Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Different philosophical perspectives on the nature-human
relationship shape definitions of 'crime', and what are deemed to be
appropriate responses to environmental issues. As will be seen shortly,
eco-philosophy has a major impact on how researchers and activists
define crime and the varying ways in which they understand the
victimisation of humans, specific environments and nonhuman animals.
A considerable disjuncture exists between what is officially labelled
environmentally harmful from the point of view of criminal and civil
law, and what can be said to constitute the greatest sources of harm from
an ecological perspective. For example, there are profound, long-term
adverse environmental effects flowing from such historically legitimate
practices as using long-lines and drift-nets to catch fish, injecting
cyanide and arsenic into the earth to mine precious metals, or destroying
nonhuman nature in the course of building freeways and mega-cities.
Indeed, many conventional, and legal, forms of human production and
interaction do far worse things to the natural environment than those
activities which are deemed illegal.
Although the philosophies employed to explicate the nature of the
relation between the 'social' and the 'natural' worlds are numerous (see,
for example, Lane, 1998; Halsey, 2004), a useful analytical distinction
can be made between anthropocentric (human-centred), biocentric
(species-centred) and ecocentric (socio-ecological centred) perspectives
(see Halsey and White, 1998). The anthropocentric perspective
emphasises the biological, mental and moral superiority of humans
over other living and non-living entities. Biocentrism views human
beings as simply 'another species' to be attributed the same moral
worth as such organisms as, for example, whales, wolves and birds.
Ecocentrism refuses to place humanity either above or below the rest
of nature. However, the unique capacity for human beings to develop
and deploy methods of production which have global consequences,
means that humans also have an explicit responsibility to ensure that
such production methods do not exceed the ecospheric limits of the
planet (White, 2007). Moreover, this responsibility extends to human
and nonhuman life. Issues of eco-justice and accountability are discussed
further in Chapter Five.
For many of those studying and taking action on environmental issues,
the question of broad philosophy is grounded in specific concerns about
eco-human rights and the responsibilities of ecological citizenship
(see for example, Halsey, 1997; Smith, 1998). What does this mean in
practice? It means that present generations ought to act in ways that do
not jeopardise the existence and quality of life of future generations. It
also means that we ought to extend the moral community to include
Search WWH ::




Custom Search