31

GNOSI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis

Volume 4, Issue 1, May (Special Issue), 2021
ISSN (Online): 2714-2485

The Value of Nature: Utilitarian Perspective

Mfonobong Udoudom
Post Graduate Student (Philosophy), Faculty of Humanities,
Rhodes University, Drosty Rd, Grahamstown, 6139, South Africa.
Email: mfonobong.udoudom@unn.edu.ng

(Received: December-2020; Accepted: Feburary-2021; Available Online: May-2021)

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY-
NC-4.0 ©2021 by author (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

ABSTRACT
Utilitarianism regards pleasure, or the satisfaction of interest, desire, and preference as
the only intrinsic value. Therefore, Utilitarian’s believes that right actions are those
which produce the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people. Ethical actions
are judged and determined by their consequences, as opposed to de-ontological, which
is concerned with rights and duties regardless of consequences. It focuses is on the
instrumental value of actions. However, in environmental ethics, instrumental value
also comprises the value of nature as a human resource. Ascribing the instrumental
value to nature had started with humans' use of natural resources for survival on earth.
Human use of natural resources soon turned into the exploitation of nature through a
rapidly changing process which includes the science and technological revolution. Thus,
the anthropocentric worldview was blamed for human reckless exploitation of nature.
Anthropocentricism; a dominant western worldview sees only human beings as having
independent moral status even to the detriment of other beings in the environment.
This theory prioritizes those attitudes, values, or practices which give preferences to
human interests rather than the interests of beings who are other than humans in the
environment. In this work, I will be discussing instrumental value. I will be discussing
the value of nature only as an instrument of human welfare for life support. I will be
preoccupied with some of the issues regarding whether nature has any interest or
significance as such independently of human concern.

Keywords: Environmental Ethics, Anthropocentrism, Utilitarian Ethics.

INTRODUCTION: THE TELEOLOGICAL (NATURAL LAW)

TRADITION
The anthropocentric view of nature can be traced back to Aristotle’s
teleological theory of nature. Aristotle believed that everything in nature is
for the satisfaction of human needs and he says:
 32

Plants exist for the sake of animals… all other animals exist for the
sake of man, tame animals for the use he can make of them as well as
for the food they provide; and, as for wild animals most though not all
of these can be used for food and are useful in other ways; clothing and
tools can be made out of them. If we are right in believing that nature
makes nothing without some be end in view, nothing to no purpose, it
must be that nature has made all things for the sake of man (Rachels &
Rachels 1986, p. 60).
Aristotle develops and explicates the concept of teleology systematically.
The concept of teleology advocates that all natural phenomena are
determined by an overall design or purpose in nature. Teleology is thus
viewed as the study of ends, purposes, and goals. The ends of things or
processes are seen as providing the meaning for all that has happened or that
occurs. Aristotle’s thought is teleological, i.e., everything which is always
changing and moving has some goal or purpose (Chase 2011). This idea of
teleology can be expressed in the language of Newtonian physics which says
that everything has potentiality to be something and, therefore, it may be
actualized. For example, an acron is potentially an oak tree. The acron
undertakes a process of change and motion. In this process of change and
motion the acorn is directed to realize the potentiality of becoming an oak tree.
Therefore Aristotle believed that things in nature occur because they serve a
purpose. All living organisms and non living things develop as they do because
theyhave a natural goal or teleos in nature.
This tradition is called the teleological or natural law tradition. For
Aristotle, to understand a thing fully is to understand the causes for its
being and its nature. So Aristotle talks about the four causes of an object’s
existence. These are the material, formal, efficient and the final causes. The
material cause of an object is what an object is made of, that is, the stuff
out of which it has came. It thus refers to the matter. The formal cause is
how that matter is organized or structured so that this material is what it is.
For example a tree, and a table have the same material cause, i.e., wood.
Wood exists in two different forms. An efficient cause explains how
something comes to be what it is. A carpenter is the efficient cause for a
piece of wood, of becoming a table. The final cause is the purpose or
characteristic activity of the object. The final cause of the table is to
provide a place at which to sit and eat. Hence the final cause of a tree is
the activity which the tree does and which other living things do not. He
believed that all things do have a natural and distinctive activity. We
understand some object fully only when we understand its natural function or
activity.
Aristotle distinguishes two basic types of natural objects (Oderberg
2016). These are; living and non-living (Abakare 2020). The living things are
called, “the principle of life”, or “psyche” which is later translated as the
“soul”. Thus it has the “powers” or “fundamental activities of life”. These
are nutrition, sensation, and thinking. Plants are living things which
possess only nutritive soul. It means that their characteristic activities
include only the powers of nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Animals
 33

