Philosophy and the Environmental Crisis1

Abstract
The environmental crisis is an extremely complex problem for its
causes are many and diverse. An effective solution to this crisis will
require, among others, a concerted effort among various academic
disciplines and institutionsboth governmental and private. But for this
kind of undertaking to be successful, a clear conception of the
appropriate role(s) that each of these disciplines and institutions will
have to play in the solution of the crisis is first necessary. In this essay, I
clarify the role that the discipline of philosophy can play in this
undertaking. Accordingly, among the broad types of causes of the crisis
the physical, legal, socio-economic, and attitudinal causesit is to
the solution of the attitudinal causes that philosophy can have a
substantial impact. Furthermore, since the attitudinal causes are the
most pervasive among these causesas they significantly affect all the
other kindsthe said role of philosophy is a crucial one.
Key Words: environmental crisis, environmental philosophy, ecological crisis
Introduction
Scott Taylor, in his essay Environmental Crises: Past, Present and Future
(2009-online version, 6), defines environmental crisis as follows:
I define an Environmental Crisis as a dramatic, unexpected, and irreversible
worsening of the environment leading to significant welfare losses First, the
change has to be dramatic and rapid in its pace The environmental change
has to be "unexpected" and by this I mean it is a low probability event An
element of irreversibility is also important. If resources or nature are quick
healing then it is difficult to see how any change in the environment should be
of much concern, but if recovery would take a century or more things are quite
different. Finally, the change in the environment must produce a significant
welfare loss; therefore the scale of the damage cannot be small.
This definition shows us, among others, why we should take the environmental crisis
very seriously. We know for sure that the damages of this crisis shall be global in
1 A shorter version of this paper was read at the International Conference on Environmental
Ethics and Energy Equity Beyond 2015, held at Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok,
Thailand, on April 3, 2013. This conference was sponsored by the International Peace and
Development Ethics Center, the Eubios Ethics Institute, and the Center for Ethics of Science
and Technology (based in Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand).

scale, but we are uncertain as to when the full effect of these damages will occur.
Furthermore, it will take a long period of time for nature to recover from these
damages, despite the fact that the changes in nature that will bring them about shall
relatively be swift. And because its causes are many and diverse, the environmental
crisis is an extremely complex problem. As such, to work out an effective solution to
this crisis is not going to be easy. Among others, it will require a concerted effort
among various academic disciplines and institutions (both governmental and private).
But for such an undertaking to be successful, a prior requirement is a clear
conception of the appropriate role(s) that each of these disciplines and institutions
will have to play in the solution of the crisis. In this essay, I shall focus on the role of
philosophy. In particular, I shall identify the specific aspect of the said crisis where
solutions offered by philosophy can have a substantial impact.
The essay shall be divided into three sections. In the first section, I shall
examine some common perceptions of what philosophy and the environmental crisis
consist in. As I find some of these perceptions to be mistaken, I shall thus also
correct some of these perceptions. In the second section, I shall look into the
possible causes of the crisis. After classifying these causes into certain broad types, I
shall proceed to examine their relationships. In the third section, I shall identify which
among these broad types of causes that philosophy, given its nature as a discipline,
can properly address. After which, I shall examine some of the ethical perspectives
that philosophy provides to deal with the said crisis. On the whole, I shall show that
among the possible causes of the crisis, which I classify into four broad types,
namely the physical, legal, socio-economic, and attitudinal causes, it is to the solution
of the attitudinal type of causes that philosophys contribution is most valuable.
Furthermore, as it is the attitudinal kind of causes that is most pervasive in that it
significantly affects all the other kinds, I shall hold that the role of philosophy in the
solution of the crisis is a crucial one.
Some Common Perceptions
Philosophy, as it is often perceived, is an abstract discipline that clarifies and
evaluates the foundational concepts and theories that serve as our frameworks for
interpreting the world and for defining our relationship with it. Consequently, some

