land ethics
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
1/25
Land Ethics
Written by: Shawn Monaghan (Critical on Scribd.com).
NOV 94
Please refer to essay part I as an introduction to this essay. Due to the incredibly
low mark I received in part I ,as well as the selection of the Land Ethic as my
primary theory of adjudication, certain revisions have been made to part II. I will
shift focus from the specific organisms that subsist in the soil environment to the
actual soil ecosystem itself. Please note: due to the failing mark referred to
above, this essay is longer than the prescribed 15 pages in the interests of
reclamation of said marks.
Throughout the last 1000 years or so western culture can be said to have been in a
continuous struggle between the individual and the society as a whole. Initially our
society was a sort of primitive communal system, slowly it changed and evolved into
more diverse and complex structures. The individual very slowly began to become a
prominent aspect of society, with fluctuations between a more communal and a
more atomistic basis. It is in part to Karl Marx that we owe the exposition of this
sort of process: from 'primitive' communal, to feudal, to capitalist, and finally to
the ultimate communal Utopian finale. This process we call a dialectic: where a
thesis and its antithesis combine and evolve into a synthesis.
The process is never ending, the synthesis from the last cycle becomes the new
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
2/25
thesis and its opposite arises to become the antithesis and a new synthesis occurs.
In this essay I give a name to these elements of the dialectic and explore how they
can shape our ethical world. The thesis is communalism, societal integrity and
stability (holism). The antithesis is individualism, atomistic tendencies. Together
these two concepts have combined and
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
3/25
interacted with each other resulting in an increasingly complex societal structure
with a correspondingly complex ethic. Occasionally society settles into a
momentary equilibrium with either the whole or the individual as dominant, but the
process continues. Societal structure tends toward complexity, as the process
continues the give and take of individual versus the whole becomes more intricate.
The land ethic represents the communal aspect of this struggle, while rights
theorists like Regan represent the atomistic tendencies. Neither aspect of this
struggle is the ultimate answer to our ethical needs and goals.
Agriculture in Southwestern Ontario has become increasingly mechanized,
specialized and capitalized (Smithers p5). This increase of technology is often
referred to in Western culture as 'progress' due to the perceived increase of
productivity resulting from the technology. Unfortunately what this thing we call
progress appears to mean to the environment is degradation. Increasingly we are
discovering that what is progress today is really non-sustainable development in
terms of tomorrow.
..., it is now generally accepted that such productivity gains in the agricultural
sector of Canada and other developed countries have occurred at the expense of
environmental quality and soil fertility (Smithers p5).
Much of increased production according to Smithers has resulted from use of
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
4/25
"marginal areas" of land. In terms of this study marginal land use means land which
is not capable of supporting even modest agricultural husbandry, without extensive
use of artificial fertilizers, pesticides and/or extensive irrigation. Other farming
trends that cause increased production at the price mentioned above include:
1. Abandonment of forage-based crop rotations for monoculture row crop
agriculture.
2. Increasing regional specialization of agriculture with the emergence of large
areas devoted to cash crop agriculture and an accompanying reduction in
dairying and livestock production. Accordingly, the diminished demand for
hay crops has further reduced the use of forage in rotation.
3. Enlargement of farms and farm fields and subsequent reliance on capital-
intensive technologies and purchased inputs.
4. Growing reliance on debt financing which has left many farmers vulnerable
to the potentially crippling effects of high interest rates. In the interest
of remaining solvent many responsible farmers have been forced to
emphasize short-term cash flow (Smithers p5).
Following the above list of trends in Smither's work is a list of practices that are
prevalent in Southwestern Ontario that lead to environmental damage. The most
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
5/25
important include tilling methods and cropping systems (Smithers p7).
Farmers use tilling of the soil primarily to control weeds and for incorporation of
pesticides and fertilizers into the soil. The impact that this sort of tillage has on
the soil is to loosen the soil and remove organic matter (ground cover) from its
surface, thereby increasing the wind and water erosion that occurs.
Conservationary methods that are recommended include 'no-tillage'(as in 'no
tolerance') through modified versions of the traditional "moldboard plow"
(Smithers p8).
The cropping systems that farmers use are characterized by "continuous corn"
which involve no or almost no return of organic matter to the soil. The impact of
continuous cropping on the soil is reduced ground cover and as a result increased
soil erosion (Smithers p8-9).
A further impact of the above farming methods is the pollution of bodies of water.