possess appetitive powers in addition to nutrition. These material activities

include the powers of sensation, desire and motion. Finally, it is the humans
who possess the three life activities of nutrition, appetite, and thought. The
teleological theory of nature could be applied to all natural objects including
humans. All living and nonliving things have a natural activity or function.
Things are viewed as good when they fulfill this function or actualize
their potential. Every living thing is to attain its natural activity in order to
realize its full potential. The purpose of a plant is to accomplish the
nutritive functions such as taking nutrition from soil, growth, and
reproduction. The purpose of an animal is to attain its desire and fulfill its
appetites that include the nutritive function. In the case of humans the
notion good becomes a comprehensive notion since it includes not only
those above mentioned ends but more importantly it includes the idea of
a contemplative life i.e., a thoughtful and deliberative life.
The modern environmentalism is based on this teleological theory of
nature. Environmentalists assume that natural ecosystems are well ordered
and harmonious. All parts of an ecosystem have a unique and distinctive
place in the ecosystem. Each contributes in its own way to the natural
order of the ecosystem. Undisturbed ecosystem is good. All ecological
problems arise only when human being interferes with the natural objects.
According to this view the way the world is, is the way the world should be
without the interference of human beings. In this context we can talk about
Thomas Aquinas who says nature exists only to satisfy human needs.
Accordingly the resources of nature should be fully utilized for the service
of mank ind (Pasnau 2002). This is the way how nature assumes its
perfection. Descartes was one among the philosophers who influenced the
western thought of domination of nature by humanity. According to him
animals are like machine without consciousness. Hegel considered nature
to be totally lacking value in its untransformed state (Novakovic 2017). Nature
is only worthy of admiration when converted into some form of garden and
farm. Hobbes and Locke thought that only human beings have value.
According to Karl Marx nature is having value as an instrument to humans
(Foster 2017). At this point we discuss Kant’s view regarding the value of
nature little elaborately.
Though Descartes provides a major historical source to the idea of
inherent worth of human beings, Kant made it more explicit in his theory
of categorical imperative. Kant says rational beings only have moral worth
(Abakare 2021). According to Kant’s first formulation of categorical
imperative, human beings are only rational beings (Donaldson 2017). They
are only ends in themselves and therefore they should not be used as only
means for certain ends. Only human beings are having intrinsic moral
worth. So animals are not having the worth of a person because they are not
rational. They are not self conscious beings and they do not have also the
capacity of grasping the moral law. Therefore Kant excluded them from the
moral domain. Only humans are the member of the moral domain
therefore we as human beings do not owe anything for them. But at this
point Kant says human beings should be kind to them because this helps us
 34

to develop good character in us. The kindness towards animals as Kant

observes also helps us to treat our other fellow human beings with greater
consideration. It means according to Kant, the duties of human beings
towards animals thus turned out to be indirect duties for the purpose of
serving human beings.
According to Kant the will is the faculty which enables a person
endowed to act in accordance with certain laws. He further says that
only human beings who are rational beings are endowed with this faculty.
The autonomy of the will has certain ends which are achieved through
certain means. Kant characterizes this as the hypothetical imperative. Apart
from hypothetical imperative Kant claims that there is something whose
existence has an absolute worth in itself. This he calls an end in itself or the
categorical imperative. As he puts it only rational being exists as an end in
himself. He must be always regarded as an end in himself and regards other
rational beings as end in themselves. All other objects are only having a
conditional worth. So at this point he says the beings whose existence
does not depend on our will but on nature are not rational beings. These
beings have only a relative value as means. Therefore Kant called them as
irrational beings. On the contrary he called the rational beings as persons. It
is because they are ends in themselves and they should not be used
merely as means. Therefore they are subjects of respect. The foundation of
categorical imperative is based on the rational nature of the individual
person that exists as an end in itself. A rational being has duties towards
other rational beings as to treat them as an end in themselves which in turn
becomes an universal principle.
According to Kant as far as animals or any other entities of nature are
concerned, human beings do not have any direct duties. It is because
animals are not self conscious and they are not rational. Therefore they are
regarded by Kant merely as means to certain ends. The end is to serve man.
If we question the purpose concerning the existence of animals then the
answer is their existence is only to satisfy certain ends of human beings.
B a s e d o n the utilitarian thinking Kant assumes the idea of ascribing
value to animals. Kant’s explanation to the question why should we give
value to animal thus presupposes an utilitarian answer. In Kant’s reflection:
Animal nature is similar to some extent with that of human nature. But
the only difference is that they are not rational. The idea of rationality
plays a crucial role here since it influences our behaviour towards animals.
Thus, as rational beings we strongly feel in understanding duties towards
animals. By doing our duties to animals we manifest our human nature.
The duty that we perform for the wellbeing of animals has an impact on our
moral nature. Our realization that we ought to be kind towards animals is in
turn helps us to be kind towards our own fellow beings. By doing our duties
towards animal we thus in a sense do our duties towards humanity
indirectly. To give Kant’s example of a dog, he says if a dog has faithfully
served his master for long then the dog’s service deserves reward. When the
dog has grown old to serve then his master ought to keep him until he
dies. Kant says that such actions towards animals enable us to develop a
 35

