good of the majority. Rights-based ethics get around this problem by postulating moral
rights that are universal (possessed by all), equal (no one has the right in any greater or
lesser degree than another), inalienable (cannot be given up or taken away), and natural
(not created by human acts, as are legal rights). A major problem with rights-based ethics
is that different rights may conflict, and criteria need to be selected for choosing among
them.
Both of the aforementioned types of ethics are focused on needs of individuals and thus
are humanistic. Some propose a holistic ethic that places value on systems rather than
individuals. This approach is used to raise to the level of moral principles ideas such
as the diversity and integrity of ecosystems or the sustainability of economic systems.
The Judeo-Christian tradition forms the basis of much of Western thought. Various
interpretations have been applied to its view of the relationship between humans and
the rest of the natural world. A negative view has been blamed on the biblical injunction
to ‘‘have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle,
and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ... Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
the earth’’ Genesis 1:26–28.
However, other passages imply that all of creation has value. Genesis 1:31 states that
‘‘God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.’’ The animals are
also commanded to be fruitful and multiply. This leads to the stewardship concept, which
states that humans have responsibility for the protectio n of creation. In any case, the Wes-
tern tradition developed in which humans were viewed as the center and pinnacle of crea-
tion, a notion that is cal led anthropocentrism.
Some Asian religions, such as Zen Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism (esp ecially the
Buddhists), teach unity with nature, including compassion toward other humans as well as
animals. For native Americans, unity means an interdependence and kinship between all
animals, including humans, and natural systems. They believe that all animals have spirits
that deserve respect. Animals can only be killed out of necessity, after which humans have
to mak e apologies and atonement to the spirit of the killed animal. Many tribes also link
their identity to prominent landscape features.
The Darwinian revolution dethroned humans from their special position in creation.
Instead, they are part of a continuum with the animals, plants, and ultimately with the
nonliving chemical world. The other parts of the living and nonliving world are seen
as kin, which gives us an incentive to make our ethic include that which is good for
them.
The wildlife biologist and amateur philosop her Aldo Leopold (1949) proposed such an
ethical system in his book A Sand County Almanac. He calls it the land ethic. This book
is considered the ‘‘gospel’’ of the conservation movement, much as Rachel Carson’s
(1962) Silent Spring sounded the alarm that stimulated the environmental movement.
The idea of a land ethic is developed further by Callicott (1986).
Leopold describ es how ethics developed from responsibilities toward other people.
Eventually, these responsibilities were expanded to include the family and the cla n, and
then larger and larger groups, ultimately encompassing all of society. As the boundaries
of the community expanded, the inner ones remained. These can be viewed as a con-
centric hierarchy of responsibilities to larger and larger communities (Figure 1.2): from
self to nuclear family, extended family, clan, nation, and all of humanity. A person’s
responsibility toward the outer rings does n ot cancel the inner ones, but rather is layered
CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS 11