Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 August 2012
A classic debate in environmental ethics addresses the issue of whether the environment has intrinsic value. Proponents of an anthropocentric account contend that the environment is valuable only insofar as it is useful to human beings, where usefulness can be construed in either narrow or broad terms. Conversely, nonanthropocentrists claim that, in addition to instrumental value, the environment is intrinsically valuable. This debate has important practical implications for the way people conduct themselves concerning the environment. Nevertheless, it has been dismissed by some in the philosophical community as well as beyond. We argue that this debate is important and ought to be taken up by environmental professionals. The aforementioned different views are already reflected in environmental practice, including in the Society of American Foresters Code of Ethics. We argue that useful lessons can be learned from both areas of overlap between anthropocentrists and nonanthropocentrists, as well as from areas of disagreement. We will make our case, in part, by looking at the evolution of ethical responsibility in the engineering profession. Our broader claim is that philosophical discussions can and should be a part of professional practice.
Environmental Practice 14:184–189 (2012)