1

INTRODUCTION

Movies have a long range of presenting stories to us. From a happy well lighted comedy

to a more dark and psychological mysteries. Movies are able send a message to its viewers.

Some even portray how the state of society operates during the time the movies are aired. Others

change the view of society and create a new status quo among the people. Movies provide a great

platform for one to show a message on the Big Screen. One Movie exemplifying a message is

Avatar. Avatar clearly shows a message concerning the environment.

Avatar is science fiction film. It takes place in a distant future, year 2154, where the

human race is experiencing an energy crisis due to the depletion of the natural resources of

planet Earth. The humans’ Resource Development Administration (RDA) search for other

sources and are able to find unobtanium on the planet of Pandora which will be able to

supplement their deficit in energy. They explore Pandora by the use of hybrids called “avatar”.

The movie follows the protagonist Jake along with two other scientists who were assigned to

study the biosphere as they explore and are confronted with the consequences of what their

action might entail. This places them in a situation where they have to decide which side they

should take and how will they be able to confront the changes which they face since their

superiors have no concern for any other consequences as long as they are able to mine the

unobtanium and be able to supply the deficient need of earth. The clash that happens is not only

in the physical form between the Navi and RDA but also that of ideas and dilemmas that it

presents to its viewers.

Avatar was originally planned to be aired 2 years after the showing of titanic. However,

circumstances have delayed it causing the film to be finished in 2009 and be aired in 3D. The

2

film follows similar themed movies like Tarzan and Princess Mononoke. It presents the common

problems of our relationship with the environment. Showing us the treatment of how people

from different sides conduct themselves with faced with an opposing action.

Aside from the movie, there is a book, Avatar and Philosophy by George A Dunn, that

talks about the Avatar. It discusses scenes and messages taken from the movie and delves into a

philosophical discussion. It heavily discusses concerns about the environment on chapters III and

VI which discusses relationships and responsibilities towards the environment. Showing us how

each person in the movie is guided by their action and how these actions affect not just only them

but also the others. What is interesting about the discussion is that the author uses different

people to try and completely explain how our relationship with the environment is taken. Avatar

and Philosophy takes you into a step by step process on how Jake starts of as not being able to

comprehend the view of the Navi until he is able to clearly see how the relationship with the

environment are not one sided.

Messages from both the movie and the book focuses on two opposing views; RDA and

the Navi. Similar to an Imperial view which seeks to expand its reach and able to exploit the

resources of the nature going against the Native view trying to protect their home and who are

willing to give up their life to do it. Two opposing views about our relationship with nature. One

on the side of nature being used as a tool and the other on the side viewing nature as their home

to be taken care and not to be used as means to an end. Different positions give different value to

the same thing. One not considering how the other may have different value for the same thing.

Value can be considered as regard being given to an object. Different people give different kinds

of value for the same object. They have their own reasons on how they consider an object to be

significant and significant for what purpose. They may value has different ways of attaching to

3

various object. Value can be considered to be instrumental, intrinsic, and inherent. Instrumental

value place value on the object based on its utility. Money is valuable because it can be used to

buy commodities. Intrinsic Value places value on the thing for sentiment. One can also value

money but not for its use but for its sentiment. A businessman may value a P100 peso not

because he can buy commodities with it but because it is his first P100 earned for his business.

He is then giving different value. Inherent value gives value on the thing because they are

teleogical-center-of-life. Value of the thing should not be dependent on humans. Although this is

difficult as giving value that has no human bias, we can still place value on them by giving them

awe. Our ethics toward them then should be biocentric. Putting life in the center of it. Living

with the environment with awe will enable us to have more understanding about our relationship.

Giving equal consideration to other things with humans may have problems. Not in all

situations are you able to give the same level of worth to an object. To solve this, we take into

account virtue ethics where there is no one guiding principle, rather we take our actions and

make sure that they make us a good character. Considering what is virtuous. Similar to our

approach in virtue ethics, we take our approach with the environment with good character. We

try to see that everything is connected and interdependent with one another. Every action that we

take affects others on a larger scale, avoiding any drastic pessimistic view like the butterfly effect

leading to chaos. We can see that there is no difference when it comes to biocentric view and

anthropocentric view if take into consideration that if one is able to see the larger picture then he

is also benefiting himself by talking a good character towards his relationship with nature. This is

not to point out that anthropocentricism is the same as biocentricism but there is version of

anthropocentrism similar to that of biocentrism.