moral character within us. As a consequence Kant holds that humans

realize the need for performing duties towards other human beings, i.e.,
serving others. Likewise any animal behaviour that is analogous to human
actions may be claimed to spring from the same principles as human
actions do. Therefore we have duties towards the animals because we have
to cultivate the corresponding duties towards human beings like the case of
a dog. A person must practice kindness towards animals because for Kant a
person who is cruel to animals also becomes cruel in his dealings with other
human beings. As Kant observes, our duties towards animal thus
essentially are the indirect duties towards mankind. On the basis of such
kind of value ascription to animals and nature independently of teleological
tradition becomes the basis of the utilitarian approach to environment.

UTILITARIAN THEORY
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialist ethic. Consequentialist ethics
identifies the goals or outcomes which each and every rational agent ought
to attain. Actions are considered right on the basis of the production of the
specific consequences. The actions are considered wrong when they do not
produce the specific consequences. Hence, utilitarianism is a form of
consequentialist ethics elaborated by Jeremy Bentham. According to
Bentham:
An ethical act is one which increases “utility”, utility being equivalent
to pleasure (happiness) or absence of pain. “Nature has placed
mankind under to sovereign masters, pleasure and pain. It is for them
alone to point out what we ought to do (Alder & Wilkinson 2016, p. 38).
This passage brings out explicitly the utilitarian standpoint on morality. In
the utilitarian account, morality is viewed essentially to be meant for
human beings. In its moral concern, utilitarianism thus does not have any
place for nature. The concern for nature is accordingly seen from an
utilitarian point of view, that is, the utility that it serves for human beings.
The same idea we have found while discussing Kant’s position on the value
of nature. Following this line of thinking our duty or obligation to nature
becomes indirect. Objects of indirect duty in nature are animals, plants, and
any other entity in nature. Therefore the direct objects of duty are only the
other human beings. The non- anthropocentric value of nature is unfit in
the utilitarian perspective. The utilitarian theory allocates moral value in
terms of the overall benefit of actions. It says that an action is right when it
maximizes the good for maximum number of people. This theory has two
important reasons for its contribution to the theory of environmental ethics.
The first reason is, it does justice to the fact that some of the remote
consequences or expected consequences do matter in moral thinking
(Akpan & Bassey 2020). The reason is any moral position must take into its
consideration of the account of the consequences of actions in its
assessment of their rightness. Therefore the utilitarian theory says that an
action is right when it maximizes the good for maximum number of people.
The second reason is more compelling than the first reason. The utilitarian
theory lends itself to the theoretical development in a way that other moral
 36

accounts do not. It provides a principled means of arriving at decisions in

the case of moral problems. It evaluates with the moral problems in terms
of the principle of measurable utilities like pleasure and pain. This theory
also helps us to provide solutions by using mathematical and graphical
models in our moral deliberations. Therefore we can say that the
utilitarianism is an influential theory today. Utilitarian reasoning is
influential in the areas of economics, public policy and government
regulations. It has also played a significant role in environmental policy. It
promotes how to maximize the good. It’s ethos is to produce the greatest
good for the greatest number. Thus this theory is based on two basic
elements: The concept of “good” and a rule for judging all acts and decisions
in terms of that good. This rule helps us to judge the ethical status of a
particular act in terms of its consequences.
Hence, utilitarians distinguish between two basic types of values (de
Lazari-Radek & Singer 2017). These are, first, the concept of “intrinsic
good” which is valued for its own sake, second, the value of all other things
are related to the concept of “good”. We explain this in the following way.
For utilitarians there are two kinds of values, i.e., intrinsic value and
instrumental value. The examples of intrinsic value are the concept of good,
pleasure or happiness. These intrinsic values express the notion of intrinsic
good. All other things and activities are said to have instrumental values.
On the basis of our discussion we can now claim that environmental ethics
needs the inclusion of both anthropocentric and teleological perspective.
These two perspectives together spell out that nature exists for the sake of
humans and the significance of nature lies in serving humanity. This we
have seen while discussing Kant and Aristotle. We may thus conclude that
environmental ethics is not possible independent of human beings. In other
words, environmental ethics needs anthropocentric perspective. With this
observation we now come to anthropocentric perspective.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC PERSPECTIVE
Anthropocentrism is a stream of thought which is basically based on the
utilitarian theory of ethics. This theory is based on human wellbeing or human
rights. This theory is more like traditional ethical theories (Kopnina et al., 2018).
Its main justification to give primary value to human beings is that, human
beings are intrinsically more valuable than any other living and non-living
beings. It is because man is the sole bearer of values. It is due to this man
alone has the capacity to give value to everything including nature. Human
beings give value to nature because they need ecology for their survival. Nature
as such is outside the purview of ethical discourse because it is only physical or
objective. Hence the anthropocentric theory argues that ethics is not concerned
with the entities of nature. We cannot pass a moral judgment on the activities
of non-living beings and animals (Akpan et al., 2020). In view of its position the
anthropocentric ethical theory thus holds that nature should be preserved
because it is useful for human existence. The biotic entities like forests, rivers,
mountains, animals and the biospheric atmosphere are subservient to human
purpose. They are only the providers of basic needs and vital breath to human
 37