have come to believe that philosophy is only concerned with theoretical issues that
are far removed from the concerns of everyday life; typical of such issues are the
questions concerning what constitutes reality and truth, whether or not there is a
God, or whether or not humans are free in their choices. The environmental crisis, on
the other hand, is one very concrete problem that threatens the existence of the
various species, especially our own, currently inhabiting this world, and which is
brought about by very concrete causes such as pollution, depletion of our natural
resources, and global warming.
The question that naturally arises when we relate philosophy and the
environmental crisis, given the above perceptions of what constitute them, is whether
philosophy has anything substantial to contribute to the solution of the said crisis.
Even granting these perceptions of philosophy and the environmental crisis, a logical
response to the said question is that philosophy can clarify the foundational concepts
and theories that we use to interpret the environmental crisis. And surely to be able to
provide a plausible framework for understanding the nature and cause of a crisis is
already a substantial contribution towards the resolution of the crisis.
Such perceptions of philosophy and the environmental crisis, however, on
closer inspection, are not accurately correct. On the one hand, while it is true that
philosophy deals with abstract concepts these concepts can nonetheless
substantially influence how we handle our everyday issues and concerns in life.
There will surely be a big difference in how theists will handle these issues and
concerns from how atheists will handle the same, or in how libertarians will handle
such issues and concerns from how determinists will handle the same. More
importantly, however, while it is true that there is a part of philosophy that deals with
theoretical and foundational issues, there is also a part of philosophy that deals with
practical issues, such as those concerning right conduct in business dealings,
medical practices, and dealings with the non-human members of the natural
environment. This part of philosophy is what is called practical or applied philosophy,
under which fall the disciplines of bioethics, business ethics, and environmental
ethics, among others.
On the other hand, while it is likewise true that the environmental crisis is
caused by very concrete causes like pollution, resource depletion, and global

warming, it is not, however, correct to say that such is the only kind of causes that
brings about the crisis. Other causes like poverty, overpopulation, lack of appropriate
environmental laws or mechanisms to effectively enforce such laws, and beliefs like
nature is there simply for human consumption are surely possible causes of the
environmental crises as well, but which are not of the same kind, or at least not as
apparently concrete, as pollution, resource depletion, and global warming. In what
follows, we shall then examine the possible types of causes that bring about the
environmental crisis with a view of clarifying the role of philosophy in the solution of
the said crisis.
The Causes and their Relationships
The many possible causes of the environmental crisis can be broadly
classified into four types: the physical, legal, socio-economic, and attitudinal causes.
First, the physical causes refer to those that can generally be studied by the
natural/empirical sciences. They are, in this regard, observable and quantifiable, and
their processes are governed by the deterministic laws of nature. We must, however,
note that these physical causes can either be natural or human-induced. By natural
physical causes, we mean that their occurrence is brought solely by processes of
nature. This means that they happen independently of any human intervention.
These natural physical causes include, among others, the following: earthquakes,
forest fires, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, dry seasons, and pests.
On the other hand, the human-induced physical causes refer to those whose
occurrence partly results in human intervention and thus is not solely brought about
by processes of nature. Strictly speaking, we say that human intervention is a
necessary but not a sufficient element of the human-induced causes. While these
causes would not occur without human intervention, human intervention, however, is
not enough to bring these causes about. And this is because the very materials of
these causes, whose properties are determined by natural laws, are not themselves
human creations. These human-induced physical causes include, among others, the
following: pollution, global warming, depletion of natural resources, emission of toxic
substances in the atmosphere, dumping of non-biodegradable waste materials into
the oceans and rivers, and oil spills.

Now, we obviously are not accountable for the occurrence of the natural
physical causes, we can, however, do something to minimize their damaging effects.
As such, we are only responsible for this kind of causes to the extent that we are able
to minimize their effects. For instance, knowing that a strong storm is most likely to hit
a certain town, there are things that we can do to minimize the damages of this
storm. What we are directly responsible for, on the other hand, are the humaninduced type of physical causes, for their occurrence is partly due to our own doings.
In light of these considerations, when we subsequently speak of the physical causes
that we can resolve, we mean the physical damages of the natural physical causes
that we can minimize and the occurrence of the human-induced physical causes.
Second, the legal causes naturally include existing laws of the land that have
something to do with the environment. They, however, also include the absence of
laws that effectively prohibit practices damaging to the environment and of legal
mechanisms that effectively punish those that violate existing environmental laws
especially those occupying positions of power which may include public officials and
private corporations. Legal causes of the environmental crisis, in this consideration,
thus generally refer to those causes of the crisis that are within the control of the
government.
Third, the socio-economic causes are factors that are brought about by social
arrangements and the economic status of persons. Such causes include overpopulation, which naturally results in the competition over limited resources, which in
turn contributes to the depletion of these resources. Another is poverty, as a result of
which people most often prefer cheap but usually non-environment-friendly products
over expensive but usually environment-friendly products.
And fourth, the attitudinal causes refer to the beliefs held by humans about
nature that allow them or make it permissible for them to cause damages to the
natural environment. These beliefs may be personal, cultural, or even religious.
Examples of these beliefs are the beliefs that natural resources are there simply for
human consumption or to satisfy human interests; that humans can only have moral
obligations; that these moral obligations of humans can only be directed towards their
fellow humans; and that since certain aspects of nature such as certain parts of the
oceans, rivers, and the atmosphere are not owned by human individuals and thus are

