On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore is joined by Emma Marris, an award-winning environmental writer and author of Wild Souls: Freedom and Flourishing in the Non-human World. (0:00-1:26)
The two begin the discussion by analyzing how nature is defined and valued. Marris critiques the concept of nature; for her, there is no “unspoiled” nature free from human influence, and the idea is associated with colonialist efforts to deny rights to indigenous communities. Marris contrasts the concept of nature with wilderness, which emphasizes the autonomy of non-human animals.
The subject of wild animal suffering has seen increasing focus in animal welfare circles. Marris was drawn to the subject when observing certain conservation practices, especially concerning so-called “invasive species.” Many of these practices involve killing wild animals, and she saw that there were difficult moral questions that were often ignored. (1:47-18:40)
The conversation moves into the ethics of zoos. Marris believes zoos are unethical as they stand today, even though they have positioned themselves as conservation organizations. While some zoos run breeding programs for endangered species and encourage the public to care more about wild animals, animals endure a lot of suffering in most institutions. When considering the ethics of zoos, one important question is whether and how the notion of animal autonomy is relevant. (18:41-30:39)
Zoos and hunting present quite different questions concerning wild animal suffering. For Marris, hunting can be conducted in many different ways, with some being ethical and some not. The two discuss how the attitude of the hunter may or may not matter in the moral calculus. (30:40-43:35)
Switching to a more overarching conversation about the ethics of food consumption, Marris notes that simply existing in the modern world requires the consumption of goods that had a production process that at some point harmed another group. She also raises the question of why we should even care about nature, biodiversity, animals, etc. in general. It is difficult to describe exactly what we value. Livermore notes that the field of environmental ethics is relatively new in human moral discourse, so it isn’t very surprising that there are many open questions. (43:35-50:14)
For the remainder of the podcast, Livermore and Marris discuss the paradox of life and suffering. The fundamental truth of nature is that life cannot occur without suffering and ecosystems would not exist without death. While Marris believes that this issue can never be resolved, she is attracted to the views of philosopher Val Plumwood, who argued that we need to hold reconcilable values at the same time. In order to live, we all want to consume energy but it is impossible to do so while keeping everything alive, vibrant, and diverse. (50:15-57:11)
Tag Archives: ethics
Season 2, Episode 1
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore is joined by Laura Candiotto, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pardubice in the Czech Republic. Candiotto’s recent paper, “Loving the Earth by Loving a Place,” serves as the starting point for the conversation in today’s episode.
Candiotto begins by highlighting how her understanding of loving nature differs from common usage. She argues that if we take up the love of nature in a casual way, we cannot really appreciate its moral and political value. Candiotto mentions that she begins with the account of love as care. It is not just a feeling of enjoyment, but caring about this subject’s well-being. She also mentions the value account, entailing that we appreciate some qualities, specific features, and intrinsic value of the object. Next, there is the fusion account of love, which spells out the idea that when we love, we really want to be one with our beloved. Often, this leads to the idea that love is an idea of oneness with the other. Candiotto accepts the care and value accounts but challenges the fusion or universal account (0:54 – 5:44).
Livermore and Candiotto then turn to the role of philosophy in understanding a phenomenon like love of nature. Candiotto argues that philosophy is a practice. The goal is to understand how we’re using these words to provide clarity about what we’re talking about while articulating a vision of what our relationship could be. Philosophy in this context entails an ethical transformation of self betterment. (5:45 – 12:42) Her aim is starting from specific contexts to get to the universal perspective. (12:43-14:23)
Candiotto further explores the problems with the fusion model of love. Candiotto argues that we miss a lot by reaching for oneness. We miss rich biodiversity, otherness, mystery, uniqueness, and the value that comes with difference. (14:24-22:47)
The conversation then turns to the concept of meaning-making. (22:48-31:40) Candiotto claims that this process is participatory and has to do with the development of certain attitudes. There is a natural connection to love because both require an other-oriented perspective. (31:41-34:47) If we maintain a dualistic assumption that nature is just a resource or just other, we are underestimating the value of this fundamental process of interdependent autonomy. (34:48-39:19)
The two turn to the question of listening in the participatory sense making process (39:20-49:10) and to the question of whether loving nature is essential to a good life. (49:11-56:20) The conversation ends by discussing the relationship between the love of nature and a global environmental movement able to lead to broad political change. (56:21-1:03:25)
Season 1, Episode 19
On this episode of Free Range, Michael Livermore speaks with Ronald Sandler, a Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University. Sandler writes on environmental ethics, emerging technologies, and ethical issues surrounding climate change, food, and species conservation. His books include Environmental Ethics: Theory and Practice and The Ethics of Species.
