Ethan Morris

Environmental Philosophy

Routley Assignment

October 5, 2017

In Routley’s essay, he discusses Aldo Leopold’s environmental ethics and the different

examples that are found under this environmental umbrella. Leopold has examples or, more

accurately, situations for any circumstances that the environmental ethic might run into. Aldo’s

examples include “the last man”, the “great entrepreneur”, “vanishing species”, and quite a few

others. Throughout these examples, I chose the strongest argument that Routley gives in

response to Leopold’s belief, along with Routley’s weakest argument. I will be exploring these

points and describe how I feel Leopold would respond to Routley.

The strongest argument Routley made in his opinionated piece is that we are in dire need

of a new ethic. He explains that the dominant ethic and modified dominant ethic are too

inadequate to deem them environmental ethics. As he moves through Leopold’s “A Sand County

Almanac”, he finds holes in Leopold’s examples. One instance of this is the “great entrepreneur”

example in which the entrepreneur is making an automobile from renewable and recyclable

materials, however, instead of putting them on the road, he is dumping and recycling them right

after they are manufactured. This would imply the materials and object are being wasted due to

the automobiles lack of function. The problem is specifically found when looking at Aldo’s

Western Ethic because it deems this practice as permissible.

I believe Leopold’s response to this argument would be a Kantian one in which he would

say that the entrepreneur or whaler or last man examples all don’t include negative intentional

effects. None of the people in these scenarios are specifically trying to harm the environment,
therefore, they cannot be identified as wrongdoers. They are simply working out of their own

self-interest. Going back to the example discussed above, the entrepreneur was only doing this

out of his own best intentions to grow his own wealth and welfare. Although, I don’t believe

Leopold has much of a rebuttal because whether these people had the intentions or not, they are

still harming the environment.

The weakest argument Routley made, in my opinion, was his response to how

environmental ethics should “not commit one to the view that natural objects such as trees have

rights…” (Routley, 1973). This argument seems weak in the aspect that society gives these

objects rights. It may not be obvious but by preserving lands and/or making them into state parks

we are giving trees, animals, and resources found in this area the right to not be exploited. I am

aware this was written many years ago but global communities had already established these

movements to conserve and preserve resources with the philosophical battle between John Muir

and Gifford Pinchot. Routley seems to neglect that these trees or other natural objects are most

likely living or made up of living organisms. They indeed have rights to not be mutilated.

Routley could try to see his argument from another perspective. For example, if we were going

off his beliefs then one could say all because we shouldn’t murder humans doesn’t mean they

have right to not be murdered. He has a very human-centric view which is not what the

environmental ethic encompasses. This argument doesn’t dismiss his entire paper but instead

shows that he is unwilling to look at the environment as a “living, breathing” organism and

instead would like to examine nature as a value-less place.

In conclusions, Routley makes strong arguments towards Leopold’s work. However, he

does fall short in certain areas. Routley seems to point out that the environmental ethic deems far

too many “bad” acts as permissible such as hunting Blue Whales to extinction. Routley
contradicts himself because he seems to be saying that Leopold’s environmental ethic doesn’t

condemn acts that don’t affect others but is still destructive to the environment. He then goes on

to say that this ethic should not give these plants, animals, or places the right to not be exploited.

This, in turn, shows that he believes we should be allowed to mutilate/exploit these resources.

Even though Routley has some weak arguments in his paper the overall theme is spot on with

how modern philosophers should be looking at environmental philosophy.

 Work Cited

Routley, Richard. “Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic.” XVth World Congress

of Philosophy, 1973, pp. 205–210.