4

Looking into the axiological and ethical discussion that can be harnessed from Avatar’s

message gives us an understanding on how our relationship with the environment should be

considered. Being on the side of Navi, it might be difficult from some to follow this form of

ethical practice. The Navi are able to commune with the environment and are reflective of

natives that most people no longer follow today. What we can harness from Avatar can still be

practice and understood by most people as we are able see a more relaxed ethic without losing

the good interaction with the environment. We can view how our environmental virtue ethics is

also biocentric at its core. It values all life as proponent views Avatar advocates.

5

CHAPTER 1

LEARNING TO SEE IN AVATAR

Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of its time. It is considered to be a pioneer

movie as it was the first that did a movie with the 3D animation effect in mind. The movie was

able to gross more than $2 Billion. Avatar’s development was started in1994 and was supposed

to be released on the year of 1999 after James Cameron had finished his other blockbuster

Titanic1. Circumstances made it that the movie was delayed and was only shown in the year

2009. Where it was presented in all Cinemas and was available in 3D. James Cameron affirms

that the movie draws its inspiration from different children films like Tarzan, The Emeral Forest,

Princess Mononoke and Dances with Wolves. We can see that some themes are presented by

these films in a similar manner like Avatar2. Some see Avatar as a simple message of

Imperialism going up against a Deep Ecology ideology theme. The battle between this two is

presented straight forward and showing how deep ecology ideology of the natives triumphed

over Imperialism.

The Book edited by George Dunn explores these themes further. He points out that we

must Learn to See why the Navi performed the actions that they did in order to understand the

movie better. Often human relationship with the environment becomes lopsided because we fail

to see what is important and only use nature as tool to fuel our hunger. We put little

consideration towards the consequences we do with nature. As long as we can get what we need

from nature, the aftermath of our actions is often looked past beyond. George Dunn provides the

discussion on how we can learn from the Navi on how to guide our actions.

1 St. Petesburgs Times. August 12,1996, retrieved 7 May 20152 Los Angeles Times(Latimesblogs). August 12, 2009, retrieved 7 May 2015

6

Learning to see means that we learn to perceive the interconnectedness of the

environment with us, at a first glance we might see this as a Gaia Hypothesis as it also can be

viewed as the planet being one big organism with us being its organs. The idea that the planet is

one organism and that all life forms interact with one another to form a whole, this would mean

that everything that happens with one part of the planet will affect the whole system in general.

Interconnectedness is different from that of the Gaia Hypothesis in terms of consideration.

Considerations for the Gaia Hypothesis put too much emphasis on the organism then on the

organs. This is where it becomes different from the idea of interconnectedness where the

emphasis is focused on the components that constitute the larger whole.

In the book, Parts III and VI go into a deal of discussion regarding the ethical concern on

how our actions affect the environment. These parts show how the actions of the Navi will be

able to guide us in our actions towards the environment.

Part III of the book discusses how our relationship with nature should be as seen by while

Part VI helps to discuss our ethical Responsibility. George Dunn wants us to understand that

nature is not a tool. He uses the Navi as an example. He points out how the Navi Commune with

nature and how they are able to live with it in a fair and just manner. He points out how the “sky

people” fail to see and are unable to understand what it means to live with nature. The sky people

fail to comprehend that they are committing the same mistake that they did to their planet.

If we are to avoid the same faith as them, then we should start putting value towards the

environment. We need to change out way on how we view the environment. Changing one’s

perspective is not an easy task. There are considerations that we have to take note to form our

own Ethics towards the environment. We get notes from the book. George Dunn presents to us

how one must be able to commune with nature. One must take it seriously and must also

7

consider that not everything is wild and savage. Like how Neytiri saves Jake from the Viper

wolves. She gets mad at him after the rescue and points out that “they were no suppose to die”

and later shows Jake a family of Viper Wolves who take care of their young. This changes Jake’s

mind. He thought that viper wolves are only savages.3 Similar to this, the sky people only wanted

to mine the planet for their supply. To them this is the only thing they value. However, the Navi

value their planet because it is their home. This places which value should we consider. One

cannot be higher than the other as they are both giving their own perspective on how one may

value a thing.

Opposite sides have different perspective. One cannot be easily said to weigh more than

another. To do this we must first understand how value works. How does one gain value? Both

sides have different value for different things. George Dunn and James Cameron both show that

nature is valuable. We can explore this further for us to be able to expound on the messages that

both present.

