interpreted as meaning that, if the only way to save many individuals is to kill a minority, then animal advocacy would oppose such an action and environmentalism would approve of it. That is, "consideration for individuals" is interpreted as "prioritizing one individual (or a minority) over many", and "consideration for wholes" is interpreted as "prioritizing the majority".
This is mistaken for two reasons. First, because among the various perspectives centered on consideration for animals as individuals, there is disagreement about the right action in cases where the only way to save a majority is to kill a minority. There are both perspectives holding that in such cases killing the minority is justified and perspectives holding that it is not22. Second, it is mistaken because, as we have seen, environmentalism is not centered on consideration for individuals, whether a minority or a majority. Considering wholes, in environmentalism, does not mean considering the sum of individuals. Below is a more detailed explanation of what it means to consider individuals and to consider wholes in each of these positions.
What it really means to say that consideration for animals is centered on consideration for individuals is that actions will be judged right or wrong depending on how they affect sentient beings (that is, individuals, those capable of having positive and negative experiences). Whether, in cases of dilemmas, a position of this kind will prioritize the majority or the minority is a separate question. There are many variants of sentience-centered positions23.
In turn, what it really means to say that environmentalism is generally centered on consideration for wholes (such as ecosystems and species) is not that it prioritizes a majority of individuals or the sum of individuals, but rather that actions will be judged right or wrong depending on how they affect these nonsentient wholes (which environmentalism values intrinsically, and not as a resource for sentient beings). For example, environmentalism will hold that, as long as an action does not threaten the stability of an ecosystem and/or does not put a species at risk of extinction (or does not in some other way alter certain properties of these ecosystems or species considered valuable), there is nothing wrong with that action, even if its result is, from then on, a worse world for sentient beings (with more suffering, more premature deaths, and so on).
One piece of evidence that this is not consideration for the majority or for the sum of individuals is that, according to these positions, as long as the species does not go extinct, there is no problem at all with killing as many individuals as one wishes. In fact, the smaller the population of a species, the harder environmentalist perspectives will work to preserve it – not because they value the minority of individuals, but because in that case the risk of extinction of the species (which, for its part, is valued intrinsically) is greater. That is, in these positions individuals are valued only as resources for maintaining the existence of species or ecosystems.
All of this shows that the fundamental divergence between consideration for animals and environmentalism concerns what is being aimed at. That is, it is not that they share the same goal and disagree about the means of achieving it: they have completely divergent goals.
Once we are clear on this point, we can move on to the next question: depending on the situation, could one and the same means help achieve both goals? If so, how often would this happen? We will discuss this in the next chapter.
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
In environmentalism, “considering the whole” means...
Among animal advocates, killing a minority to save a majority is...
Food for thought
If a species were saved at the cost of great suffering by its own members, who would have been saved?
Author’s notes 4
- 20 For examples, see note 19. ↩
- 21 Some positions combine environmentalist criteria with the criterion of sentience. These positions give direct moral consideration to nonsentient entities and also to nonhuman animals as sentient beings. They are, therefore, hybrid positions. However, although this is not a necessary implication of these positions, they commonly see the good of nonhuman animals as less important than the preservation of the nonsentient entities they value intrinsically. For example, views that adopt environmentalist criteria, whether or not they give some consideration to animals, generally approve of the slaughter of nonhuman animals to preserve these nonsentient entities. See, for example, the positions of (1994, p. 13-4); (1998); (1999, p. 260-1), and Warren (2000a, p. 228). ↩
- 22 For an example of this divergence, see, for example, the positions of (2002 [1993]) and (2000). ↩
- 23 Consideration for sentient beings has been defended from the most varied perspectives in ethics: utilitarianism (SINGER, 2002 [1993]; MATHENY, 2006); rights theories (REGAN, 1983; FRANCIONE, 2000); egalitarianism (GOMPERTZ, 1997[1824]; FARIA, 2014; HORTA, 2016), prioritarianism (HOLTUG, 2007); sufficientarianism (CRISP, 2003); suffering-focused ethics (VINDING, 2020); negative consequentialism (PEARCE, 2017); ethics of care (ADAMS; DONOVAN, 1996); the capabilities approach (NUSSBAUM, 2006); virtue ethics (ROLLIN, 1981; DOMBROWSKI 1985; NOBIS 2002; HURSTHOUSE 2006; ABBATE 2014); Kantianism (FRANKLIN, 2005; KORSGAARD, 2005); neo-Kantianism (PLUHAR, 1995), and Rawlsian contractualism (VANDEVEER, 1979; ROWLANDS, 1998). Other authors (CLARK, 1977; SAPONTZIS, 1987) have defended animals by combining several perspectives in ethics. For a comparison of several of these approaches, see Ética Animal (2015f) and (2022b). ↩
Sources cited in this text 7
The full list for the volume is in the Volume V references.
- CALLICOTT, J. B. The Land Ethic: Key Philosophical and Scientific Challenges. Ideas Matter Lecture Series: The Legacy of Aldo Leopold. Corvallis: Oregon State University, 1998.
- CUNHA, L. C. A igualdade, suas várias interpretações, e a ética interespécies. In: BARBOSA-FOHRMANN, A. P.; LOURENÇO, D. B.; AUBERT, A. C. P. (orgs.). Estudos e direitos dos animais: teorias e desafios. Porto Alegre: Editora Fi, 2022b, p. 104-128.
- FRANCIONE, G. Introduction to animal rights: your child or the dog? Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.
- HETTINGER, N. Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers versus Tree Huggers. Environmental Ethics, v. 16, n. 1, p. 3-20, 1994.
- SINGER, P. Ética Prática. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2002 [1979].
- WARREN, M. A. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and other Livings Things. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000a.
- ÉTICA ANIMAL. Teorias éticas e animais não humanos. Ética Animal: ativismo e investigação em defesa dos animais, 08 dez. 2015f.
This chapter in Volume XII
How the author sums up this debate in The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
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).
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).
Recommended texts
Keep exploring Differences Between Environmentalism and Consideration for Animals.
Despite their differences, do animal advocacy and environmentalism converge in practice?
Animal advocacy and environmentalism sometimes converge, but not always: the environment can be preserved…
The divergence does not lie in a focus on the short or the long term
The difference between the two positions isn't that one thinks short-term and the other long-term: concern…
Do ecological balance and biodiversity coincide with what is best for animals?
Ecological balance (the stability of populations) and biodiversity (the variety of species) don't measure…