beings. Accordingly the forests should be preserved because they provide many
products for human survival. The natural resources including both biotic and
abiotic are essential for human life. Human beings have greater capacity for all
kinds of experience. It is thus evident that the anthropocentric theory does not
extend its moral domain to other living and nonliving objects. Its moral
domain remains limited to human beings only. The fundamental
anthropocentric principle is that only human beings can have moral values.
We value all other natural things only in relation to human purposes and
goals. Nature is a resource to be conserved for to meet the requirements of
human welfare. The view that humans as masters of nature are popular
with policy makers. As human beings we owe moral duties to the rest of
the nature, because we h a v e s ocial and moral obligation towards other
fellow human beings. By conserving nature we are performing moral duty
towards nature which ultimately fulfills the obligation towards the welfare
of mankind. Anthropocentric theory can be said of two kinds according to
its orientation or presupposition. These two are strong anthropocentrism
and weak anthropocentrism.
Strong anthropocentrism says all and only humans have moral nature
possessing a set of intrinsic values (Norton 2017). Nonhumans are mere
instruments to human benefits and ends. Nature is only a resource. We
have no duties to nonhumans, but only duties to other human beings.
Our approach to non-humans is thus influenced by our moral concern for
human welfare. In this way strong anthropocentrism can give rise to a
particular conception of environmental ethics which does not assume the
fundamental moral value concerning respect or having care for other
creatures. It thus holds that it is important to protect the environment for
the sake of environment. It is due to this intsrumentalistic attitude
anthropocentrism does not give any thought over negative or destructive
consequences that human actions may have on nature. This stand of
anthropocentrism is sharply different from weak anthropocentrism or
stewardism. With this note we come to weak anthropocentrism.
Weak anthropocentrism is a liberal kind of anthropocentrism. As I have
already said, “anthropocentrism” literally means morality should be central to
humans. Weak anthropocentrism has peripheral moral concern for nonhuman
beings to the extent to which they are concerned with human beings (Norton
2017). However it does not deviate from its basics position which says that
humans are superior and they matter more than other beings and they are
the caretakers of nature. Humans are important but other creatures also
have value in themselves. Further it holds that nature exists for God and it
is the role of humans to look after God’s creation as His steward. As
stewards human beings should look after nature for the benefit of the future
generations. Considering this it appeals that nature should be conserved on
the basis of general description of weak anthropocentrism we will now go in
to some of the varieties of weak anthropocentrism.
 38

ENLIGHTENED ANTHROPOCENTRISM
Today many people do not accept the view that only humans have moral
status. The modern view says that at least some non-human animals must
be given moral status to some extent. Unconstrained anthropocentrism has
lead to the current environmental problems. So we can say that there is a
need for constrained anthropocentrism for the purpose of better
environmental management. This theory is called enlightened
anthropocentrism. Enlightened anthropocentrism is the view which holds
that humans should give moral consideration to nature but the
consideration it gives is always secondary to human needs. It is similar to
anthropocentrism because it takes into account the benefits of nature
towards human beings (Keulartz 2012). Nature provides number of benefits
to humans such as medicinal plants, recreational utility natural beauty etc.
This kind of anthropocentric theory appeals to the human self- interest for
exploiting nature. At the same time it is also moderated by the fear of
inviting natural destruction for humans through their own activities.
Human beings get cautioned by the nature’s disasters. Enlightened
anthropocentrism facilitates the protection of natural entities from
excessive human intervention. It is due to this particular kind of
characteristic enlightened anthropocentrism is found to be widely accepted
among liberal governments. Our day-to-day human concern with nature is
guided by enlightened anthropocentrism in practice. For example, we
make laws to protect nature for human use and by protecting nature we
indirectly protect wild animals. There are two other kinds of enlightened
anthropocentric theories that are not despotic or exploitative. Such theories
go into the discussion on the relationship between environmental
protection and non-material human concerns. These theories emphasize
that we are parts of nature and as parts of nature human beings should
respect nature for its existence as such and as a ground for resources. But we
should do it in our own interest as a part of nature.
Utilitarianism claims that, maximizing human happiness and
minimizing pain is the ultimate principle of morality. In the context of
human happiness environment has an important role to play. Human
happiness requires the maintenance of an environmental life-support
system. Apart from the basic necessities of human existence human
happiness is dependent on medicine, economic benefits, aesthetic
experiences and other instrumental values possessed by nature.
According to J.S. Mill, human beings develop more intellectual or virtuous
kinds of happiness, when they come in contact with wild nature. This kind
of view is also reflected in G.E. Moore’s ideal utilitarianism. It is well
known that Moore defines the ethical principle of good not in any utilitarian
term such as happiness. For him “good” is an irreducible non-natural
property that cannot be further analyzed (Shaver 2018). “Good” is not
composed of any other properties such as happiness. He says “beauty” is the
most important form of “good”. Therefore, we have a moral obligation to act
in such a way so that we can make the world beautiful. Hargrove has
extended this principle further. He argues that we should preserve the
 39

natural beauty of the environment because everything in nature is beautiful.