3 Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn© 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107

8

CHAPTER 2

AVATAR: VALUE AND ETHICS

Instrumental Value, Intrinsic Value, Inherent Worth

Value constitutes the importance of a thing. Regard that something is held to deserve.

Giving value to a thing makes it significant. Some consider value of a thing to be relative.

Different people give different value for different things and for different reason. Some value a

thing for how it is beneficial to the user. Others place value on a thing for its aesthetics. There

are different basis for a thing to gain value. And this makes a thing to have worth in the world.

Instrumental Value of a thing is based on utilitarian view. Instrumental Value gives

values over a thing based on its usefulness or function. It only gains value if it can be use to

attain another goal or another objective. Most obvious example would be that of money. We give

value to money not because we are able to get something from money itself but rather that we

can use money in order to attain another object. We view objects as having value only if can be

used for something. If it is no longer useful than it will lose its value and will be easily replaced.

In the movie, the “sky people” see the home world of the Navi as being able to provide them

with resources. Early in the movie, Grace and Norm explore the jungle of Pandora and discovers

that the roots and its inner workings as something more complex and has an electrochemical

communication between the roots and the trees. However, Selfridge views them only as “Just

Goddamn Tress”. The RDA view nature as something that we could use to benefit ourselves and

not understanding the value of the thing in itself.4 This would be another form of how we view

the value of a thing other than its use.

4 Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn© 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107

9

Some people value a thing for another reason, may it be for sentimental value, symbolic

meaning, cultural or historical worth. This are reasons which one places value other than the

usefulness of an object. This is giving value to thing for it itself. In this situation, the object has

Intrinsic Value for it is being valued for itself. One example would be going back to the money.

Although it would be mostly used for the sake of its instrumental value it may also contain other

forms of value. Let us say that you have P10.00 given to you by your grandfather and was told to

keep it and pass it down to your grandchild and so on. Money here is valued not for its

instrumental value but rather for the intrinsic value that you have with it. To make it clearer, take

monuments for example that provides symbolism for a community. Like the UP Oblation which

is valued for what is symbolizes for UP, it does not have any direct value for its usefulness as

much as it has for its intrinsic value. Lastly people would value to an intimate relationship or a

bond in the family not for the sake of its use but for the thing in itself.

These two approaches to giving value to the environment come on how we value the

environment around us. We could value the forest because it gives us fresh air or that it provides

us with parameters that benefit our health. For without these forests, our health will be in danger

and will deteriorate over time. We can also give it an intrinsic value, admiring it for the beauty

that it provides to us or how natives will not allow any construction around their forest for they

already have and attachment with it. They might consider it as their home where their ancestors

have already left May effigies and renewing it would destroy their heritage.

In the movie Avatar, the sky people view the forest only having “just goddamn tress” and

should be used for the needs. As much as they hated the Navi, A bad Quarterly report is dreaded

by most businessmen. For Businessmen, The monthly return of their money is of primary

10

concern. To see a good report by the end of the quarter, assures them of their profit. As what

Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning-economist, declared:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it… engages in open and free competition without deception of fraud.5

So for them, they really were “Just Goddamn Tress” that only had value because the

forest had unobtanium, a priceless mineral. And they saw anyone who gets in their way as

simply a nuisance that would only get in their way. On the other side however, The Navi value

the forest for its Intrinsic Value. They see through the eyes of Eywa and commune with everyone

in the planet Pandora. Jake begins to see this that there is an intrinsic value for them and the

destruction of it would create detrimental consequences for them. They view the planet as one

with them and that everything in the planet has value. That is why they fought so hard in order to

defend their planet.

These two examples show us what it means to have value for one thing and how different

people give different people value to different objects. They also differ on what kind of value

they give to a certain object. From this a simple problem arises. All the value of an object is

solely dependent of the one’s giving it. The thing only has value because human beings are the

one that give them value. They do not hold any worth for themselves but only hold value because

there are humans which provide value to them. This would mean that there are problems when it

comes to how value of an object works. So in the movie, no one had a real ethically misconduct

in their actions because they only acted upon their actions based on where they think the value

lies. In which case makes it problematic to really asses the value of an object. This is why some

philosophers argue that there should be a basis on giving value which is not dependent on 5 Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970

11

humans. This defense is what they call Inherent Worth. An object has inherent worth if it is good

in itself, independently of humans. To put it in a human example, one value and belief on how

valuable one really is should not depend on how other people see him but how one sees himself.

