“The land ethic,” which is found in the work of Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, is a theoretical philosophical framework. In it, Leopold tries to confront the weaknesses which he say encompass common environmental conservation. Leopold, a trained forester, and hunter, cherished and recognized the benefits of nature (Leopold, 2014). Having lived through the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, he witnessed fertile top soil in southwestern Wisconsin blown away by the wind and eventually sip into the sea. These he observed were as a result of human activities and wondered how, despite the profit motives of man from the soil, humans failed nature. This inspired his thinking about conservation, and he established that there was a relationship between humans and nature in as far as conservation is concerned. It’s these thoughts that culminated into Leopold writing the essay “The Land Ethics.” In the essay, he argued that if the Wisconsin farmers had used some money from the soil conservation fund more than for the immediate profitable endeavors, they would have adopted farming practices that favored their livelihood and that of their neighbor and also protected the top soil for future use (Leopold, 2014).
Leopold proposed that there was a need for evolution of ethics, a new ethic, which included all members of the biotic community which he referred to as “the land” (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015). The biotic community according to Leopold should include human being, animals, plants and other things that help in the existence of the lives the living things. The position than human beings occupy should change from conqueror of the community to that of a member of the land-community. As part of the essay in an excerpt, “Ethical sequence,” he argues that there is no ethic that deals with man’s relationship to land, plants and animals (Leopold, 2014). He argues that the first two steps have been undertaken and that the third, relations to the land, is the missing one in the sequence (Floridi, 2006).
Ethics may mean moral judgment of what is right and wrong and is an inherent characteristic of an individual. Although Leopold cites the ten commandments as an example of ethical standards that define what is wrong and right considering human beings relationships to one another; cites the Golden rules (do unto others as you would to yourself) as pertains the relationship between human beings and the society, he does not explain what the “ten commandments” in his land ethic are. Leopold provides a summary that something is right when it aims to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of what he termed as the biotic community. It is, however, wrong when the opposite occurs (Leopold, 2014). However, the applicability of this simple statement exposes the complexity that is in it. Luna, Leopold’s son, asks if it is therefore right to say that the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biosphere suffice as a criterion for morality. Does it also mean for example that the death of a quarter of the human population, which will not affect ecosystem neither does it compromise diversity of species, would be fit to define morality? (Leopold, 2014).
Despite Luna’s view on Leopold’s “land ethic,” it has become popular today as it does not demand a lot of human sacrifices. This is opposed to the views of other environmentalists like deep ecology and biocentrism which are radical. Deep ecology’s core principle is that every living organism should be respected and regarded as having some legal rights hence should not be sacrificed for utilitarian instrumental human use. Biocentrism core principle recognizes and inherent value to all living things and does not consider human being’s interests as superior to others’ (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015). Leopold’s “land ethic” is an attempt to strike a balance between the interest of man and a biotically diverse and healthy natural environment.
He, for example, does not advocate for human beings to stop feeding or carrying out experiments using animal or plant specimen, neither does he advocate for an action to reduce human population or for allowing human beings to destroy continuously the environment to satisfy their needs.
Comparison of Aldo’s land ethics to other land ethics
Apart from Aldo Leopold’s land ethics, it’s important to consider other land ethics that are based on economics, egalitarianism, utilitarianism, ecology, libertarianism. Economic-based land ethic is premised on the economic self-interest. The flaw in this land ethic, according to Leopold, is that most members have no economic worth in the ecosystem; this however, if according to the human eye and it is very possible that such members might be eliminated yet they are important for a healthy biotic community (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015). My critical analysis at this flaw as mentioned by Leopold, however, is that human beings do not eliminate “unimportant members” of the ecosystem from whom they do not derive economic benefits. It is, therefore, possible that the members which could be eliminated are the most economically important ones which every human being needs. On the other hand, upon realization of the importance of certain members in the ecosystem for their economic benefit, human beings will try very hard to maintain them and not eliminate them (Floridi, 2006).
Put forth by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the utilitarian ethic of land is the general view that an action is as good and morally right when it produces maximum good results to the people. It has been adopted in making the various decision based on land, and it closely relates to the economic land ethics (Floridi, 2006). It however differs from it in that it can, for example, be used to sacrifice and individual’s interest for the benefit of others (majority). A good example is that if an individual’s land may hinder the passage of a road to a certain community, the individual’s good is overridden by the public good. A critical look at this land ethic shows it can be used for or against a good. This ethic was employed to support industrial agriculture, and the argument was that if large-scale industrial farming could produce more food to support the human population and generate more income, then it was for the good of the people. On the contrary, industrial farming might involve the use of chlorofluorocarbons which pollute the environment, which would mean it isn’t for the good of the people. In essence, application of utilitarian ethics is a doubled edged sword that can be used for and against the same thing (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015).
