Résumés
Abstract
While holist views such as ecocentrism have considerable intuitive appeal, arguing for the moral considerability of ecological wholes such as ecosystems has turned out to be a very difficult task. In the environmental ethics literature, individualist biocentrists have persuasively argued that individual organisms—but not ecological wholes—are properly regarded as having a good of their own . In this paper, I revisit those arguments and contend that they are fatally flawed. The paper proceeds in five parts. First, I consider some problems brought about by climate change for environmental conservation strategies and argue that these problems give us good pragmatic reasons to want a better account of the welfare of ecological wholes. Second, I describe the theoretical assumptions from normative ethics that form the background of the arguments against holism. Third, I review the arguments given by individualist biocentrists in favour of individualism over holism. Fourth, I review recent work in the philosophy of biology on the units of selection problem, work in medicine on the human biome, and work in evolutionary biology on epigenetics and endogenous viral elements. I show how these developments undermine both the individualist arguments described above as well as the distinction between individuals and wholes as it has been understood by individualists. Finally, I consider five possible theoretical responses to these problems.
Résumé
Quoique les perspectives holistes telles que l’écocentrisme exercent un attrait intuitif considérable, affirmer la considérabilité morale des touts écologiques comme des écosystèmes s’est avéré une tâche très difficile. Dans la littérature en éthique de l’environnement, certains biocentristes individualistes ont argumenté de manière persuasive qu’un organisme individuel, mais pas un tout écologique, peut correctement être considéré comme possédant son propre bien. Dans le présent article, nous réexaminons ces arguments et soutenons qu’ils sont voués à l’échec. Ce travail est divisé en cinq parties. Premièrement, nous nous penchons sur certains des problèmes que pose le changement climatique pour les stratégies de conservation de l’environnement et affirmons que ces problèmes fournissent de bonnes raisons pragmatiques pour lesquelles chercher une meilleure compréhension du bien-être des touts écologiques. Deuxièmement, nous décrivons les a priori théoriques de l’éthique normative qui sous-tendent les arguments contre l’holisme. Troisièmement, nous réexaminons les arguments de biocentristes individualistes appuyant l’individualisme et rejetant l’holisme. Quatrièmement, nous explorons de récents travaux en philosophie de la biologie sur le problème de l’unité de sélection du biome humain en médecine et des éléments épigénétiques et viraux endogènes en biologie évolutionniste. Nous montrons en quoi ces conceptions minent à la fois les arguments individualistes susmentionnés et la distinction entre l’individu et le tout tel que compris par les individualistes. Finalement, nous considérons cinq réponses théoriques possibles à ces problèmes.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Agar, Nicholas, Life’s Intrinsic Value: Science, Ethics and Nature, New York, Columbia University Press, 2001.
- Armstrong, Lyle, Epigenetics, New York, NY, Garland Science, 2014.
- Basl, John and Ronald Sandler, “Three Puzzles Regarding the Moral Status of Synthetic Organisms,” in Gregory E. Kaebnick and Thomas H. Murray (eds.), Synthetic Biology and Morality: Artificial Life and the Bounds of Nature, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2013, pp. 89-106.
- Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation, New York, NY, Hafner Press, [1789] 1948.
- Brandon, Robert N., “The Levels of Selection,” Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1982, no. 1, 1982, pp. 315-323.
- Cahen, Harley, “Against the Moral Considerability of Ecosystems,” Environmental Ethics, vol. 10, no. 3, 1988, pp. 195-216.
- Callicott, J. Baird, “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair,” Environmental Ethics, vol. 2, no. 4, 1980, pp. 311-328.
- Dawkins, Richard, The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, Oxford, W. H. Freeman and Company, 1982.
- Dawkins, Richard, “Extended Phenotype – But Not Too Extended: A Reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka,” Biology and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 3, 2004, pp. 377–396.
- Egan, Dave and Evelyn A. Howell (eds.), The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist’s Guide to Reference Ecosystems, Washington, D.C., Island Press, 2001.
- Egan, Dave, “Authentic Ecological Restoration,” Ecological Restoration, vol. 24, no. 4, 2006, pp. 223-224.
- Goodpaster, Kenneth E., “On Being Morally Considerable,” Journal of Philosophy, vol. 75, no. 6, 1978, pp. 308-325.
- Gould, Stephen Jay, “Darwinian Fundamentalism,” New York Review of Books, June 12, 1997.
- Harris, James A., Richard J. Hobbs, Eric Higgs, and James Aronson, “Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change,” Restoration Ecology, vol. 14, no. 2, 2006, pp. 70-76.
- Hauskeller, Michael, “Telos: The Revival of an Aristotelian Concept in Present Day Ethics,” Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, vol. 48, no. 1, 2005, pp. 62-75.
- Higgs, Eric, Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2003.
- Hobbs, Richard J., Mark A. Davis, Lawrence B. Slobodkin, Robert T. Lackey, William Halvorson and William Throop, “Restoration Ecology: The Challenge of Social Values and Expectations,” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 43-48.
- Hoegh-Guldberg, O., L. Hughes, S. McLntyre, D. B. Lindenmayer, C. Parmesan, H. P. Possingham and C. D. Thomas, “Assisted Colonization and Rapid Climate Change,” Science, vol. 321, no. 5887, 2008, pp. 345-346.
- Holmes, Edward C., “The Evolution of Endogenous Viral Elements,” Cell Host and Microbe, vol. 10, no. 4, 2011, pp. 368-377.
- Hourdequin, Marion and David G. Havlick, “Ecological Restoration in Context: Ethics and the Naturalization of Former Military Lands,” Ethics, Place, and Environment, vol. 14, no. 1, 2011, pp. 69-89.