Being judged by other people only distorts the reputation that on has but this should not affect

how one believes in himself. The worth that one gives to his self is different based on how one

really belies the worth of one really has.

There is of course has problems surrounding on this idea as well. Mainly on how one

speaks of worth independent of humans. Criticisms about this say that value only happens from

the judgment of human. This makes inherent no different from that of intrinsic value. But let us

take the example given which views it on the level of humans. There is still some kind of

inherent worth that each individual posses like one’s dignity. This is not value of the intrinsic

kind but something that is inherent to the individual, so as much as humans have it then others in

the environment also must have this kind of inherent worth. This still raises a question if worth

can really be given without human judgment. Can we learn to see how other kind see the worth

of others, without being affected by bias? There is of course difficulty on how to go about it. One

answer is that we should have respect or reverence for the life of others. This shows that there

should be a reverence for life may it is human or not.

Ethics as Biocentric in Avatar

Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben6, translating to “Reverence for Life” in English, was presented

by Schweitzer.”Ehrfurcht” implies that we should have and attitude of awe and wonder. We

should approach the environment with awe and reverence. Since there is a difficulty in having a

view that lets us see the inherent worth of all beings independent from that of human. This could

6 Joseph R. Desjardins, “Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy”, Wadsworth Publishing Company; Belmont Califronia, A Division of Wadswort, Inc.

12

provide an alternative that will enable us to see. Schweitzer held that the most fundamental fact

of human consciousness is the realization that “I am life which wills to live, in the midst of life

which wills to live”.7 For him we should respect the life. Although Schweitzer points out that we

should have reverence for life, he is not blind of what evil nature can possess. Living in the

wilderness of Africe while doing his work, He also experienced the hardships that are found in

nature. This of course does not stop him from believing that we should have awe and reverence

for humans. For him, we begin to have ethics when we are fully aware of the fact:

The man who has become a thinking being feels a compulsion to give to every will-to-live the same reverence for life he gives to his own. He experiences that other life in his own. He accepts as being good: to preserve life, to promote life, to raise to its highest value life which is capable of development; and as being evil: to destroy life, to injure life, to repress life which is capable of development. This is the absolute, fundamental principle of moral.8

He is well aware that there is a evil that is caused by the environment but this does not

mean that the environment is value-free and that it is up to us to give it value. We should

understand that others also have inherent worth in themselves and that we should go about them

with awe and reverence. This is of course very difficult of course to apply in our own lives.

Schweitzer made this while he was living in the deep forest of Africa. Although, he may serve a

good point, this still makes it difficult to be practiced by people who live in other areas. Note

also that Schweitzer does not put this off as something that we could take lightly. He points out

that this should be a form of a “rule” to follow.

Other problems arise when we talk about parasites or viruses because this makes it

difficult to on how to deal with them. If we follow the rule in the reverence for life then it will be

7 Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 1308 Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 131

13

problematic when we have to deal with viruses like Dengue or Parasites like tapeworm. This

makes us unable to easily kill them off because we must treat them awe and respect. Not tackled

by Schweitzer directly, it still has this type of implication.

Would this mean that learning to see in this idea would implies us to throw our lives for

the sake of another or that we should respect other beings that harm our bodies because we treat

them in awe? This caricature is not detrimental to what we can we can harness from the movie

and is not directly correlated to what we can Learn to See but it could have some inputs later on.

Since Schweitzer reverence for life is still difficult to practice. Let us take another

biocentric view from Paul Taylor’s respect for Nature.

Biocentric Ethics from Paul Taylor gives us a less demanding stance for the environment.

He gives us the idea of what he calls a Bioentric Outlook. It first starts off by him differentiating

a thing that has ‘having good for their own’ and things that do not. Take for example a bird and

sand. The Bird has the will to live and has something that is goal oriented. The sand on the other

hand has no good on its own and has no goal to benefit itself or prove the worth of it. It may just

be considered as simply a by-product from the erosion of the soil from the wind. Taking Taylor’s

example:

Concerning a butterfly, for example, we may hesitate to speak of its interest or preferences, and we would probably deny outright that it value anything in the sense of considering it good or desirable. But once we come to understand its life cycle and know the environmental conditions it needs to survive in a healthy state, we have no difficulty in speaking about what is beneficial to it and what might be harmful to it… Even when we consider such simple animal organisms as one celled protozoa, it makes perfectly good sense to a biologically informed person to speak of what benefits and harm them, what environmental changes are to their advantage or disadvantage, and what physical circumstances are favorable or unfavorable to them. The more knowledge we gain concerning these organisms, the better are we able to make sound judgments about what is in their interest or contrary to their interest.9