Livermore and Sandler begin the episode by discussing the relationship between various disciplines engaged in studying the environment. (0:45 – 4:11) They then turn to the question of the moral foundation for intuitions that there is special harm associated with extinction. (4:13- 9:42) Sandler dives further into this philosophical idea of values by discussing the idea that species have value above the individual organisms that comprise them. (9:50 – 15:10) Once we understand where the species came from, the history of their genetic information, and all the future possibilities they have, it is appropriate for humans to value species for what they are. (15:17 – 20:01) Sandler points out that the many ways that species and biodiversity are valuable makes normative justification of policies to protect them over-determined. (20:02 – 25:53)
Livermore and Sandler discuss whether conservation law and policy is too species-oriented. (26:00 – 30:25) Sandler believes that there should be a broader view of conservation rather than just species conservation because there can be massive biological depletion without extinction. (27:33 -) Sandler adds that the extinction crisis cannot be handled species by species, that instead we need strategies that protect and capture large amounts of species but also the ecological spaces where they can reconfigure. (30:36 – 32:11)
Livermore switches the focus by posing the question of whether humans should manage ecosystems to reduce animal suffering. Sandler finds the view that all suffering is bad strange in the context of the natural world. Sandler says that it is not just about suffering, it is about autonomy and that humans have a narrow conception of what makes for a “good” wild animal life. (32:16 – 37:10) Sandler argues that when thinking of how we ought to respond to something with value, we must also think about both the value and our situatedness in respect to them. Sandler uses an example between a pet dog versus a wild wolf to draw distinctions between the kind of duties owed. (37:14 – 47:16)
Sandler discusses the reality that humans have a common evolutionary origin with other species. Breaking down the human/non-human dichotomy undermines the view that we are distinct from the rest of the world and that the non-human world isn’t just a resource for us to use. Sandler connects this view as crucial to making the extinction crisis less severe. (47:20 – 52:41)
Livermore then asks whether the concept of justice applies in environmental ethics. Sandler discusses how there are narrow and broad conceptions of justice, thinking more broadly of how it is fair that one species (humans) use 40% of planetary resources. He states that the question should instead be how can humans and other species both flourish and live alongside one another? Sandler believes this is possible but requires making changes and reorienting our materialistic conception on what is a “good life.” (52:45 – 57:10)
They end the episode by discussing how an increasing population size will increase our human footprint even if we reduce consumption levels. Sandler explains that policies and practices that lower levels of consumption and population growth are possible. Specifically, Sandler points out a major practice that would aid in lowering these levels is shifting away from the idea that maximizing the amount of items we own will lead to a good life. (57:13 – 1:02:11)
Season 1, Episode 16
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Dale Jamieson, a Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy at New York University. His most recent book, Discerning Experts, was published in 2019 by the University of Chicago Press.
The discussion begins with an examination of the tension between animal welfare and environmental ethics. Jamieson traces this tension back to the origins of environmental advocacy and the development of environmental law. This tension is best exemplified by the idea that animals often cause suffering to other animals, yet it is widely accepted that humans should not intervene to prevent the suffering of a gazelle when it has been caught by a lion. This leads to a discussion of the action-inaction dichotomy — the idea that letting something occur is not as bad as causing the same thing to occur — and a broader consideration of what the study of ethics involves, what its aims are, and why we engage with it. (:49 – 16:09)
Expanding on the concept of human intervention in nature, Professor Livermore asks whether our ability to effectively intervene has gone beyond the limits of our ethical comprehension. Professor Jamieson suggests that what has actually occurred is that humanity now undervalues the importance of small actions while overestimating the significance of large actions, before touching on how this attitude has affected public policy regarding not only the environment but, more generally, individual moral responsibility. Jamieson points out that the consensus-based view of government that characterized the era in which environmental policy was developed no longer applies to the climate change conversation. (16:11 – 32:05)
This expands to a question of the role of cosmopolitanism in environmental policy, and the process of translating societal values into policy. After discussing the relationship between values consensus and technocratic governance, Jamieson points out the poor quality of current democratic discourse and the potential for public deliberation to address values conflict. Using the example of the Senate filibuster, Livermore raises the concern that in deliberative institutions, those acting in good faith are often manipulated and subsumed by those acting in bad faith. Jamieson raises questions about the interaction of participation, politics, and successful governance in democracies and authoritarian regimes. (32:10 – 49:36)
Relating this to the concept of unforeseen consequences, Livermore points out that advances in technology have, it would appear, empowered authoritarian regimes while simultaneously weakening democratic societies. Jamieson connects this to some of his recent work, which examines the shifting nature of regulation in the wake of so many different industries moving online. Jamieson and Livermore then discuss the role of the state and perceptions about the ability of the state to address pressing social concerns like climate change. (49:40 – 1:01:47)
The conversation ends with a brief examination of Elon Musk’s attempt to purchase Twitter, before Jamieson concludes with an anecdote about what he hopes for in the future. (1:01:52 – 1:05:45)
Season 1, Episode 11
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Nicholas Agar, a moral philosopher who is currently a Distinguished Visiting Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, Australia. His most recent book, How to be Human in the Digital Economy, was published by MIT Press in 2019.