Or more specific to Southwestern Ontario the pollution of the great lakes by both
greater sedimentation and poisoning due to high phosphorous concentrations
(among other effluents). Further investigation of the pollution of the great lakes
would broaden the scope of this paper beyond the levels assigned. Although it is
beyond the scope of this assignment it is still important to make note that the
adverse effect of the above farming methods are not limited strictly to the
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
6/25
ecosystem of the soil.
The result of soil erosion has been reduced viability of the soil to support its
normal contingent of the food web in two major capacities. First, loss of the soils
sheer volumetric ability to accommodate various organisms dependent on its part in
the ecological cycle, and second the soils loss of important nutrients such as
phosphorous.
Soil erosion results in the damage or destruction of the soil ecosystem. The soil
ecosystem is a very important part of the global ecosystem in fact the global
ecosystem is a conglomerate of all of the various soil ecosystems and something
Alan Wild in, Soils and the Environment: An Introduction, calls life zones:
Soils, plants, animals and microorganisms form an ecosystem such as a tropical
forest: all the world's tropical forests constitute a life zone and all the life zones
(grasslands, other forests, tundra, oceans etc.) form the global ecosystem (Wild
p5).
Wild further continues to describe how soil is the basis of each life zone, providing
a medium for nutrients and water in one way or another for all plants, animals, and
insects that exist in this ecosystem. The plants eject oxygen as a waste
component, while using up carbon dioxide as a primary element of their metabolism.
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
7/25
The animals and insects eject carbon dioxide as a waste, while consuming oxygen
and nutrients provided by the plants. If a number or even a few of these "life
zones" are destroyed or even weakened the overall global ecosystem also will be
weakened, its diversity and integrity lessened.
An objection to the above might be: the loss of soil to erosion is not a major
problem to the ecosystem as of yet and will not be a problem for a long time if
ever, after all, it is a natural process. In answer to this objection: marginal lands
(as defined above) are severely damaged in respect of loss of ability to maintain
the ecosystem which is dependent on it right now. And it is clear that even in non-
marginal lands soil erosion will eventually deplete the land completely of soil. The
land will be incapable of sustaining as diverse an ecosystem, as it would if healthy,
long before complete depletion of soil occurs. In regard to the natural
replenishment of the soil through decomposition of surrounding rock and additional
organic matter, the answer is that the soil can not replenish itself. Organic matter
is not being returned to the soil in most lands due to current cropping and tilling
methods as outlined above. Also it is quite generally accepted within the
agricultural and scientific community that soil erosion is occurring at a much faster
rate than it can be replenished by nature. A certain amount of erosion is natural,
but human induced erosion takes place at a much greater rate than natural
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
8/25
processes can replenish.
Aldo Leopold's, "Land Ethic", has a great wealth of ideas to provide in response to
the aforementioned objection:
The process of altering the pyramid for human occupation releases stored energy
and this often gives rise, during the pioneering period, to a deceptive exuberance
of plant and animal life, both wild and tame. These releases of biotic capital tend
to becloud or postpone the penalties of violence (Leopold p79).
The fact that we are currently not experiencing anything we could call a major
catastrophe from erosion of soil does not suggest that there is no problem. In the
above quotation Leopold implies that the abundance we often associate with
opening new frontiers or breaking 'virginal' land is really energy released from the
shortening of the natural cycle of that ecosystem.
This energy release thereby dampens the ecosystems vitality and longevity.
Although Leopold limits his observation of energy release to "the pioneering
period", it is also an excellent explanation of why we have not yet observed any
major repercussions from our abuse of the ecosystem even this far removed from
the pioneering period.
This "stored energy", as Leopold calls it, is still being exploited by humans it is
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
9/25
extracted like an increasingly powerful pump by present technologies like
fertilizers and pesticides. This improvement of the pump would not be so bad if it
were not for the complete neglect of the well. Since this stored energy humans
are pumping from the land is not being replaced, eventually the well will run dry.
According to Leopold's analogy and also according to the information provided
above that well is currently running dry and we need a way to address this problem
(Leopold p81). Leopold provides even more convincing information to the debate
with his reference to evidence that the well is running dry:
Perhaps the most important of these is the new evidence that poundage or tonnage
is no measure of the food-value of farm crops; the products of fertile soil may be
qualitatively as well as quantitatively superior. We can bolster poundage from
depleted soils by pouring on imported fertility, but we are not necessarily
bolstering food-value (Leopold p81).