Taylor believed that beings as teleological-centers-of-a-life. “telos” meaning “goal” or

“end”. Similar to that of Aristotle but Taylor gives a different consideration compared to

9 Paul Taylor, “Respect for Nature”, 1986. P. 66-67

14

Aristotle. Taylor includes other beings as well. Also, where as Aristotle puts Human being on a

different category, Taylor’s Biocentric Outlook shows humans are also teleological-centers-of-a-

life constituted with parts that are goal oriented but we are still similar to other beings that we are

part of a community and are interdependent with one another. He shows that humans are not

superior to others and are simply on same terms with them.

Avatar presents to us that a similar way on how these views are played out. The Navi

commune with the environment and are able to interact with each other and keep a relationship

with them without pushing forward dominance with other beings. When Neytiri kills off the

Viper wolves, she regrets her action and scolds Jake for what happened. For her those Viper

Wolves were not supposed to die. Although the situation forces her to kill those viper wolves in

order to protect Jake. These is one extreme situation that there has been viewed or can be a

primary outlook that provides us with the ideas presented. The Navi are able to live with others

with awe and respect and do not view themselves as superior. Unlike the “sky people” who only

think that Pandora is something below them. Can the “sky people” then be able to see like Jake

who transform. There is still much more to see that even the sky people will be able to go behind

its wheel.

CHAPTER 3

HARNESSING A BIOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

15

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is one of the common ethics people subscribe too. It puts emphasis on the

role that is played by character. First presented by Aristotle, he discusses how a person is

considered to be virtuous. This person possesses ideal traits that he nurtures and develops

throughout his lifetime. An example is a person considered to be kind because throughout his life

he has possessed good character. He was not considered to be ethical because he prioritized

utility or he did things because it was his duty. Virtue Ethics is placed in contrast with

deontological or consequentialist theories. Virtue ethics dies not seek any universal maxim on

how to go about life. It questions rather on what is considered to be the “good life” or “how to do

I live”. Different situations will require a different moral approach. There can be no one way to

approach given situation.

Virtue Ethics can be applied to different situation and can be used on other ethical

discussions. Using it enable us to shed new ideas into the past discussions which have not

considered certain points disabling it from forming a holistic view.

Environment Ethics discusses moral boundaries beyond the traditional limits which only

concerns humans. It extends further and talks about environment with moral light that it

conventionally uses on human beings. Finding a universal principle for the relationship of human

beings to the environment is difficult as there is still no one way to go amid our interactions with

the environment. Virtue ethics helps out in this conversation as it by passes the problem of

finding a universal principle and approaches the environment depending on the situation that is

being presented. This gives way to new approach towards the environment. This approach is

commonly known as an Environmental Ethics from the view of Virtue Ethics.

Environmental Virtue Ethics

16

Environmental Virtue Ethics approaches environmental ethics through the lens of virtue

ethics. It sees the moral character of nature and does not base it on any other ethical rules or

consequences. This is in a way both old and new at the same time. As what Louke Van

Wensveen points out that all environmental ethics deal with virtue ethics.10 Similar to what we

discussed in the early on. Both Reverence for life and the Biocentric Outlook presented contain

the idea of Virtue Ethics. This becomes new because it has only been recently that it was

discussed in the full light of virtue Ethics. One ethicist that presents a idea of virtue ethics is

Philip Cafaro. Cafaro presents an idea for virtue ethics from the works of Thoreau, Leopold and

Carson.

Cafaro gives presents common grounds on how environmental virtue ethics is

approached. He specifies 5 common themes for the three works that he discussed. (1) As desire

to put economic life in its proper place—that is, as a support for comfortable and decent human

lives, rather than as an engine powering endlessly more acquisition and consumption. (2) A

commitment to science, combined with an appreciation of its limits. (3) Non-anthropocentrism.

(4) An appreciation of the wild and support for wilderness protection. (5) A bedrock belief that

life is good: both human and nonhuman.11 These themes provide us with an idea in what action

we should take towards the environment in different situations. Although we still consider every

act differently and base it on the situation. This ground gives us commonality as not to be over

subjective in approaching the environment. Without any similarity or common ground on how to

take actions towards the environment, we are open to too much subjectivity and would lose any

sense on how a path should be taken.