The conversation begins with something of a retrospective of one of Agar’s earlier works, Life’s Intrinsic Value, which examines the foundations of moral consideration for non-humans. Agar explains how his approach to these ideas have evolved in the three decades since the book was published. In particular, Agar expands on his belief that philosophy must challenge long-held and widely-accepted beliefs. This leads to a discussion on what Agar describes as one of the central concepts within bio-ethics, the important challenge of determining what life is valued and why. (:40 – 9:56)
The conversation then proceeds to examine how these challenges fit within, and are influenced by, a hyperconnected modernity in which individuals are acutely aware of how their actions affect the world, generally. Agar contends that this aspect of contemporary life has inspired a broad range of reactions, most notably a certain nostalgia for a time when society was less connected, and perhaps even an affinity for political movements which absolve individuals of their responsibility. (10:00 – 14:52) Livermore questions if the decline in spiritual cosmologies has also played some role in this state of affairs, and Agar explains how a connection with the natural world may have contributed to a more ethically viable approach to the environment. This leads to an analysis of the work of another moral philosopher, Peter Singer, and the points of intersection and divergence between Singer’s and Agar’s work. (14:55 – 23:56)
Livermore then asks Agar about his views on the rights of nature and of organisms within nature, and how that connects to religion, atheism, the legal regime of nature’s rights, and morality. (24:00 – 30:00) The conversation then shifts to the interdisciplinary nature of Agar’s work, and how he incorporates the humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences into his philosophical analysis. Agar explains that, in contrast to many philosophers, in some instances he emphasizes breadth over depth, which allows for a wider understanding of a given issue and creates a space for experimentation within the field (30:05 – 39:54). This leads to a long discussion of Agar’s recent studies, with a specific focus on the nature of work and how societies can create jobs that are beneficial to individuals’ well-being. Agar argues that humans are fundamentally social creatures, and therefore we should aim to create jobs that allow individuals to maintain social connections. Agar also explains why, through the forced interaction that the social digital workplace economy provides, he believes work can be a tool for combating the increasing balkanization of society and isolation of individuals. (40:00 – 1:03:58).
Season 1, Episode 4
On this episode of Free Range, Mike Livermore speaks with Willis Jenkins, the John Allen Hollingsworth Professor of Ethics and Chair of the University of Virginia’s Department of Religious Studies. In an enlightening conversation that flows from the nature of the humanities to the way in which concerns about access to water are thought about within the academy, Jenkins explains how his work brings together three distinct but connected concepts: religion, ethics, and the environment.
This wide-ranging conversation begins with both Livermore and Jenkins questioning the strange space the humanities occupies within academia, with both suggesting that perhaps the phrase is not fit for purpose (:43 – 4:52). Providing an example of just how interdisciplinary the humanities has become, Jenkins then discusses a project he is involved with as part of UVA’s Environmental Resilience Institute. The project examines the central problem of water security, and Jenkins explains what that means, why it is important, and how the group attempts to reconcile the different interests and values that weigh on society’s water demands (5:30 – 16:10).
The discussion then flows (pun intended!) into a conversation about the difficulties that scientists are confronted with when they are asked to provide objective answers to fundamentally subjective questions, whether the “trust the science” approach is the best option for a cohesive society, and whether democracies can survive climate change (16:25 – 27:24).
The focus then shifts to a different project Jenkins is working on, the Coastal Futures Conservatory, which combines the arts, the humanities, and scientific analysis in order to better understand the effects of climate change. Jenkins talks about a number of the Conservatory’s various projects, including the creation of sound installations in an abandoned coastal hotel on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, the incorporation of indigenous story-telling, and the conversion of data inputs into acoustic recordings. This, in turn, leads to questions about how societies will process the inevitable losses, of territory and of culture, that will occur as a result of climate change (27:30 – 43:10).
The final project Jenkins discusses is Sanctuary Lab, a multidisciplinary program that examines the effect climate change will have on sacred spaces, and how the cultural traditions associated with those spaces can be preserved in the future (43:40 – 53:40).
The conversation concludes with Jenkins briefly explaining the intersection of religion and the environment in the context of contemporary American politics (54:00 – 1:00:37).
Free Range Podcast 