The ethical theory I have chosen to apply to the above situation is Aldo Leopold's
"the Land Ethic" in People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees, edited by Donald VanDeveer
and Christine Pierce. Leopold's non-extensionist theory provides an ethical
framework based on the interconnectedness of everything.
The reasons I have for choosing a holistic theory over an atomistic theory are
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
10/25
simple. The particular situation which I am investigating in this essay requires a
moral theory of a holistic nature to determine the answer to the two main
questions: who has moral standing, and how does one adjudicate amongst those with
moral standing. By its very nature an atomistic ethical theory can only reasonably
explain moral standing in relation to the individual.
Entities that are not considered individuals: are not considered alive, or conscious,
or capable of being, or doing anything (doing that which we normally consider an
individual to be or capable of doing). Entities which are not individuals (as
'individual' is currently defined) can not therefore be considered to have rights in
any way. Some atomistic theories could be readily modified to establish moral
duties towards non-living entities, but none are available that demonstrate
inherent value of non-living entities.
It is true that with some time and great effort entities which are not currently
considered to be individuals could eventually be redefined as individuals. However,
for the present entities like rivers, mountains, and soil are not individuals and very
few people if anybody have tried to define them as such. Furthermore, none of
the atomistic theories on the reading list of this course attempt to redefine non-
living entities as individuals and therefore these theories are useless to my
particular case study.
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
11/25
The only theories dealt with in this course that establish an ethical system
comprehensive enough to give real value to non-living entities are the holistic
theories, and because they are ideally suited to this purpose they are also ideal for
this particular case study.
Another important aspect of holistic theories as characterized by the land ethic is
the absence of a hierarchal ordering of the entities with moral standing. Any
ethical theory that has a moral hierarchy suffers by definition from a certain lack
of relevance in its criterion for moral standing. I challenge anyone to derive a
criterion for moral standing which establishes a hierarchy that is not in some form
discriminatory or morally irrelevant on some basis. I interpret Leopold's land ethic
as placing all members of the biotic community on an equal moral standing. This
leads to a discussion of a hierarchy of a different kind allow me to list them.
Firstly, the hierarchy that atomistic theories establish of individual over communal
interests. Secondly, the hierarchy that holistic theories establish of the interests
of the whole over the interests of the individual. Both hierarchies are equally
morally irrelevant and this is perhaps the source of the unending struggle between
the two disciplines. Neither school of thought has an adequate foot hold over the
other, they both have fundamental assumptions which are unfounded, and yet they
both continue as if each was the one real truth.
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
12/25
The reason I choose Leopold's land ethic over other holistic theories, dealt with in
this course, had mainly to do with the relative complexity of his theory. Another
major factor in my selection of an appropriate theory had to do with the length
and complexity of the various source materials. Arne Neass' Deep Ecology was
presented in this course through the format of an interview, perhaps this is a
reflection of the relative newness of his theory but this format was not very
informative or instructive. If Deep Ecology was presented in an essay or article
and tied together with a thesis then it would be much better communicated and
understood.
Without a single directing thesis statement Deep ecology does not appear in a
holistic format, only its various parts can be understood without knowledge of its
totality. It is quite ironic that the theory which is most reputed to deal ethically
with the ecosystem as a totality is not itself presented as a whole but as a
grouping of parts.
Eco-feminism as an ethical theory appears to be even more new than Deep Ecology,
and the length of the article on the course reading list reflects this. The article
written by Judith Plant has little or no reference to either moral standing or
adjudication amongst those with moral standing. The above is also reflected in the
article on Social ecology.
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
13/25
Although this lack of a definitive answer to the two central questions of this
course does not in itself make these theories less valuable, it does make this essay
assignment more difficult to deal with. Since the central theme of this assignment
appears to be to determine moral standing and thereafter to determine a method
of adjudication, it seems inappropriate to select a theory which does not deal with
these questions. Not only do these theories not directly deal with the above two
questions but they may purposefully avoid or side-step them in the interests of
furthering the field of ethics.
Unfortunately I can not fathom any good reason for ignoring moral standing and
the adjudication process within an ethical theory. The above omissive aspect of
Social ecology and Eco-feminism is negative in that application of such an ethic will
likely be impossible until adequate definitions are derived.