10 Louke van Wensveen, Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000).11 Philip Cafaro, Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: Toward an Environmental Virtue Ethics.

17

In the Movie, the Navi are able to approach the environment in a sense of a virtue ethics.

Giving importance to both human and nonhuman, where they are able to commune with the

environment and only kill for food. They also have an appreciation of the wild and support for

wilderness protection. They fight off the sky people in order to protect their home world and

defend the forest and lives that it sheltered. Unlike the sky people who fail to see in an

environmental virtue ethics. They fail to see that they should have a commitment to science but

should be combined with an appreciation to its limits. They went too far as to even “kill their

own mother”. Also failing to see that they should a bedrock of belief that all life is good: both

human and non human. When they alive at Pandora, Sigfried said that everything that is found

here, everything crawling creature is out get you and they dismissed everything already as

mindless and violent creatures. They do not give them a chance that although they may have evil

in them, they also contain good in them. Just like what Schwietzer presents, nature is still good

even with the acknowledgement of evil. Failing to see this gives them a poor understanding

about the environment. And fail to see in how they approach the environment.

These ideas give us a better understanding on how we should go about the environment

but leaves a room of subjectivity. Also it may have different results depending on what situation

a person is in. One action could be considered good another would be considered bad. The

character of an object based on the situation. But there should be a better way to see it with

without reliance on an end of subjectivity. Although with themes, the subjectivity is mitigated.

There is still an opening for it that might result into friction of the discussion. There should be an

idea that would also take this into consideration while having a different result or understanding

of how action towards the environment should be. An idea that show and interconnection

18

between humans and nonhumans. Seeing this idea would help out in harnessing a biocentric

environmental ethics.

Interdependency and Interconnectedness

Interdependency has the idea that everything that is being done has consequences and

that everything cannot thrive without the help of the other. Interconnectedness is the idea that all

action is connected. Every action done will result into others being affected as well and the chain

of events will cause even more events to occur. Similar to the butterfly effect, it extends all

action having ripples and may result into the chaos more or less. But putting grim assumptions

aside, this is a one way to see that humans and nonhumans are more connected to each other than

they let out. Jeremy David Bendik-Keyner discusses this by first sighting moral standing.

“A being has moral standing if, morally, it makes a difference how we treat that being. A standard question raised in environmental ethics: Who counts? Who has “moral standing”? If you think only human beings count, you’re and anthropocentrist, someone who puts human beings – antropoi in ancient Greek – at the center. If you think that all living things count somewhat, you’re a biocentrist, someone who puts life – bios in ancient Greek – at the center. And if you think that the ecosystem count, believing, for example, that to destroy a wetland is morally objectionable above and beyond the loss of the individual and livelihood, then you’re an ecocentrist, someone who puts oikos – “house, home, dwelling place” in ancient Greek – at the center.12

Moral Standing given to all living beings makes all life important. And with every life

having importance, makes the idea of interconnectedness and interdependency easy to grasp.

Since all living in the world have significant, understanding the repercussion of every action that

we take would have more impact. The level of concern would be put on a higher scale rather

being pushed aside. This is not to entail all living beings on the same level of importance as

12 Bendik-Keymer, Jeremy David. “Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational Reason.” In Avatar and Philosphy: Learning to See by George A Dunn, © 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 116

19

human being on every occasion but giving weight to other living being as well. Considering

them as mere tools will put us in failure harnessing a biocentric ethics.

Environmental Virtue Ethics as Biocentric Environmental Ethics

Living things have significance, when one is going about them, one needs character. This

is where we Environmental Virtue Ethics become homogenous with a Biocentrics Environmental

Ethics. Sure we can place value on every living thing but to go about them in one universal

principle can prove to be difficult. Having a virtuous character towards them may prove to be a

better solution. Take for example the complete extinction of bees. The extinction will prove to be

destructive for everybody as it will halt most pollination. Now a person must take into

consideration and be able to understand how to care for the bees without causing detrimental

damages to others but having a swarm of bees’ attack you because you accidentally disrupted

their nest may require another form of consideration. Environmental Virtue Ethics functions as a

Biocentric Environmental Ethics. We put significance in every human life but we also consider

the character that we possess to be able to go about them with kindness.

