A famous biologist was asked what he learned about the Creator from the study of nature.  His response was, "He has an inordinate fondness for beetles."   Philosophers teach that you cannot derive what ought to be from what is.  Appeals to “nature” are often fraught with ambiguities and hidden assumptions.  These assumptions often lie at the heart of environmental issues and policy debates.   Is “competition” more natural that cooperation (or vice versa.)  Like scripture, “nature” often supports both sides of an issue.  Biologists have begun to make the observation that “ethics” can serve as adaptive strategies.  “Sharing” is found in many species as is the “tit for tat” exchange of favors.  If I share food with you now, you may share food with me later to our mutual advantage.  We seem “naturally” disposed to help friends and family but in nature a good Samaritan is hard to find.

What is it then in our “nature” that might impel us toward a deeper “environmental ethic?”   We are encouraged to reduce, recycle and reuse for “our grandchildren” and that is a strong argument. The same argument might be used however to justify damming a river and flooding a wilderness valley to assure energy for “our grandchildren.”  The wise might see that “all grandchildren” have a claim to the future even if our immediate family suffers for the “good of all.”  That wisdom goes against the grain when suffering is close to home.  Things get even more murky when we move from the human family to “all our relations” in the ecology of the planet.  Biologists propose a general affinity for living things called “biophilia” but psychologists have shown we care more for polar bears than for endangered bats.  We will do more to save eagles than to save vultures perhaps because eagles seem somehow more “human.”

Some environmentalists propose a “deep ecology” perspective where we are all in this planetary crisis “together” and the network of interrationships between all living things is primary.  If we believe that things exist for their own sake and not just for “our” sake then a new perspective emerges.   We still make practical distinctions about “good and bad” from a human perspective and our altruism has limits.  Scientists are telling us that actions we take now to avert a climate crisis may not show for a generation or more.  It is hard to look beyond the horizon of our own lives and beyond the circle of our family and friends but “nature” may reflect more of this than just a “ love of beetles”,  It may reflect the cosmological principles on which “creation” seems to operate. One formulation of this is:

``We live in an interconnected web of relationships in which we must
maximize the possibilities for the future diversity of life while conserving
conditions for current forms of life. “

The psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg proposed the notion that that moral maturity results from the interaction of developing brain power with an increasing range of social interactions.

BRIEFLY

Young children defer to authority

Older children negotiate their mutual self interest.

Adolescents follow group norms for popular “approval.”  (good boy/girl)
Adults follow “the law” even when it is unpopular -  “it’s the law.”
Experienced "wise" people however claim to make judgements based on utilitarian notions of the "greater good" implicit in the social contract or even universal ethical principles such as "justice is blind."

How might “moral development” influence our approach to the environment?
The bumper sticker of a "civil society" is "it takes a village to raise a child."
That may need to be revised to, "it takes a planet to raise a child.”
In BC and soon probably soon in the US a key indicator of an ethical change will be application of a carbon tax. Most policy wonks agree that it is a simple visible way to reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.  It is however politically unpopular.  People feel they have a right to food and fuel and the tax is likely to be neither equal or equitable.  This is particularly clear to truck drivers, farmers and suburbanites. How could a politician ethically justify a US carbon tax?

Level 1 - deference to power – “I have the votes – do it or die!”
Level 2 - self interest --  “your carbon refund will exceed your expenditures``
Level 3 - group norms --  ``its what all the good people are doing – conform!``
Level 4 - social duty --  `` it is the law and your duty to obey even if its unpopular.``
Level 5 - utility -- `more people will benefit in the long run.`` (the greater good)
Level 6 - reasoned principle ``precautionary principle – do no harm.``
                ( Which of the above will have the most clout with the voters? )

There is perhaps another rationale:

Level 7 – appeal to nature or the “evolutionary principle”
`` A carbon tax contributes to the interconnected web of relationships where we must
maximize the possibilities for the future diversity of life while conserving conditions for current forms of life in recognition of their inherent right to be.”

A natural ethic extends moral development from ego centric to “in group” centric
through a  multicultural “global” view to finally the perspective of a planetary ecology. 

Philosophers will tell you that you cannot derive “ethics” from the natural world but that

May have led us into an ethic of “detachment” from what sustains and promotes life on earth.

How do we relate appropriately to the environment that produced and sustains us ALL?

Additional environmental dilemmas:

Nuclear energy could dramatically reduce carbon emission is the short run but has long term risks and might undercut conservation efforts.

GMO organisms may reduce chemical and carbon use now while endangering “natural” DNA .

Do we encourage economic development at the expense of environmental health – does an organized response to the environment require the “social stability” of antipoverty efforts?

Does the financial crisis help avert an environmental crisis?  Should environmentalist oppose any “stimlulus” for the economy?  Whats wrong with North America gaining “3^rd world” status?

How do you encourage people to make sacrifices that have no benefit for 50 to 100 years.

Carbon “offsets”  are modern “indulgences” – like moving food around on your plate so it looks like you are eating your vegetables?  Is the money received from offsets “tainted.”

Does technological research create the “moral hazard” of behavioural inaction or delay.

“We don’t need to do it now because we can “fix it” in the future.”

The level of “moral reasoning” provided on EITHER side of these issues might indicate the level of “moral judgment” according Kohlberg’s schema.  Kohlberg’s schema has been critiqued as representing that of “ivy league white males” since they were the main subjects of his research. His student, Carol Gilligan, also observed that women tend to develop an “ethic of care” while men tend to develop an “ethic of rules.”  Where Kohlberg defined the later as “higher”, Carol suggested that it is just what you would expect from a “Harvard male (Kohlberg).” She proposed that “care” and “justice” were “parallel” systems based on different life experiences. Dennis Krebs (SFU) has suggested that Kohlberg’s “stages” of cognitive development might be better understood as different adaptive strategies that evolve through “natural selelction.”  Stage 1 (authority) for example, gives rise to a “pecking order” that reduces barnyard (or school yard) confrontations.