not governed by property rights then we are not in any way accountable for our
actions towards them or we are not duty-bound not to pollute them.
Let us now examine how these four (broad) types of causes can be related to
one another. To begin with, it shall be observed that the physical causes are the
direct or immediate causes of the environmental crisis. Pollution, depletion of natural
resources, lack of trees, toxic substances emitted into the atmosphere, toxic
chemical wastes dumped into the ocean, and the like are what directly bring about
the environmental crisis. On the other hand, the other types of causes are the indirect
causes of the environmental crisis in that they are what bring about the physical
causes. Pollution, for instance, is brought about by causes of the other types. The
pollution of a river, for instance, can be due to the absence of an effective law
prohibiting the dumping of wastes into that river. It can also be the result of some
socio-economic causes like when people living near the river do not have the
financial means to avail of mechanisms for the proper disposal of their wastes.
Finally, it can also be the result of some wrong attitudes like the belief that there is
nothing wrong in dumping wastes into the river because nobody really owns the river
and thus no property rights would be violated in the process. In so far these physical
causes are human-induced their occurrence necessarily has legal, socio-economic,
and attitudinal factors. The reason is that human actions operate within the context of
these factors.
Let us now examine the relationships among the indirect types of causes. It is
quite clear that the socio-economic causes can themselves be caused by the legal
causes, as laws in a certain country can control or significantly affect the socioeconomic processes in that country. Issues concerning poverty and overpopulation
can be resolved by legal interventions. For instance, as earlier noted, it is usually the
case that the environment-friendly products are more expensive than the nonenvironment-friendly products. But this need not necessarily be so if the government
can make the appropriate interventions in the economics of these products. A country
may be economically poor but this may not be because it lacks natural resources.
Such a country may in fact be blessed with rich natural resources and the only
reason why it is economically poor is that its government fails to manage these
resources well. Contrast this to some countries that are not blessed with rich natural

resources and yet are doing well economically. Another, consider the case of
overpopulation. It too can be resolved to a significant degree by legal means, as what
has been done in some places where certain forms of family planning are legalized
and are actively promoted by the government.
Turning now to the attitudinal causes, we earlier noted that they can bring
about the physical causes of the environment crisispollution, for instance, can be
due to the belief that since we are not violating the property rights of some persons
when we pollute the air and the oceans (since the air and the oceans are not the
properties of particular persons) then there is nothing wrong to pollute the air and the
oceans. Now it shall be observed that the attitudinal causes can cause or significantly
affect both legal and socio-economic causes as well. Note, for instance, that the
same belief that causes pollution, as considered above, can be the same belief
responsible for certain legal and socio-economic causes of the crisis. One reason
why there is an absence of a law prohibiting companies from dumping their wastes
into a river may be the same belief that since no property rights are violated in
polluting the oceans and rivers there is thus no need to come up with laws that will
prohibit anyone from polluting the oceans and rivers. In the case of the socioeconomic causes being caused by an attitudinal cause, consider the case of
overpopulation. Such a case may be brought about, among others, by the belief that
natural resources are unlimited such that there will always be enough resources for
humans (which in turn may be brought about by a religious belief that God will always
provide for the needs of His people) however much they multiply.
In sum, the physical causes directly bring about the environmental crisis. The
attitudinal, legal, and socio-economic causes in turn bring about these physical
causes. However, the legal causes can also bring about the socio-economic causes,
and the attitudinal causes can also bring about the legal and socio-economic causes.
The conclusion that we draw here is that among these types of causes, the attitudinal
type is the most pervasive as it can bring about all the other types of causes.
Philosophys Role in Addressing the Causes
One benefit of distinguishing these four types of causes of the environmental
crisis is that it gives us a working idea of which disciplines and institutions can
properly address which aspects of the said crisis. Let us first talk about the physical,