According to Leopold's theory the world is an interconnected totality, something
done to one part of it affects all parts. In this theory Leopold establishes that
,"the soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land." should be included
in our moral circle not just individuals with certain characteristics (Leopold p74).
Leopold continues with his elaboration of his theory by concluding that humans are
not superior and that we should not dominate nature.
In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo Sapiens from conqueror of the
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
14/25
land-community to plain member and citizen of it (Leopold p74)
According to Leopold the Land ethic is necessary if we are to succeed in preserving
the environment. Conservation based on "economics motives" is worthless since
"most members of the land community have no economic value" (Leopold p76).
What happens with an economic based conservation system is that aspects of the
ecosystem that are considered valuable are preserved and protected, while other
members of the ecosystem which are not considered valuable are destroyed out of
hand. There is no consideration that those aspects of the environment which are
valued are dependent on those which are considered valueless. In short without
ethical theories like the land ethic, concepts like the interconnectedness of all
beings are overlooked for more convenient views or in this case atomistic views.
Leopold's land ethic requires that we expand our moral community to the land.
Land in this case is not merely ground or soil but includes all beings and aspects of
the land as a collective whole: including soil, bodies of water, plants, and animals.
Furthermore Leopold states that the land ethic places humans beside the other
parts of the moral community not above. The traditional hierarchy that our
society has so long taken as a given is no longer an option. The traditional role of
humans as conquerors of nature in Leopold's conceptualization is a self-defeating
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
15/25
role:
In human history, we have learned (I hope) that the conqueror role is eventually
self-defeating. Why? Because it is implicit in such a role that the conqueror
knows, ex cathedra, just what makes the community clock tick, and just what and
who is valuable, and what and who is worthless, in community life. It always turns
out that he knows neither, and this is why his conquests eventually defeat
themselves (Leopold p74).
Leopold continues by describing the existence of humankind as only a member of
the biotic community. The description of which establishes that historical events
in which humans have been considered the only important actors are really only one
of the many important actors. Perhaps humans could even be considered the least
important actors when compared as a single group to the entire biotic community.
His examples include the settlement of the Mississippi Valley and the Kentucky
blue-grass drama. In both of these cases Leopold establishes that humans have
been among the least important actors in determining the outcome (Leopold p75).
Moral standing according to the land ethic then is based solely on membership
within the global ecosystem. Rivers, soil, plants, and animals as members of this
community have moral standing along with humans in a non-hierarchical ethical
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
16/25
grouping. Interpretation of Leopold's method of adjudication amongst those with
moral standing is a somewhat more tricky feat however:
A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of
the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise (Leopold p82).
One "certain" aspect of the "stability" of the biotic system that we know of,
Leopold asserts, is the evolution of the system from lesser to greater complexity
(Leopold p78). Therefore diversity is an important aspect of the biotic community
also. Although Leopold chose not to include it in his definitive statement quoted
above, it is nonetheless a very important aspect of both the integrity and stability
of a biotic community. In fact considering that Leopold was not a philosopher it
might be appropriate to amend his above formula to exclude beauty and replace it
with diversity for the purposes of clarity and validity. I am not saying that beauty
is unimportant, but any good philosopher knows that beauty is impossible to define
and such ill-defined terms add nothing but complications to what could otherwise
be an ironclad theory.
To apply Leopold's theory to the specific situation investigated here: first I must
decide who has moral standing, and second how to adjudicate amongst those with
moral standing. Moral standing under the land ethic is attributed to the land and
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
17/25
all features of it. Therefore the farmers, the soil, any nearby bodies of water,
and all of the organisms which live in or on the soil (plants, animals, and
microorganisms) have moral standing in relation to the farmers. Therefore the
farmers as moral agents must consider all of the above as moral patients.
The formula for adjudication is in the paragraph quoted above. The tillage and
cropping practices perpetrated by the farmers clearly fall in the "tends otherwise"
category. Both of the above practices contribute to soil erosion and pollution of
the surrounding bodies of water as described in the preceding paragraphs and
clearly detract from the diversity, stability, integrity and beauty of the land.
Clearly Leopold's ethic shows that these farmers are not only contravening his
ethic by both their tilling and cropping methods, but that they should also practice
more traditional farming in other areas:
The discontent that labels itself 'organic farming,'..., is [nevertheless] biotic in its
direction, particularly in its insistence on the importance of soil flora and fauna
(Leopold p81).
