Golden Rule and Environmentalism :: Environment Ecology Ecological Essays

Golden Rule and Environmentalism Intelligence, humor, simplicity, common sense, lack of philosophical jargon, perspective, wit, answer to questions. In the style of a popular scientist, not a philosopher, Stephen Jay Gould announces his view of an appropriate environmental ethic following the simple, but forever elegant, golden rule. "If we all treated others as we wish to be treated ourselves, then decency and stability would have to prevail"(216), he states. In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden rule as the basis for my religious beliefs). However, upon closer examination, I find the suggestion to 'just follow the golden rule' as an environmental ethic problematic when examined in a practical, non-idealized light. Harkening back to the problems encountered in previous discussions of biocentric and ecocentric ethics, I am troubled by the potential outcomes of an environmental ethic such as this. In searching for a practical example with which to apply the golden rule ethic, let's examine Martin Kreiger's example of what to do in the case of Niagara Falls. Kreiger discusses three options for managing the Falls which were devised by the International Joint Commission Fallscape committee: 1) converting the falls into a monument, i.e. spending money and resources to keep the falls the way they are now; 2) making the falls an event, i.e. allowing the falls to continue to evolve, monitoring for rockfalls, and 'selling' their occurrence to the public to watch; 3) treating the falls as a show, i.e. giving a director complete power and discretion over the amount of water flowing at a given time, the size of the pool, and the amount of debris, along with lights and music, of course. Where would the golden rule ethic lead us in deciding the appropriate action for Niagara Falls? The first question in trying to apply this ethic is, who determines how "we" would want to be treated so that it can be determined how Niagara Falls would want to be treated? Should 'the public', as Kreiger thinks, have the say in what happens to Niagara, and therefore, decide its fate? I don't think that the public is in an appropriate position to decide the fate of this, or many other, environmental entities.