- Hull, David L., “A Matter of Individuality,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 45, no. 3, 1978, pp. 335-360.
- Hull, David L., “Individuality and Selection,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol. 11, 1980, pp. 311-332.
- Laland, Kevin N, “Extending the Extended Phenotype,” Biology and Philosophy, vol. 19, no. 3, 2004, pp. 313-325.
- Leib-Mosch, C., R. Brack-Werner, T. Werner, M. Bachmann, O. Faff, V. Erfle, and R. Hehlmann, “Endogenous Retroviral Elements in Human DNA,” Cancer Research, vol. 50, sup. 17, 1990, pp. 5636s-5642s.
- Lloyd, Elisabeth A., “Units and Levels of Selection: An Anatomy of the Units of Selection Debates,” in Rama S. Singh, Costas B. Krimbas, Diane B. Paul, and John Beatty (eds.), Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp. 267-291.
- Lloyd, Elisabeth A., “Units and Levels of Selection,” in David Hull and Michael Ruse (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 44-65.
- Mawdsley, Jonathan R., Robin O’Malley, & Dennis S. Ojima, “A Review of Climate-Change Adaptation Strategies for Wildlife Management and Biodiversity Conservation,” Conservation Biology, vol. 23, no. 5, 2009, pp. 1080-1089.
- McLachlan, Jason S., Jessica J. Hellmann, and Mark W. Schwartz, “A Framework for Debate of Assisted Migration in an Era of Climate Change,” Conservation Biology, vol. 21, no. 2, 2007, pp. 297-302.
- Millikan, Ruth Garrett, Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1984.
- Neander, Karen, “The Teleological Notion of Function,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 69, no. 4, 1991, pp. 454-468.
- Nelson, Michael P., “Teaching Holism in Environmental Ethics,” Environmental Ethics, vol. 32, no. 1, 2010, pp. 33-49.
- O’Neill, John, “Meta-Ethics,” in Dale Jamieson (ed.), A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers, 2001.
- Primack, Richard B, A Primer of Conservation Biology, 3rd edition, Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates, 2004.
- Regan, Tom, “The Nature and Possibility of an Environmental Ethic,” Environmental Ethics, vol. 3, no. 1, 1981, pp. 19-34.
- Regan, Tom, The Case for Animal Rights, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1983.
- Ricciardi, Anthony and Daniel Simberloff, “Assisted Colonization is Not a Viable Conservation Strategy,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 24, n. 5, 2009a, pp. 248-253.
- Ricciardi, Anthony and Daniel Simberloff, “Assisted Colonization: Good Intentions and Dubious Risk Assessment,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 24, no. 9, 2009b, pp. 476-477.
- Rolston, Holmes, III, Environmental Ethics, Philadelphia, Temple University Press, 1988.
- Sandler, Ronald L., The Ethics of Species: An Introduction, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
- Schlaepfer, Martin A., William D. Helenbrook, Katherina B. Searing, Kevin T. Shoemaker, “Assisted Colonization: Evaluating Contrasting Management Actions (and Values) in the Face of Uncertainty,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 24, no. 9, 2009, pp. 471-472.
- Schweitzer, Albert, Cultural Philosophy II: Civilization and Ethics, London, A. C. Black, 1929.
- Seddon, Philip J., “From Reintroduction to Assisted Colonization: Moving along the Conservation Translocation Spectrum,” Restoration Ecology, vol. 18, no. 6, 2010, pp. 796-802.
- Shklar, Judith, “The Liberalism of Fear,” in Shaun. P. Young (ed.), Political Liberalism: Variations on a Theme, Albany, NY, SUNY Press, 1989, pp. 149-166.
- Shrader-Frechette, Kristin, “Sustainability and Environmental Ethics,” in John Lemons, Laura Westra and Robert Goodland (eds.), Ecological Sustainability and Integrity: Concepts and Approaches, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1998, pp. 16-30.
- Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation, New York, Avon Books, 1990.
- Sober, Elliott, “Philosophical Problems for Environmentalism,” in B. G. Norton (ed.), The Preservation of Species: The Value of Biological Diversity, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1986, pp. 173-194.
- Sober, Elliott and David Sloan Wilson, “A Critical Review of Philosophical Work on the Units of Selection Problem,” Philosophy of Science, vol. 61, no. 4, 1994, pp. 534-555.
- Specter, Michael, “Germs Are Us,” The New Yorker, October 22, 2012.
- Sterelny, Kim, Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest, Cambridge, Icon Books, 2003.
- Varner, Gary E., In Nature’s Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1998.
- Taylor, Paul, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1980.
- Thomas G. Whitham, Thomas G., William P. Young, Gregory D. Martinsen, Catherine A. Gehring, Jennifer A. Schweitzer, Stephen M. Shuster, Gina M. Wimp, Dylan G. Fischer, Joseph K. Bailey, Richard L. Lindroth, Scott Woolbright and Cheryl R. Kuske, “Community and Ecosystem Genetics: A Consequence of the Extended Phenotype,” Ecology, vol. 84, no. 3, 2003, pp. 559-573.
- Turnbaugh, Peter J., Ruth E. Ley, Micah Hamady, Claire M. Fraser-Liggett, Rob Knight and Jeffrey I. Gordon, “The Human Microbiome Project,” Nature, vol. 449, 2007, pp. 804-810.
- Willard, Stacey S. and Peter N. Devreotes, “Signaling Pathways Mediating Chemotaxis in the Social Amoeba, Dictyostelium discoideum,” European Journal of Cell Biology, vol. 85, no. 9-10, 2006, pp. 897-904.
- Wright, Larry, “Functions,” Philosophical Review, vol. 82, no. 2, 1973, pp. 139-168.