EE-HOLISM

= Environmental Ethics Perspective: HOLISM=


 * OVERVIEW:** this perspective holds that natural collectives have more moral weight than individual organisms. So ecosystems > species > individuals. Holism also takes into account the fact that people who hold holist ideologies, also subscribe to anthropocentric environmental philosophies (as in James Lovelock ) as well an non-anthropocentric environmental philosophies (as in Arne Naess ). For instance, one can say that they believe that leaving the environment alone, and letting it remain whole, is the most viable method of being able to exploit the //most// resources from it. Also, one might argue that since the environment has intrinsic value and because of this non-human related value, it should be considered as a whole.

Some holist ideologies, in order to be consistent, would lead to the deaths or sterilizations of billions of people, in order to cull the human population and keep the rest of the environment stable enough to support ongoing non-human as well as human life (see Naess 262)  (yes, and this is often likened to "ecofascism" - see below. Perhaps present some of the common reasons for human "culling"??). However, other philosophers realize (such as? ) (Such as Katz- see the the end of the sentence) that environmental policies and philosophies should be reasonable and plausible for people in contemporary society (see Katz 85). [Thompson]  Some holistic views, such as that of Holmes Rolston III, view each part of a greater whole as having value starting with the individual which can be a beholder of value and organisms which have a “good of their kind” as holders of value. Species are viewed as a greater form because of their ability to conserve a biological identity while the ecosystem is valuable for its intricate interconnections and relationships. Some holists have been criticized for merely looking at the whole such as Callicott and Arne Naess (see above) and accused of “ecofacism”. So in understanding and valuing all the parts that make up the whole, a holistic approach can look at the richness and diversity of dimensions present in value and not simply from the individual, the species, the ecosystem, or the earth as a whole. [Sanchez]

I will briefly describe the views of three philosophers, Aldo Leopold, Eric Katz, and Holmes Rolston III, who support a holistic viewpoint in the axiology of environmental ethics. I believe that each of these philosophers' views can be categorized as the following: strong holism, anthropocentric holism, or non-anthropocentric holism.

Aldo Leopold argues that entities within an ecosystem have been considered mainly as possible resources for economic use, and, if valuable for economic purposes, taken into the possession of people. He interprets this behavior as society not extending ethical concern to ecosystems and their inhabitants (41). He intensely disapproves of this lack of ethical concern for ecosystems. He is a strong holist. (ok, and here you should mention his term, "LAND ETHIC" - also, while you make it clear that he is very critical of strong-APC, you could also briefly state his strong holist views)

Eric Katz claims that the most "meaningful" environmental ethic is the ethic he has proposed which has two laws (90). The first law of his ethic to have "moral regard for the ecosystem" (90). The second law is to safeguard individual organisms under the condition that the "well-being" of the ecosystem is not "adversely affected" (91). A significant purpose for having the second law is to avoid placing the well-being of the ecosystem above the well-being of the human beings (92). If there wasn't that second law, it would be justifiable to kill human individuals in instances when doing that would be the only way to fulfill obligations to the ecosystem. Eric Katz is an anthropocentric holist.

Holmes Rolston III claims that "value is not anthropocentric" (143). Humans are not the only organisms capable of valueing; animals can value also (145). Moreover, value can exist without a subjective valuer (152). It can exist in "value-generating systems" such as the Earth (152). Rolston III wants people to realize that nature was able to produce value prior to the "arrival of humans" in geologic time, and he wants people to cherish nature because of its "remarkable" value. He is a non-anthropocentric holist. **(Poston)** (good - I like that you are distinguishing different types or versions of holism. However, it would also be good to explain how non-APC holism is distinct from strong-Holism! are these mutually exclusive? how are they different?) Finally, some of the above might be better added directly to the relevant philospher page; above you should focus more on describing strong, apc and non-apc holism...

=Hello=

Overview 130 ||
 * || AREA || ROLE || 600 WORD BREAKDOWN ||  ||
 * OPEN || Public Policy || Spellcheck cop ||  ||
 * Julia Poston || Weak-Strong Perspectives || Argument Doctor || Aldo Leopold- 540 words; Overview- 170 words ||
 * Rudy Reyes || Counter arguments || Deep linker, Format Artist || Counter arguments - 280;Dale Jamieson- 260 ||
 * Elizabeth Sanchez || Weak-Strong Perspectives || Spy || Weak-Strong Perspectives-300 Greta Gaard & Lori Gruen 370
 * Erin Thompson || Supporting Arguments || Helper Bee || Naess-443 Varner- 112 Lovelock-335, 160 Overview ||  ||

1. Weak-Strong Perspectives (may be shared by two) 2. Supporting Arguments (may be shared by two) 3. Counter-Arguments 4. Evaluation 5. Implications for public policy - APPLIED ETHICS
 * ** GROUP WIKI AREAS: **
 * Julia Poston, Elizabeth Sanchez**
 * Erin Thompson**
 * Rudy Reyes**
 * OPEN** || **GROUP WIKI ROLES:**
 * 1) Flowmaster
 * 2) Spellcheck/grammar cop - **open**
 * 3) Deep-linker- **Rudy Reyes**
 * 4) Format artist- **Rudy Reyes**
 * 5) Helper Bee - **Erin Thompson**
 * 6) Argument Doctor - **Julia Poston**
 * 7) Spy-**Elizabeth Sanchez** ||