Environmental Justice Ethics & Environmental Virtue Ethics

From an anthropocentric view towards environmental philosophy and ethics, we regard human beings as superior to all other non-human living things, and in the modern world, there are nations that argue they represent democratic ideals where equality exists for all. However, the reality is one where even in a nation, such the U.S., there is discrimination towards certain groups of individuals is based on race, economic status, and so on. The discrimination is apparent in the field of environmental justice in which it is evident that certain regions and communities are exploited more so than another community for resources. There are numerous organizations established to confront environmental justice issues and to address the discrimination that takes place day to day. The following blog entry discusses environmental justice—intergenerational and intergenerational justice, and environmental virtue ethics.

The concern that environmental justice seeks to address is the distribution of resources through policies that can affect multiple individuals and communities, generations, nations, and habitats. It is our responsibility to address the vast injustices as stewards to our environment. How can we avoid environmental injustices towards particular communities when certain parties are unable to cast their “vote” on important decisions? Moreover, how can we determine what policies are adequate enough or destructive to our habitat?

Consumption; the thing that fuels our economy and at the same time fuels the degradation of our environment. The engine behind mass consumption are not the consumers who achieve an immense amount of material consumption, but rather the corporations that fuel the desires and more times than not, deny that their product has certain detrimental effects towards the environment. Karl Grossman and Majora Carter claim that corporations and governments, particularly arguing in the U.S., practice “environmental racism;” such a practice is apparent through the placement of hazardous facilities in communities where the majority of the inhabitants are black in the U.S. In her TED Talk, Carter demonstrates the environmental racism present in the South Bronx neighborhood in NYC. The particular community is the home for the majority of waste facilities and hazardous ones that block access to the riverside, and the construction of the Cross Bronx Expressway under Robert Moses disrupted many communities and displaced many from their homes. Carter argues that the practice is negative towards the functioning of the community and not only to the surrounding environment. Statistically, communities with more open space and green space have lower crime rates and over better health. The benefits of a healthy environment go further than simply improving the particular community, and Carter highlights this view. She led the construction of the South Bronx Riverside Park, which set out to turn the area for hazardous facilities by the waterfront into a community park. In seeking out such a rigorous endeavor, Carter advocates for the initiatives from the government to prevent the practice of exploiting struggling communities and to provide money and resources for creating community parks and environmentally friendly spaces. Overall, Carter demonstrates the evident environmental racism practices by corporations and the government and urges there to be a change.

Carter’s discussion on environmental racism towards communities—where the majority are people of color—raises the important question of how involved are corporations in perpetuating the discriminatory placement of harmful facilities and overall damage to the environment? For instance, a common discussion on corporations in respect to our environment is if corporations can and should be held as “responsible” parties in environmental debates. Corporations argue that either they are not responsible or deny that their practices increase pollution and other damaging factors. A more significant role in corporations’ behaviors is the government’s influence. The government has the power to limit or prevent certain practices by corporations, but also it is clear the government is pretty adept at supporting and permitting a certain practice. For instance, President Trump, only being in office for a few weeks has already determined to support harmful practices by businesses through numerous executive orders. The most recent executive order permits hazardous waste to be disposed into local streams with disregard of the effects it has on the local habitat. The reading of Grossman, published in 1991, remains relevant to this day in which it demonstrates the instances of environmental racism towards minority groups that is evident in even representation in environmental groups in our government. One of the main argument for government to support commercial businesses and improper environmental treatments is that of loosened restrictions to create new jobs, which is good for the economy at least for the short-term. The government is willing to overlook certain environmental and social injustices in order to increase economic “prosperity.” The damages in the long-term to the economy, environment, and particular groups should pose a greater concern than the short-term benefits of such harmful and discriminatory practices.

Concerns that environmental justice ethics addresses are the effect something may have on future generations, and whether a practice is sustainable. Sustainability is not evident in most practices by individuals globally, which is evident in the consumer economy that drives massive amounts of waste; that is just one example. Future generations is a concern of sustainability. It is important to provide current desires and needs with the consideration of the future generations. There are numerous implications when accounting current behaviors with the possible moral status of future individuals. Is it possible to extend the moral community beyond the idea of concerning ourselves with the future simply because it is of value for the moral being at the moment or whether future persons hold their own undeniable moral standing? For instance, Libertarians argue that privatization of all resources would promote care for the future generations with the assumption that no property owner would deliberately devalue his property, thus securing the interests of future generations. The Libertarian assumes that every property owner’s value for property will be based on the same understanding; in other words, one man’s trash may be another man’s treasure so it should not be assumed values are universal. The concern for future generations and adequate sustainability is reflected in past and current policies imposed.

As I had raised earlier in my discussion, it is difficult to determine the values that motivate individual human beings, such as in the Libertarian example. Thus, the area of environmental virtue ethics concerns itself with the character, excellence, and flourishing of individuals. The area of ethics provides a valuable approach towards how we should treat others and things—as seen in Kantian ethics and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics concerns itself with the debate of whether individuals can hold altruistic beliefs, which would be reflected in areas such as treatment of non-human animals and the environmental as a whole. Environmental Virtue ethics is not a consistent approach to tackling major problems we face with the environment; however, it provides a promising approach that could influence further theories and behaviors.

The ethical approaches discussed in this blog entry provide a base to view concerning environmental injustices and possibly how to address the undeniable damage that poor policies and the economy create for certain groups—i.e. minorities and future generations.

Word Count: 1178

Discussion Question: With the consideration of the current political climate, is environmental justice ethics adequate enough to even attempt to undertake the massive monster that the modern consumer economy is? Do intergenerational and intragenerational obligations and concerns reflect in current policy practices that shape our current and future habitat?