Thus, the whole nature is worthy of protection.
In this context I bring the discussion of John Passmore. According to him
there are traditions which do not view man essentially as a despot out to
exploit nature ruthlessly (Attfield 2014). The first is the tradition which sees
human being as a “steward”, or a farm manager. Man is responsible to take
care of the nature. The second tradition sees human being as co-operating
with nature in an attempt to perfect it. According to the first tradition, it
is the responsibility of the human beings to look after the inanimate
things. Man is sent to the earth by God to take care of nature. Man is the
master of nature and his role is not simply to contemplate it or to preserve it
in its original condition. His power does not entitle him to use nature
according to his will. He cannot exploit its resources without any
consideration regarding the consequences of his actions on nature. He is at
liberty to restrain fierce animals, but he should protect non-dangerous and
useful animals. Like a farm manager he can cut down trees to make new
farms only if, in doing so, he does not destroy the beauty and usefulness of
nature. In this context we see that modern conservationists conserve
natural resources based on this idea of responsibility of human beings.
In the second tradition it is maintained that man’s responsibility is to
perfect nature by co-operating with it. Here the word “nature”, derives from
the Latin word nascere. It means to be born, or to come into being. This
etymology suggests the potentiality of nature. The etymological meaning of
this expression implies that an area which is still in its original condition, as
“not yet developed”. In this way man’s relationship to nature is to develop
various natural resources, such as, land in order to actualize its
potentialities. This means to bring out what it has in itself to become
and this is the way how human beings perfect nature. This tradition is
applicable to the attitude among modern developers for whom the
potentialities of an area of land consist solely in the profits they can make
out of it. So man’s duty in respect to nature is to perfect it by bring out its
potentialities. The question is how is perfection to be judged? The answer may
be given in Aristotelian manner i.e., the teleology of nature. Nature is at its
best when it fulfils man’s needs. The potentialities are the reason for the
existence of it. To perfect nature is to make it useful for human beings.
For man’s purposes we have to make nature more useful, more intelligible to
our reason and more beautiful to our eyes but at the same time we should
respect it. There are, according to Passmore, two traditions in western
civilization which think of man as having responsibilities towards nature.
The first is called the conservationists. It emphasizes the need to conserve
the earth by effective management. The second one is the perfection of
nature by man (Elliot 1995). Perfection means taking account of nature’s own
resources which, man has already achieved in the process of civilizing the
world.
According to Passmore through our familiar and established ethical
principles, we can preserve our environment. These principles thus serve
the purpose of preserving the environment. They give us a new moral
 40

awareness about environment. As a result we adopt certain attitude towards

environment which includes attitudes like compassion for fellow creatures,
aesthetic appreciation of natural beauty, psychological need for contact
with nature, and our awareness of disturbing the harmony of nature by our
own deeds that pollute nature. These are based on the two fundamental
principles we should have reverence for other forms of life and, second, we
should respect value diversity. However, inculcating such ethical attitudes
do not suggest that we should give more priority to the interests of other
species than our own interests. This attitude comes due to our basic belief
that man controls nature and not other way.
Enlightened anthropocentrism argues that the different kind of
environmental problems can be solved in the ways suggested above. This
helps us to recognize the deontological stand that nature is having its own
interests other than what human beings impose on it is not reasonable.
Since we know that we are similar to nature in certain respect we know
what is good for us is also good for nature. For example, the enlightened
anthropocentric theory has influenced many conservation laws. This theory
also helps us to conserve useful and attractive things, such as, elephants
and lakes. So when it comes to law making for our future human needs,
efforts to save nature outweighs our other immediate needs such as
limiting the use of vehicles since they cause pollution. The well being of
future generations and the survival of an endangered species are the items
which environmentalists must seek to preserve since they are remote and
speculative. On the other hand there is the other objective which is opposite
to previous one. It prescribes the one that is most immediate and concrete
such as restriction on using cars. In order to preserve nature for future
generation we should restrict the use of vehicles to maintain a less polluted
environment. This brings us to the conception of another kind of
anthropocentric theory know as extended anthropocentrism: the concern
for future generations.