Libertarian land ethics gives liberty to individuals to make use of their land as they would wish so long as they do not interfere with other people’s rights. This is similar to the advocacy towards privatization of land rights as was suggested by Hardin to be the solution to “the tragedy of the commons.” However, this ethic does not consider the effect on the environment which in itself is a problem in the concept of “tragedy of the commons.” If individuals were given absolute rights to utilize their land as they wish, they would only consider self-interest and would put little emphasis on the harm their actions have to the other members of their environment that they do not derive direct benefits from. This would harm the health of the entire biotic community where man is a member (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015).
Egalitarian based land ethic responds to Libertarian ethics and criticizes it on the basis that while libertarian land ethics gives individuals liberty, it does not require them to help other. This, the proponents of egalitarian ethics argue, leads to uneven distribution of wealth. Egalitarian ethics, therefore, can be used to bring equity in the society (Leopold, 2014). It, however, generates some negative rights in that there are certain individuals that have to take the responsibility of supplying these rights to all in the society. This, when applied to the land issue, means that even though there could exist a situation of equity in the distribution of land, it does not mean that by default or by a declaration of such rights, every individual will access their land. The practicality of this, however, requires critical analysis, it’s is not true that granting equitable distribution of resources would translate into those individuals making good us of such resources. At the end of it all, it might be necessary to consider giving land to those who can make good use of them as opposed to just making sure that everyone has equal access to land
The above land ethics do not focus on the members of the ecosystem that are of non-economic worth. The ecological based land ethic is premised on the principle that the land (and organisms that live on land) have intrinsic value. Although there are criticisms towards these land based ethics, they express concern about the human activities that take place in their environment without considering other aspects of the environment itself (Floridi, 2006). It is, however, important to ask the question, apart from human beings, “who can take charge of the environment and treat its members equally?”
The consequences of human beings ignoring other members of the biotic community and pursuing their economic interests are felt with human beings in the long run. I’m therefore of the opinion that human beings are not the conqueror of their environment but are just mere members like any the rest. The feeling of being conquerors to the environment is myopic and is only from the human eye. It’s a common say that nature always takes its course, this, therefore, means that the balance in the biotic community that is majorly destabilized by human activities will always be restored even though there could be disparity in time between when the disturbance on the biotic community occurs and when actually the equilibrium is restored (Pojman, Pojman & Mckshaine, 2015).
A critical look at the ecosystem shows competition between its members though they are very dependent on each other for existence. It is, however, evident that human beings, although blamed for the various imbalances that occur in the biotic community, they are the most conscious of the environment amongst all the members of the community (Floridi, 2006). The acts of the rest of the members of the biotic community entirely depend on forces of nature, although human beings are also subject to these forces. I, however, think that these conscious decisions by human beings to address concerns as pertains the biotic community are merely efforts to delay an eminent imbalance that will, either way, occur and again be restored by nature. The restoration of such an equilibrium normally has consequences that adversely affect various, if not all, members of the biotic community.
I applaud the attempts by environmentalists to preserve the environment. However, I would consider the universe as a bored polythene bag that has water dripping slowly through some tiny pores. Since human beings and the environment struggle to survive inside this polythene bag, their interactions cause more pores. Human beings being the only smart amongst the rest in the polythene bag attempt by all means to seal the pores that exist on the bag.
Looking at the above analogy, the struggle to survive will not stop, as well as the struggle by human beings to seal the pours. The ultimate end for all in the polythene is not known as the conscious in the bag (human beings), have tried and managed to seal some holes in the bag. My view on this, therefore, is that from the onset of life, the disequilibrium resulting from the various occupants of the environment has always had some adverse effects on particular group members of the biotic community and some mild effects on the rest (Floridi, 2006). The future of the biotic community is not known; human beings can try to shape it, but the ultimate destiny of the whole biotic community seems to be controlled by a superior power which is not a member of the biotic community. Aldo Leopold’s contributions are plausible as they have opened our minds to new issues of concern to human beings. However, the fact that the practicality of some of his moral suggestion like what is right or wrong considering “land ethic” is an indicator that there are a lot that is beyond human control.
References
Leopold, A. (2014). The land ethic (pp. 108-121). Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.
Floridi, L. (2006). Information ethics, its nature and scope. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 36(3), 21-36.
Pojman, L., Pojman, P., & McShane, K. (2015). Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Nelson Education.