legal, and socio-economic causes, as the attitudinal causes would first require some
elaboration. The physical causes, by virtue of their very nature, can properly be
addressed by the various natural sciences and technologyas these disciplines
focus their studies on understanding how physical processes come about. The legal
causes are, of course, properly addressed by the government. The socio-economic
causes are properly addressed by the various social sciencesas these disciplines
focus their studies on understanding how social and economic processes come
about. Now as the socio-economic and physical causes can be influenced or
regulated by the legal causes, the government can thus also address the socioeconomic and physical causes via its departments that manage the socio-economic
needs of the people and the use and development of science and technology.
Turning now to the attitudinal causes, it will be recalled that they refer to our
beliefs that determine how we are to treat nature (or its nonhuman members) relative
to our own interests, preferences, and attitudes. Speaking of beliefs about nature, we
can, however, distinguish between the informational and the moral types.
Accordingly, our informational beliefs about nature basically concern what we think
about what nature is as independent of our interests, preferences, and attitudes (at
least in terms of how it is ideally thought to be). Such beliefs are supplied to us by
science, as objectivity in the sense of knowledge by a disinterested spectator is an
ideal of scientific knowledge. Our knowledge of water, for instance, as being H 2O, or
that 2 and 2 as being 4 are independent of our interests, preferences, and attitudes.
(Water is H2O and 2 and 2 are 4 regardless of whether or not we prefer or approve of
them to be such.) On the other hand, our moral beliefs about nature concern what we
think about nature in relation to or, better yet, as influenced by our interests,
preferences, and attitudes.2 Some, for instance, hold the moral belief that animals
have rights; and this belief necessarily relates to our interest of performing our duties
or obligations towards moral entities or entities that we regard to have moral status
2 John Searle (1999, 44-45) calls knowledge independent of our interests, preferences, and
attitudes as epistemically objective knowledge, while knowledge that is influenced by our
interests, preferences, and attitudes as epistemically subjective knowledge. In light of this
distinction, moral beliefs, along with other types of value judgments such as aesthetic
judgments, are epistemically subjective; whereas informational beliefs, which are typically
expressed by scientific judgements, are epistemically objective.

in this case our duty not to inflict unnecessary harm to animals. Another, such a belief
is necessarily connected to our attitude that we disapprove of certain ways of treating
animals.3 The beliefs that comprise the attitudinal causes are of the moral kind. And
while it is science that provides us with informational beliefs about nature, it is
philosophy, religion, and culture that provide us with moral beliefs about nature.
The moral beliefs about nature speak of the kind of relationship humans ought to
have with nature, whether or not humans have certain moral duties towards nature or
the non-human members of nature. These moral beliefs are often based on religion
and culture. In certain tribes, for instance, it is a matter of religion why they will not
dare damage a mountain; for they believe that the mountain is sacred; or they will not
cut trees for the belief that these trees are inhabited by some spirits. In the discipline
of philosophy, in particular in the area of environmental ethics, these moral beliefs are
subjected to a rational analysis and systematized as ethical theories. Using these
various ethical theories, philosophy can then analyze which among our moral beliefs
regarding nature will result in the destruction or protection of the natural environment.
In this light, it is therefore the discipline of philosophy that properly addresses the
attitudinal causes. In what follows, let us elaborate on this role of philosophy.
What are some of the ethical theories, as propounded in the discipline of
philosophy, used to analyse our moral beliefs about the natural environment? The
three most influential are the so-called homocentric, biocentric, and utilitarian views.
These three ethical theories provide different justifications for our moral duty to
protect the natural environment. As duties respect rights, these differences are
primarily brought about by the difference regarding which members of the natural
environment are believed to have moral status or to be endowed with moral rights. In
what follows, let us briefly look into the main ideas of each of these theories.
The homocentric (anthropocentric or human-centered) view claims that our
moral duty to protect the natural environment derives from our moral duty to respect
the rights of our fellow humans. According to this view, only humans, in virtue of their
rational capacities (mainly the abilities to understand and form universal principles
3 In saying so, we do not, however, mean, as emotivists in meta-ethics do, that moral beliefs
are nothing but expressions of approval and disapproval. We only maintain here that moral
beliefs are necessarily related to (but not reducible to) certain attitudes which include those of
approval and disapproval.

and to make free choices), have moral rights; and so humans only have moral duties
towards themselves.4 But as humans have environmental rights, or have rights
involving the natural environment, such as the right to a clean and liveable
environment, protecting the natural environment is a moral duty of humans towards
one another. Consistent with this view, some have argued that our duty to protect the
natural environment is a result of our obligation towards future human generations
who, as justice would require, deserve to live in a natural environment whose
condition is not worse than what present human generations live in. 5 In sum, the
homocentric view has it that humans have a moral duty to protect the natural
environment but such moral duty is not directed towards nature but towards
themselves (that is, among humans); or such moral duty can only seek to respect the
environmental rights of humans for they are the only ones who have moral rights
among the various members of nature.
The utilitarian view holds that only sentient entities or organisms that have the
capacity for experiencing pleasure and pain, which include humans and animals, can
be said to be endowed with moral rights. So here humans have the moral duty to
protect the natural environment in order to respect the moral right of sentient entities
to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. With sentience as the basis of moral rights,
humans and animals have the same moral standing. In case there is a conflict of
rights, among animals, among humans, and between animals and humans, the
Greatest Happiness Principle,6 according to which the morally correct action is the
one that maximizes pleasure, becomes the ultimate standard. In line with this view, to
4 This environmental ethical theory is traceable to the theory of morality developed by
Immanuel Kant. Strictly speaking, however, what has moral status for Kant are rational
beings. But in so far as only humans are the rational members of the natural world, then
humans, in so far as this natural world is concerned, are the only beings that have moral
status.
5 See, for instance, Manuel Velasquez 1995.
6 This ethical view has been advanced by Jeremy Bentham and J.S. Mill, although there are
some differences in their own versions. In general, Bentham goes for a strictly quantitative
analysis of what maximizes happiness while Mill includes a qualitative analysis and gives
more value to this kind of analysis relative to the qualitative one. The utilitarian principle as
applied to environmental ethics especially involving animal welfare, however, has been
championed by Peter Singer (1992, 1999).

