The Philosophical View of Deep Ecology

Introduction 

This essay focuses on a discussion of the issue regarding the context of deep ecology. Philosophers that have addressed the issue in contention include Bill Devall and George Sessions, and Ramachandra Guha. The philosophers have different beliefs concerning the concept of deep ecology. In general, Devall and Sessions believe that ecology amounts to the way in which individuals develop a balance between themselves, their communities and nature. Conversely, Guha is of the opinion that deep ecology is an American construct that focuses on the advocacy on social and political objectives posing as provisions of radical environmentalism in non-American cultures. The practicality of deep ecology is divided between the philosophers, which is a provision that has grave social consequences. The stronger view of the two positions on deep ecology is from Guha, who emphasize on the implementation of Green programs, which can promote the integration of human life, in addition to protecting the natural habitat. The essay will begin by presenting a detailed analysis of each of the two positions, consequently concluding by providing arguments related to the belief that Guha has a better claim.

Reasons Why the Authors Believe In Their Views 

Devall and Sessions focus on the idea that deep ecology invites the moral obligations of individuals. In this case, it is the moral obligation of an individual to react to the degradation of the environment. They are presumably of the idea that individuals should not depend on other people to make decisions regarding the need to preserve the environment. Devall and Sessions, in their theoretical provisions focus on the idea that the theory of deep ecology has a significant effect on a considerable number of political movements. Their essay emphasizes on the idea that deep ecology has been popularized in several contexts. Regardless of the popularization of these concepts, they emphasize on the notion that a person has to involve him or herself to change his or her consciousness, in addition to listening to others. For this reason, they focus on the notion that it is essential for people to take direct action as an influence of their personal intuition.

One of the fundamental reasons for their belief is that the cultivation of ecological consciousness focuses on the idea that the interior work that Devall and Sessions emphasize on is radically different from the experience of a considerable number of people living in the contemporary metropolis. They believe that the experiences of the individuals in the contemporary society inhibits them from engaging in the exercise advocated for by Devall and Sessions, as most of the people in urban settings would consider such an engagement as a waste of their time. In this case, people in the modern society are immersed in their excessive appetites for success, as well as competing with other people in their business world. Instead, Devall and Sessions refer to Arne Naess’ conclusion, which provides that people are likely to conclude “…it is not lack of energy consumption that makes them unhappy”. This argument presents the case that people are unlikely to engage their consciousness to develop the desired harmony between nature, individuals, as well as the communities in which they live.

The other reason provided for their belief could be based on the idea that a considerable number of the philosophical as well as religious concerns that individuals face in the contemporary society create sharp contrasts between the self and the other. An important question arise is “how can the individual self-maintain and increase its uniqueness while also being an inseparable aspect of the whole system wherein there are no sharp breaks between self and the other ?” In relation to the ecological perspective assumed, the deeper sense of developing individual uniqueness, and fostering the same, should be an awakening to people that they are part of the entire system. For this reason, the primary position in this regard is based on the idea that humans can consider themselves as separate or superior entities to other components of nature, which can be a provision that would answer concerns regarding the dominance of the individual, as advocated for by the Western culture.

Guha, in “Radical American Environmentalism and Wilderness Preservation,” claims that deep ecology is an American concept, and that the social consequences that might emanate from the practice of deep ecology can be negative. Guha follows four tenets to explain his position on the cultural rootedness of deep ecology, during which he embraces it in a universalistic perspective. His initial tenet is that it is essential for “…environmental movement [to] shift from an ‘anthropocentric’ to a ‘biocentric’ perspective” (Guha, 1989). This assumption provides that the dominating assumption of deep ecologists is the provision that the work of man is at the center of the universe. This type of belief could be regarded as a provision that characterizes the political realm, which Guha identifies as shallow ecology, which is rubbished because the arguments in themselves are human-centered (Guha, 1989). This could be regarded as one of the reasons for advocating for the creation of an anthropocentric-biocentric division.

The other characteristic of deep ecology as provided for by Guha is the provision that it focuses on the undefiled portions of the ecology (Guha, 1989). The preservation of such sections of the ecology could be addressed scientifically. For this reason, apologists of the argument might be of the opinion that “a large portion of the globe must be immediately cordoned off from human beings” (Guha, 1989). The third tenet focuses on the spiritual traditions of the East, which follows religious traditions. Based on this tenet, the consolidation of deep ecology, which is based on Judeo-Christian tradition, can be regarded as the philosophical claim that bears a universal significance. Regardless of the internal differences that characterize the beliefs of deep ecologists, the fourth tenet, which is based on the idea that the deep ecologists see themselves the American vanguards, in terms of their philosophies, spiritual, and political orientations, focuses on world environmentalism.

