Immanuel Kant’s Moral Philosophy and the Ethics of Environmental Stewardship: Duties Beyond Humanity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31305/rrjss.2023.v03.n02.011Keywords:
Moral philosophy, environmental stewardship, categorical imperative, universalizability, sustainabilityAbstract
Immanuel Kant’s ethical theory, grounded in the categorical imperative, underscores universal moral obligations and the inherent dignity of individuals. Although generally focused on human interactions, his ethical paradigm possesses considerable relevance for environmental management. This study examines the potential of Kant’s moral theory to encompass obligations to nature, non-human creatures, and future generations, beyond mere human interests. The essay posits that Kantian ethics, through its concepts of universalizability, respect for humans, and indirect responsibilities, establishes a basis for environmental ethics. It posits that human accountability to the environment arises from the necessity to maintain conditions conducive to rational agency and future moral evolution. The paper examines the obstacles and criticisms associated with the application of Kantian ethics to environmental concerns, namely the anthropocentric constraints of Kant’s theory and the risk of instrumentalizing nature. This research ultimately seeks to demonstrate that Kant’s moral philosophy can significantly inform current discussions on environmental responsibility and sustainability.
References
Attfield, R. (2003). Environmental Ethics: An Overview for the Twenty-First Century. Polity Press.
Barry, B. (1999). Justice as Impartiality. Oxford University Press.
Callicott, J. B. (1999). Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. SUNY Press.
Gardiner, S. M. (2011). A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001
Haraway, D. (2008). When Species Meet. University of Minnesota Press.
Hill, T. E. Jr. (1983). “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments.” Environmental Ethics, 5(3), 211–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19835327
Jamieson, D. (2002). Morality’s Progress: Essays on Humans, Other Animals, and the Rest of Nature. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199251445.001.0001
Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1797) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809644
Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809590
Korsgaard, C. M. (2004). Fellow Creatures: Kantian Ethics and Our Duties to Animals. In The Tanner Lectures on Human Values.
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press.
Louden, R. B. (2000). Kant’s Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195130416.001.0001
Millán Molinar, E. (2016). Kantian environmentalism: A critical approach. Environmental Ethics Journal, 38(2), 183-202.
Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
Rolston III, H. (1988). Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Temple University Press.
Singer, P. (1990). Animal Liberation (2nd ed.). Avon Books.
Stone, C. D. (2010). Should trees have standing? Law, morality, and the environment. Oxford University Press.
Sunstein, C. R. (2004). The rights of animals. Harvard University Press.
Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press.
Warren, K. J. (1990). “The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism.” Environmental Ethics, 12(2), 125–146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics199012221
Wood, A. W. (1999). Kant’s Ethical Thought. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173254