EXTENDED ANTHROPOCENTRISM: CONCERN FOR FUTURE

GENERATIONS
The main concern of extended anthropocentrism lies on the welfare
generation (McShane 2007). Its basic argument is that we should protect
environment for the welfare of future generation. In this respect it points
out the evil impact of environment on us, such as, global warming, climate
change and various other environmental problems arising due to our abuse
of nature. It will take many generations to rectify these environmental
problems. Similarly the effects of environmental exploitation, such as,
marine pollution, nuclear pollution, green house gases and global warming
are long lasting and will be felt most severely by people of several
generations in the future. Therefore we should refrain from using the sea
for the disposal of hazardous waste and radioactive contaminants. On land
also the hazards associated with nuclear power installations are as
important for future generations as they are for the present generation.
 41

Scientists and policy makers from leading national and international

institutes for environment call for a declaration from all nations to give priority
to the conservation of plants, forests and marine species than to hunger. Here
we see the principle of hypothetical imperative as the basis of anthropocentric
approach towards nature. Either we should try to keep the equilibrium of
nature or we face hunger and other related environmental problems for our
present and future generations. It is because the custodians or stewards of
biodiversity resources are the human beings. The more we abuse the
environment the closer we are in putting question mark to our existence.
The nature is not a non-living entity with resources. It is on the other hand a
living entity that has its own mechanisms. Human beings try to protect
nature with the sole purpose of increasing our longetivity.
In view of these above considerations it is felt that anthropocentric ethics
must be extended to future generations for its protection and welfare. This
becomes an important move in the direction of our ethical concern for
environment. It is due to this new thinking that all concepts and theories of
(Okeke & Akpan 2012) have been applied to future generations. The principle on
which the concern for future generation is based is called intergenerational
equity that is the benefits that we as present generation is enjoying the future
generation to must be enjoying the benefits of nature in the same way. This
suggests that a balance must be struck between our own interests and the
interests of descendants. This principle of intergenerational equity is supported
by the utilitarian theory. It is the principle of maximizing happiness for
maximum people. But the condition is that maximizing the welfare of
maximum people should be indifferent to time.
For example, a forest is the product of millions of years. If we cut it down
then the continuity has been broken. The natural life cycles of plants and
animals are disrupted in this process. The forest will never be the same
again. Once the forest is cut, the link with the past will go for ever. Nature
as a whole is a store house of many different kinds of knowledge. If a jungle is
destroyed then many plants and species will disappear for ever on which
different researches could have been done. This is a cost that will never be
borne by every generation that succeeds us on earth. Therefore
environmentalists say wilderness is a world heritage. It is something that
we have inherited from our ancestors. We must preserve all these for our
descendants. Human-centered or anthropocentric theories are based on
such kind of consideration for future generations. Such an ethics does not
imply that economic growth is more important than the preservation of
wilderness for the future generations. On the contrary, a human centered
ethics concerned strictly to the benefits of the present generation as for
example it gives more priority to economic growth. Unconcerned economic
growth will lead to a lopsided development. Growth is thus achieved at the
cost of destroying nature. The impact of it though may not be felt by the
present generation its evil effects will be most acutely observed in the life of
future generation.
 42

LIGHT GREEN OR SHALLOW ANTHROPOCENTRIC ETHICS

This theory holds the two basic positions first nature has instrumental
value and second our concern for nature is restricted to put it negatively
as long as nature as it does not harm our existence (Gansmo 2017). In this
way our concern for nature becomes indirect. Its chief characteristic is that
it gives direct value to human beings like all other anthropocentric theories.
Except human beings, all other living and non-living entities have no
independent moral status. Human beings give them value in so far as they
matter to humans. Hence, the consequence is, any part of non-human
nature that has no utility value can be destroyed. Natural diversity is
valuable to humans as a resource. Any kind of plant or animal species
should be saved because they are valuable as genetic resources for human
agriculture and medicine. Shallow ecology is based on utilitarian theory.
According to this theory nature has only instrumental value. So, for
example, pollution should be decreased because it threatens the health of
human beings. Hence it defines a n e cological problem as one that poses
difficulties for humans. It might be having its effects on the rest of nature.
But we should not bother about it as far as it is not affecting us.
The shallow ecological argument is more useful in modern
environmental conservation. Its roots lie in the dominant view of western
philosophy. It is the dominant philosophy where nature is conceived as the
only source of resources. In government departments and ministries,
corporations, research laboratories and all environmental research
institutes nature is considered as a resource. The followers of this theory
see non-human nature as a resource which is to be exploited for human
ends. Therefore, this view is used in resource management and
conservation, human welfare ecology. All of them comprise of what is
broadly called environmentalism. This theory serves well in an immediate
crisis. It is fairly a good theory as long as humans ascribe utilitarian value to
the natural resources like plant, animals, species and place.
Environmentalists though consider nature as having instrumental value it
does not stop with it. The concept of instrumental value or use value is
extended beyond its normal boundaries. For example, we can argue that
an entity or a piece of landscape is useful because it meets our aesthetic or
spiritual needs. In these cases we are not using nature for having benefit.
Their value lies in our experiencing of it, now by, its beauty. However, in
our overall assessment shallow ecology is inadequate to defend nature.
The principles that it prescribes are,
1. Natural diversity is valuable as a resource for us.
2. There is no other value except the value for human beings.
3. Plant should be saved because of its value for human agriculture and
medicine.
4. Pollution should be decreased if it threatens economic growth.
5. Third world population growth threatens ecological equilibrium.
6. The concept of resource has its meaning only with reference to human.
7. Economic growth gets maximum priority because it is held that we should
not compromise with our standard of living for the conservation of nature.
 43