Enlightened Anthropocentric Distinction

Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics places human being in the center. Giving them the

most importance in their relationship with nature, Nature is only a tool that serves the needs of

humans. This presents a problem as it is in contradiction with the idea of Biocentric

Environmental Ethics. This assumes that an environmental ethics that can be harnessed from

avatar is non-anthropocentric. The movie shows that anthropocentrism is wrong and will not

benefit people in the long run. This view however is misguided.13 It can still embrace

anthropocentrism and be able to harness a Biocentric Environmental Ethics. In his discussion,

Keyner points out that there are two types of Anthropocentricism; short sighted and enlightened

13 Norton, Bryan G. “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism”, P 131

20

version. The former only provides an answer to instant gratification. Making benefits that would

be gained in the shortest time. Enlightened version provides more understanding of what could

be beneficial in the long run. Being able to benefit humans more rather than settling for instant

rewards. The movie suggests that superficial sense of our humanity is shortsighted

anthropocentrism. But also suggests that acting from what is most deeply human involves

something more than superficial anthropocentrism … “ One reason that Avatar provides and

interest is that it pushes us to acknowledge a distinction that’s still not in Environmental Ethics,

the distinction that’s still not common in Environmental Ethics, the distinction between

superficial and deep humanity.”14

Anthropocentrism can still be distinct from Biocentric Environmental Ethics but only is

the former sense. Superficial humanity is clearly different. Superficial humanity mostly bases on

what the individual’s preference on how to go about nature. Placing a determining value found

on the inclination of the individual. If one were to have interest for consumption then nature will

be exploited. Deep humanity on the other hand recognizes the connections of nature and that not

All preferences are rational. The benefits that humanity can gain are better when they consider

the idea of deep humanity. It is still Anthropocentrism as it still places human life on the center.

Deep humanity becomes cohesive with Biocentric Environmental Ethics. In this sense,

Anthropocentricism or as we can call it “Enlightened Anthropocentrism” coincides with a

Biocentric Environmental Ethics. Having Biocentric Environmental Ethics means it is also

containing a deep sense of humanity. There is a sense that everything is connected and

interdependent. More than having a deep enlightenment toward the understanding of the

environment, we must also see that anthropocentric view is not so different with the

14 Bendik-Keyner, Jeremy David. “Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational Reason.” In Avatar and Philosophy; Learning to See by George Dunn, © 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , p116

21

environment. In terms of the extremes there is a clear distinction on how anthropocentric

differentiates from biocentric view. When one must choose between the lives of a human and a

bear attacking him, killing the bear to save his friend is easy to justify. But most of the times the

environment does not do the extremes but rather in grey areas. This is where Biocentric

Environmental Ethics is applicable. Applying it to this makes it easy for us to have a good

understanding how to work well with nature.

CHAPTER 4

22

IMPLICATIONS OF BIOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Implications of having Biocentric Environmental Ethics harnessed from the movie will

enable us to have a holistic relationship with the environment, be able to practice a relationship

with less strict boundaries and still maintain a life-centered ethics. Those are considered to be

implications drawn out from this discussion. Not clearly acknowledged but indirectly stated.

From what we get, we can infer them or get a glimpse of these three implications.

Having a Biocentric Environmental Ethics allows us to value all living beings. Having

value that may not entail having equal amounts of significance in every situation but with

consideration on how everything is interdependent and interconnected. On this note, it does not

lose its foundation or its core. The idea that every life is important is still present. There are

reinforcements on the idea that we can get from the movie that enables us to further build on the

idea. The Anthropocentric View on the other hand does not totally absorb it. It takes the

enlightened version of Anthropocentrism which considers the good of the environment with the

good of human beings. Having a Biocentric Environmental Ethic allows the person to consider

the consequences on a much larger scale.

This also implies that the absence of a universal principle leaves this avenue open. Given

the parameters that we presented, this will not totally lead into subjectivity as it has themes.

Having a less demanding practice will help people get first out the door and be able to have

beneficial relationship with the environment. The movie shows us this idea to a more extreme.

As the Navi are able to commune with Eywa.

The movie shows us how one still values one life despite of protecting another. The Navi

considered giving up their life to protect the world tree but that does not mean that they were

removing value from their own life.