In this case to recognize the importance of soil flora and fauna means to use
natural fertilization and pest control. Artificial fertilizer and pesticides (and
herbicides) both undermine or ignore the importance of natural processes, and
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
18/25
both utterly destroy the natural processes carried out by soil flora and fauna (for
more details on flora and fauna of the soil see Alan Wild ch 1-4).
In this study I have made little mention of the organism which subsist on the soil,
this is due partly to the lack of information provided in source materials but also
because of the lack of necessity, given my chosen theory the land ethic. Given the
fact that the soil is the base of most terrestrial food chains it is not necessary to
itemize the various organisms which are dependent on it either directly or
indirectly (by being higher on the food chain). If the health of the soil itself is
deteriorating it is a simple matter of inference to establish that all that are
dependent on the soil (higher in the food chain) will suffer in health also. All of
the individual organisms within each group will not necessarily suffer, but the
diversity and stability of each group will surely suffer as a result of a less diverse
and stable base (i.e. the soil).
On the other hand if my chosen theory was Singer's rights based ethic it would be
necessary to determine which beings, who are subjects of a life, are damaged by
these farming practices. With Leopold's land ethic I need not consider the
individual, in fact I am compelled to consider only the community. With Leopold's
ethic the individual is morally neutral, only the species or the community are
considered to have moral standing. The individuals are only important in that they
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
19/25
collectively represent the community/species.
J.Baird Callicott's article, "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair" in People,
Penguins, and Plastic Trees, edited by Donald VanDeveer and Christine Pierce,
draws his readers into discussion of the community versus the individual, as
mentioned above, with reference to Leopold's definition of moral value:
What is especially noteworthy, and that to which attention should be directed in
this proposition, is the idea that the good of the biotic communityis the ultimate
measure of the moral value,..., of actions (Callicott p188 his italics).
Callicott's interpretation is much like my own, in fact to Callicott the above "moral
imperative" implies the necessityto kill certain individuals in some circumstances
where the good of the biotic community is at stake (Callicott p188). This
interpretation of Leopold's moral imperative, to kill individuals in some
circumstances, is the object of attack for Tom Regan in his article, "The Rights
View", contained within the same source book as Callicott's article. In his article
Regan describes an example of how this moral imperative can lead to a moral
quandary:
If,..., the situation we faced was either to kill a rare wildflower or a (plentiful)
human being, and if the wildflower, as a "team member," would contribute more to
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
20/25
"the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community" than the human, then
presumably we would not be doing wrong if we killed the human and saved the
wildflower (Regan p 205).
Regan has a good point here, nothing in Leopold theory establishes killing
individuals as immoral in reference to this type of situation. Perhaps Regan is
being a little unfair here, only Callicott mentions killing specifically as a mode of
preserving the biotic community. What exactly Leopold had in mind is of course
debateable. Although Regan can be said to be criticizing Callicott more than
Leopold he does get at the heart of the issue in displaying how the land ethic is
contrary to individualistic rights. The primary flaw of the land ethic is its utter
disregard for the individual. In a culture and society where atomistic based rights
are fundamental, the land ethic must fight an uphill battle to gain acceptance. This
battle between communal and individual interests could hardly be said to be new.
Much of the conflicts of our society are steeped in the age-old historical and on-
going battle between the rights of the individual and the rights or integrity of
society as a whole. Freedom of speech, the right to self-determination, and
freedom of movement: these individual rights have been impinged on, restricted,
and completely revoked by the governing bodies of western societies over and over
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
21/25
again in the interests of society as a whole. The individuals of a society can not all
be free to have all of their liberties fulfilled. Conflicts do occur between
individuals, and between the society and the individual, in the interests of society
certain liberties must be denied.