10

prefer human interests over animal interests simply on the basis of the fact that
human interests are human or are those of humans is to discriminate against
animals. Peter Singer (1992, 1999) calls this kind of discrimination speciecism.
The biocentric view (or the view of deep ecology) holds that every member of an
ecological system has the moral right to a sustainable ecological system. 7 Humans,
in this regard, ought to protect the natural environment, which consists of various
ecological systems, in order to respect the rights of the various members of these
ecological systems. Humans, animals, and plants, in so far as they are all members
of ecological systems, have, according to this view, the same moral standing. In case
of a conflict among the rights of the different members of an ecological system, the
rights of an organism that will contribute the most to the sustainability of the
ecological system are to be preferred.
Needless to say, there is still an on-going discussion on which of these
theories is most appropriate in accounting for our moral duty to protect the natural
environment, or is most effective in raising our sense of obligation in terms of taking
care of nature. Be that as it may, these theories do provide us frameworks for
clarifying and analysing our moral beliefs that lead us to adopt certain attitudes
towards the natural environment.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we see that the role of philosophy is to address the attitudinal
causes of the environmental crisis. The role is to evaluate the moral beliefs that
humans have regarding nature in light of the various theories in ethics (particularly in
environmental ethics) to ascertain which of these moral beliefs lead to practices that
protect or damage the natural environment. If the moral beliefs that we hold lead us
to practices that damage the natural environment, it is the task of philosophy to show
the inappropriateness of these moral beliefs and to replace these beliefs with the
appropriate ones. What then is the value of this role, or to what extent is this role
valuable? We earlier noted that among the causes that bring about the environmental
crisis, it is the attitudinal causes that are the most pervasive for they influence to a
7 See Aldo Leopold (1999) and J. Baird Callicot (1999), among others, for discussions on
biocentrism.

11

significant degree all the other types of causes. In this regard, philosophy plays a
crucial role in resolving the crisis.

References
Callicot, J. Baird 1999. An ecocentric environmental ethic. Applying ethics. 6th ed.
Edited by Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry. New York: Wadsworth Publishing
Co.
Hoffman, Michael. 1992. Business and environmental ethics. Business ethics: A
philosophical reader. Edited by Thomas White. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.
Kant, Immanuel. 1952. The fundamental principles of the metaphysics of morals.
Great books of the Western world 42 Kant. Edited by Robert Maynard
Hutchins. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
Katz, Eric. 1992. Defending the use of animals by business: animal liberation and
environmental ethics. Business ethics: a philosophical reader. Edited by
Thomas White. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Leopold, Aldo. 1999. The land ethic. Applying ethics. 6th ed. Edited by Jeffrey Olen
and Vincent Barry. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Regan, Tom. 1992. The case for animal rights. Applying ethics. 6th ed. Edited by
Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Searle, John. 1999. Mind, language and society: Doing philosophy in the real world.
London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Singer, Peter 1992. The place of nonhumans in environmental issues. Business
ethics: A philosophical reader. Edited by Thomas White. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Co.
_______. 1999. All animals are equal... or why supporters of liberation for blacks
and women should support animal liberation too. Applying ethics. 6th ed.
Edited by Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry. New York: Wadsworth Publishing
Co.
Taylor, Paul. 1999. The ethics of respect for nature. Applying ethics. 6th ed. Edited by
Jeffrey Olen and Vincent Barry. New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Taylor, M. Scott. 2009. Environmental crises: Past, present and future. Online
Version:
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/gtdw_e/wkshop09_e/taylor_e.pdf
(Accessed 15 March 2013). Published in Canadian Journal of Economics
42(4): 12401275.
Velasquez, Manuel. 1995. Business ethics: concepts and cases. 3rd ed. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.

12