The author believes in this view based on the idea that enjoying nature is integral in the contemporary society. He blames the American society for advocating for the discontinuity of private automobile use, yet they do the same at extended proportions (Guha, 1989). In this regard, Americans enjoy the material benefits derived from the expansion of the economy, including the benefits of pure nature. The philosophical viewpoint adopted by the author is related to the creation of two poles of reality, characterized by the coexistence of the civilization and wilderness. The divided poles are given social assignments that have are prominent in the culture of the contemporary society. The divided poles occupy the same space in the Western world. The concerns bring about the notion of Green programs, which focus on the setting environmental limits needed for fostering growth (Guha, 1989).

The author concludes by advocating for the implementation of Green programs, which resonates in a number of countries, India being one of them (Guha, 1989). The expansion of the consumer economy might not support the provisions held by Green programs. However, the battles that focus on the mutual coexistence of individuals in nature provide that environmental preservation is fundamental. Therefore, an alternate society should be created, in which the focus should be the provision that the inequalities experienced were a result of ecological wisdom.

Similarities and differences 

The similarity between the two essays is based on the notion of religion and polity. The authors share the opinion that deep ecology surpasses the confines of a shallow approach to environmental problems, in which they attempt to create a religious as well as philosophical worldviews. In this case, both authors agree to the notion that certain notions of deep ecology follow intuitions of religiosity, and the outlooks of people in politics. The type of tradition followed in a particular setting can be regarded as conducive for the cultivation of ecological consciousness, which focus on answering the question regarding the input of values and ethics in the concept.

The difference between the two essays includes the provision that Devall and Sessions on the aspect of self-realization, which they consider as an isolated ego. However, based on the concept of biocentric equality the aspect of self-realization addresses the idea that if humans can harm nature, then they are doing the same on themselves. In this case, the moral philosophy constituted in this argument is that everything is interrelated. However, the perception of people regarding the provision of respect for the human and nonhuman beings is what brings about the hierarchies of species, thereby placing the human being at the top. This should not be the case as the implications of such a perception would encourage the implementation of undesirable dominant worldviews. Instead, all nature contain intrinsic worth, which means that the supplies on earth are limited and should be preserved for the betterment of all the biospecies.

On the other hand, the philosophical position assumed by Guha communicates that deep ecologists should focus on implementing traditions that allow for the integration of the concerns of the ecology in the daily livelihood and the work of human being. The integration is necessary for ensuring the observation of equity and social justice, which should be applicable to the internal aspects of an individual nation, to the application of the same on the global scale (Guha, 1989). The fundamental reason for this emphasis is that the political provisions of the regeneration of the ecology might not succeed. Elements such as the Green program might be applicable to some societies but not others. Guha emphasizes on the idea that the foundation of global ecological issues are based on the unequal share of resources, with the first world being the primary consumers, followed by the urban elite in developing nation (Guha, 1989). The ecological movement in the Western society should begin by ensuring that the sharing of resources ceases to be disproportionate, consequently expanding to other parts of the world. The spiritual and communal values should then play an increasing role in the sustenance of people’s social life.

The author that makes the most reliable case 

An assessment of the views presented in the two articles could be used to reveal that Guha makes the strongest case. First, he provides a description of the manner in which the destruction of the ecology was initiated, meaning that the people, primarily those in rural settings, can implement the corrective measures. Secondly, Guha advocates for the implementation of Green programs, which can promote the integration of human life, in addition to the protection of the natural habitat. Such an implementation is vital for ensuring the continuity of harmony between man and nature. On the other hand, Guha presents a convincing view through the third tenet, which focuses on the idea that deep ecology should have a universal significance rather than being confined to a single nation. In conclusion, it is possible to posit that the causes of ecologically wasteful characteristics cannot be reduced through anthropocentric attitudes towards nature.

Reference

Guha, R. (1989). Radical American environmentalism and wilderness perservation: a third world critique.  Environmental ethics ,  11 (1), 71-83. (Essay 2)

Bill Devall and George Sessions, Deep Ecology: Living as If Nature Mattered , (Peregrine, 1985). (Essay 1)