23

Implications of Biocentric Environmental Ethics will lead us to have better interactions

with the environment. Commonly we would follow the principles of non-malificence and

restitutive justice. The former pointing out that we should do no harm to the environment

directly. This is of course later discussed that letting die has near moral implication as killing

someone. Although in Avatar, looking at the picture would mean that something only has to die

or we let something die only if it needs to and nothing more. Actions taken that cause harm

directly to the environment without any good cause that may help out in the entirely of the whole

should not be taken. Actions should be viewed from actions as a whole but not only from a

human perspective. We might easily take it that we decide based from our perspective. We must

also take into account the value of others and how they would go about the action we are going

to take.

The movie provides a good example on how to misstep. The RDA Company is able to

make it so that they think that the environment is something that is only used as means to an end

in the whole. It shows a straight forward on how the two forces clash. The Navi are able to see

the world of Pandora as something interconnected. This is even shown in the idea the about

trees. Trees are seen as interconnected with one another forming a large pattern of chemicals that

provide communication all throughout the system. Like a brain functioning for the betterment of

It’s parts. The residents of Pandora also are able to commune with the environment so that they

are able to take action. This makes every action they take in tune with the environment and also

for themselves. It makes their action put all interest into the table and not their own selfish way.

Doing this provides that they are trying to do with Pandora. This is what we should see as well.

That this planet is so far the planet that we are able to live in its environment and we should take

action based on what will benefit everybody the most. Killing this planet would leave us with

24

nothing more than the death of ourselves. This is why our actions should be guided like with the

idea that everything is connected. Like the trees that are all connected in the roots. We should

function like one big giant brain.

CONCLUSION

25

The Planet has existed for almost 4.6 million years. If we translate that into 46 years,

humans only existed for about 2 months and our industrial revolution only started 1 minute ago

and in that time, we have managed to destroy 50% of the overall forest. This shows that we

should need a new perspective on how to go with our interaction with the environment and be

able to make sure we do not lose the next 50% in the next minute. Extinction of species has been

happening in a very alarming rate and that they are no longer considered to be natural. Also the

circumstances that we are setting up for the Earth are setting up necessary conditions for the next

great extinction. So far there have been 5 major extinctions throughout the existence of the

planet.15

This is a view what is our planet experiencing right now. Both James Cameron and

George Dunn show how valuable the environment and how we can commune with it to be able

further understand its value.

Value can Instrumental, Intrinsic or Inherent. One must understand the value of nothing

not just from it being instrumental but also its intrinsic and inherent value. One must have moral

consideration for all living being. Avatar shows us that one must have a Biocentric Ethics

relationship with the environment.

This is not enough as one also needs to understand that Environmental Virtue Ethics as

having some Reverence for Life and Biocentric Outlook contained within. Being able to have

virtue and a good character with the environment is being able to harness a Biocentrica

Environmental Ethics. Valuing all life also means that one must have a good character towards

them.

It is also shown that Anthropocentricism is not that distoinct from Biocentric

Environmental Ethics. Keyner points out the 2 versions of Anthropocentricism; superficial and

15 http://asapscience.com/book. Accessed 26 April 2015

26

enlightened humanity. One must understand that there are independent and interconnected

betwwin everything and putting this into consideration gives you a deep humanity which is able

to see how humans benefit from actions.

These ideas imply three things. The enable us to have a more holistic relationship with

the environment, are able to practice a relationship with less strict boundaries and still maintain a

life-centered ethics.

We can then see that theses change in perspective in not something that is heavy for us to

practice. Avatar presents to us does not go to the extremes of deep ecology or anthropocentrism

which removing the other proponent from consideration.

One can easily practice these principles as they do not have strict boundaries and

demanding tasks. With the state of the planet right now, it could not be far before we kill our

mother or our mother kills us. Learning to see in a Biocentric Environmental Ethics will help us

have better relationship with the Environment. Being able to go about progress without causing

detrimental damage or consequences is what Avatar advocates. We should try to act upon it and

practice a Biocentric Environmental Ethic.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Online Source

http://asapscience.com/book. Accessed 26 April 2015

Journal Articles

Norton, Bryan G. “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism”

Philip Cafaro, Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: Toward an Environmental Virtue Ethics.

Louke van Wensveen, Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000).

Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970

St. Petesburgs Times. August 12,1996, retrieved 7 May 2015

Los Angeles Times(Latimesblogs). August 12, 2009, retrieved 7 May 2015

Books

Bendik-Keyner, Jeremy David. “Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational Reason.” In Avatar and Philosophy; Learning to See by George Dunn, © 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Paul Taylor, “Respect for Nature”, 1986. P. 66-67

Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 130

Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn© 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107