Is it possible that the value of the whole is more than the some of its parts
(Callicott p190)? Alternatively, is it possible that the value of all of the parts
equal the sum of the whole? Consider how throughout the last 800 years of
western societal evolution, we have synthesized a legal and moral system which
satisfies both individual and communal needs. The dialectic between the thesis
(community integrity & stability) and the antithesis (individual self-determination)
have interacted in such a way as to yield the synthesis our present societal
structure. If we can have a stable society with the dualist ethical dialectic
between the individual and the community in the human realm,
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
22/25
perhaps the next dialectical interaction will be the interaction between a single
species on the globe (Homo Sapiens) and all parts of the global ecosystem and the
synthesis might look very much like todays western society. The individuals in this
far-off synthesis would be species like humans, maple trees and zebra-mussels and
the community of this synthesis would be the world and all that it contains. The
dialectical process has already begun atomistic theorists like Regan and Singer are
debating environmental ethics with holistic theorists like Callicott (Leopold's
bulldog) and Arne Naess. Perhaps theorists like Taylor will become more common,
theories which combine the individuals interests with the interests of beings who
are not considered individuals into one ethical theory. Eventually Regan's
predictions about atomistic theories may well come true:
The implications of the successful development of a rights-based environmental
ethic, one that made the case that individual inanimate natural objects (e.g., this
redwood) have inherent value and a basic moral right to treatment respectful of
that value, should be welcomed by [holistic] environmentalist (Regan p205).
Regan makes a good case in his article for rights based environmental theories,
they are serious contenders with holistic theories for adequate ethical value of
the global ecosystem.
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
23/25
How can rights theorists deal with the value of inanimate objects such as rivers
and soils though? Some rights theorist might try to transform our view of
inanimate objects like rivers and soil by concentrating on the organic component of
these features of nature. For example a river and indeed any body of water is
never found in nature as simply a group of molecules consisting of two hydrogen
atoms for every one oxygen, there always exists a living element. The oceans could
be said to be a symbiosis of inanimate water and animate plankton, each dependent
upon one another. The water is dependent on the plankton to perpetrate itself as
plankton emits oxygen as a waste product, while the plankton are dependent on the
water for a hospitable environment in which to subsist.
There are fundamental problems with this sort of analysis, how can something
which is not considered alive be involved in a process which requires two or more
living entities (i.e. symbiosis)? Despite these fundamental problems some rights
theorists might be able to eventually develop a relatively good argument, but it
would not likely be as good as an ethical theory based on holism would be, nor would
it be especially efficient. To much detail, to much searching and reaching can
really stretch a theory to its limits. If it is true that our goal is to contain all that
we believe to be valuable in the world within an ethical theory that establishes a
relevant and justifiable ethic that we can live with, we must do all we can to attain
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
24/25
this goal and to attain it as soon as possible (given current ecological crises). To
reach this goal we should be efficient and reasonable. To be both efficient and
reasonable we must use tools which can plausibly achieve these goals in an efficient
and reasonable way. It does not make sense to use atomistic theories, like rights
based theories, to establish moral value for entities that can not be considered
individuals in any reasonable way (eg. rivers, mountains, soil). It makes even less
sense to use a holistic theory to establish the moral standing of individuals (this
goal might actually be impossible to attain). In a perfect society the solution could
be for both groups of theorists to work in their respective realms with frequent
interaction, eventually coming up with ethics that are clear and understandable and
applicable in a symbiotic format. Once this is accomplished the most difficult task
would be to combine the theories so that there is a balance between the individual
and communal realm.
In the real world however atomistic and holistic theorists will battle ad nauseam
for supremacy over the ethical realm. Things will become accomplished, a
synthesis will eventually emerge. Perhaps the dialectic will live up to its name and
the synthesis will be extremely complex and intricate, almost alive with the
interaction of ideas. Perhaps the dialectic of individual and community will bring us
a synthesis on scale with natural evolution, starting out "low and squat" and link
-
8/15/2019 Land Ethics
25/25
after link synthesis after synthesis the "height and complexity" will increase
(Leopold p78). Our society would become broader and more diverse eventually
including the entire earth under its moral umbrella, finally attaining justice and
liberty for all.
As I have shown in this essay neither the atomistic not the holistic ethical
theories can answer all of our questions and fulfill all our needs. Perhaps with time
the dialectical process will approach both qualitatively and quantitatively the
diversity of the natural evolutionary process. As humanity approaches in
complexity of thought that which nature has attained in sheer complexity of form,
we will feel more a part of, and at once become more accepting of nature. In this
we will truly and finally break free from our conqueror role with nature that
Leopold described in such an insightful way.
WORKS CITED
Smithers, J. and B. Smit. Conservation Practices In
Southwestern Ontario Agriculture: Barriers To Adoption. Guelph: University
School of Rural Planning and Development, Universty of Guelph, 1989.
Wild, Alan. Soils And The Environment: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
U.P., 1993.
VanDeveer, D. and Pierce, C. People, Penguins, and Plastic Trees. Oxford: Oxford
Press, 1989.