8. Nature is cruel and necessarily so.

In this anthropocentric theory, the relationship between human and nature
can be balanced only by assuming that the concern for nature is dependent
on the concern for human beings to whom values can be ascribed directly.
Shallow ecology thus prescribes only instrumental value to nature.

INSTRUMENTAL VALUE
The theories which we have discussed in this research are supporters of
the use value or resource value of nature. Nature is valuable on the basis of
its use value. Environmental philosophers call this kind of value as
instrumental value (Baard 2019). The word “instrumental” is derived from
the Latin word instrumenterm, which means tool or equipment (Kaufman
1980). In this respect the approaches or the theories they have suggests that,
the nonhuman world is having instrumental value and therefore, all are
human-centered expressing an anthropocentric approach. The
instrumental approach does not necessarily mean that it is a destructive
approach or an exploitative approach. Here we make three kinds of
instrumental value approaches. These are as follows.
1. Unrestrained exploitation and expansionism.
2. Resource conservationism and development.
3. Resource preservation.
In the first two approaches the non-human world is considered
valuable only in so far as it is of instrumental value to humans. The
particular instrumental value in these two kinds of approaches is the
physical transformation of the non human world. That value is called the
economic value. The economic value is realized by physically
transforming the non-human nature by adopting (such as, damming,
farming and mining) measures through which natural resources are utilized
for the purpose of earning profits. The point where the first two approaches
differ is that the first approach, i.e., the unrestricted exploitation and
expansionism does not recognize that there are limits to the material
growth and limits to resource exploitation. The second approach i.e.,
resource conservation and development, on the other hand, does
recognize the limitations of the use of natural resources and says that there
are limits to the material growth.
The third approach i.e., the resource conservation approach
suggests that the non human world should be preserved. We should
preserve it on account of its instrumental value to humans. Environmental
philosophers like, William Grey and George Sessions, have given nine
arguments in support of the resource preservation approach. These are as
follows.
1. The life support system argument states that we ought to preserve all
aspects of the non-human world because it is vital to our physical
wellbeing. We should preserve natural plants and species because we can
do research on them for medicine. Almost all drugs we use are made
either from plants or from animals. When a new drug is made we first
 44

use it on animals for testing the effects of that particular drug.

2. The early warning system argument states that we ought to preserve all
aspects of the non-human world because it is an early indicator of
ecosystem determination.
3. The silo argument states that we ought to preserve some aspects of non-
human world because it represents a repository of potentially valuable
genetic information for use in medicine and agriculture.
4. The laboratory argument states that we ought to preserve the non human
world because it is relevant for scientific study. For example, the study of
human origins.
5. The gymnasium argument states that we ought to preserve the non-
human world because it is good for physical recreation. People can go
for a pleasant walk or picnics.
6. The art gallery argument states that we ought to preserve the non-
human world because we need it for our aesthetic pleasure and
experiences.
7. The cathedral argument states that we ought to preserve it because we
may need it for spiritual inspiration.
8. The monument argument states that we ought to preserve non- human
nature because it has a symbolic or instrumental value of some kind
e.g., the eagle as a symbol of freedom and pigeon as the symbol of
peace.
9. Finally, the psycho developmental argument states that we ought to
preserve nature on the grounds that contact with non-human nature is
essential for healthy psychological development. This last argument is
effectively the psychological counterpart to the physically based life
support system argument.
Following this discussion we can see that the first two approaches emphasize
the value of physical transformation nature. The first two approaches while
restrict the notion of instrumental value to a limited field, the third approach
widens the scope of instrumental value and thus in addition to physical
benefits that we derive from nature it includes various other benefits. The
nine arguments as stated above bring out this wider meaning of
instrumental value. It will be wrong to consider the wider meaning of
instrumental value as mere semantic. The wider meaning of instrumental
value point out in practical terms how different ways we derive benefits from
nature. A brief elaboration may be of some help to put argument in
perspective. The life support system argument emphasizes the physical
nourishment value of the nonhuman world to humans. For food we are
dependent on nature. The early warning system management, the laboratory
argument and the silo argument emphasize the informational value of the
nonhuman world to the human world. The gymnasium argument, the art
gallery argument and the cathedral argument emphasizes the experiential
value of the nonhuman world to humans. The monumental argument
emphasizes the symbolic or instructional value of the nonhuman world to
the humans. The last, i.e., the psycho developmental argument emphasizes
the psychological nourishment value to the non human world. The above
 45

three approaches argue that we can exploit, conserve, or preserve the

nonhuman world. We can exploit it on the basis of purely instrumental value
of the non human world.

