The argument
"We need an environmental ethics, with rules about how to treat the environment. If we need it, then the environment has intrinsic value. And so the sentience standard is wrong."
Two things with the same name
The author shows "environmental ethics" can mean two things:
- a field of study: thinking about what's right and wrong in our actions that affect the environment;
- an environmentalist position: the idea that things that don't feel, like ecosystems, have intrinsic value.
Needing to study something doesn't settle the answer
Asking a meaningful question doesn't decide what the answer is. "Is there life on Mars?" is a question that makes sense. That doesn't mean the answer is "yes."
In the same way, needing a field that studies our actions toward the environment doesn't prove the environment has intrinsic value.
Why do we need to think about the environment?
Maybe we need to precisely because the beings who feel are affected by what we do to the environment they live in. Polluting a river harms the fish, the birds, and the people who depend on it.
One alternative is an ethics of environmental management: taking care of or changing the environment according to what's best for sentient beings.
In short
- "Environmental ethics" can be a field of study or a position.
- Needing to study something doesn't settle the answer.
- We can take care of the environment for the good of the beings who feel.