CONCLUSION
The value of nature is instrumental. It can be used as we have discussed
above, as an instrument for human welfare in various ways. The
instrumental perspective of anthropocentric theories show that nature is
irrational and it does not have interests like human beings have. Further
anthropocentric theories hold that it is only human interests and not nature
that should be given priority. Started from Aristotle and Kant nature is
meant for the use of human beings.
Everything in nature has a purpose and therefore nature is only
teleological. According to the purpose that the individual entities have
Aristotle made a hierarchy in which human beings are placed on the top of
the scale. But it is not true that all anthropocentric theories give prima facie
importance to human beings. This will be found from the claims made by
theories like enlightened anthropocentrism, extended anthropocentrism
and shallow ecology where the idea of human beings having the duties to
taker care of nature is prominently found. However in spite of their revised
or enlightened stand, these theories confirm to their ultimate
instrumentalistic position. That is, the concern for nature is ultimately for
the benefits of human beings of future generation. Man is thus conceived as
steward or caretaker whose supreme duty to take care of all the values
(recognized as instrumental values) that nature exhibits which are vital for
human beings. Taking care of these values is thus meant to be indispensable
for the survival of human beings. Hence serving nature for them will thus
mean serving the future generation of mankind.
REFERENCES
Abakare, C. (2020). The Origin Of Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s Views. GNOSI: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Human Theory and Praxis, 3(1), 98-112.
Abakare, C. O. (2021). Kantian Ethics And The Hesc Research: A Philosophical
Exploration. PREDESTINASI, 13(2), 79-92.
Akpan, C. O., & Bassey, S. A. (2020). The Quandary on Water Pollution in Nigeria's
Niger Delta: an Environmental Ethical Analysis. Bulletin of Pure & Applied
Sciences-Geology, (2).
Akpan, C. O., Ogar, J. N., & Bassey, S. A. (2020). Examining the Ethics of Research in
Animal Experimentation. Bulletin of Pure & Applied Sciences-Zoology, (1).
Alder, J., & Wilkinson, D. (2016). Environmental law and ethics. Macmillan
International Higher Education.
Attfield, R. (2014). Environmental ethics: An overview for the twenty-first century.
Baard, P. (2019). The Goodness of Means: Instrumental and Relational Values,
Causation, and Environmental Policies. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 32(1), 183-199.
 46

Chase, M. (2011). Teleology and Final Causation in Aristotle and in Contemporary

Science. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review, 50(3).
de Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2017). Utilitarianism: A very short introduction.
Oxford University Press.
Donaldson, C. M. (2017). Using Kantian ethics in medical ethics education. Medical
Science Educator, 27(4), 841-845.
Elliot, R. (Ed.). (1995). Environmental ethics. Oxford University Press.
Foster, J. B. (2017). Marx's ecology in historical perspective. In Karl Marx (pp. 609-
621). Routledge.
Gansmo, J. T. (2017). Environmental ethics: Anthropocentrism and non-
anthropocentrism revised in the light of critical realism. Journal of Critical
Realism, 16(2), 184-199.
Kaufman, P. I. (1980). The instrumental value of nature. Environmental Review:
ER, 4(1), 32-42.
Keulartz, J. (2012). The emergence of enlightened anthropocentrism in ecological
restoration. Nature and Culture, 7(1), 48-71.
Kopnina, H., Washington, H., Taylor, B., & Piccolo, J. J. (2018). Anthropocentrism:
More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 31(1), 109-127.
McShane, K. (2007). Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: Why should we
care?. Environmental Values, 169-185.
Norton, B. G. (2017). Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism. In The Ethics
of the Environment (pp. 333-350). Routledge.
Novakovic, A. (2017). Hegel on second nature in ethical life. Cambridge University
Press.
Oderberg, D. S. (2016). Teleology: Inorganic and organic. In Contemporary
perspectives on natural law (pp. 259-279). Routledge.
Okeke, J. C., & Akpan, C. O. (2012). An Inquiry into the Moral Question of Xeno-
Transplantation. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 8(1), 2.
Pasnau, R. C. (2002). Thomas Aquinas on human nature: A philosophical study of
Summa Theologiae, 1a 75-89. Cambridge University Press.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (1986). The elements of moral philosophy (p. 9). Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Shaver, R. (2018). Prichard's Arguments against Ideal Utilitarianism. Utilitas, 30(1), 54-
72.