Ethics and Nature in the World’s Religions

Abstract

Why is it important to include the world's religions in our study of different perceptions and ethical approaches to the environment? For well over half the world's population the traditional religions still construct the world view and perception filter that guides the way people interact with nature. As Uno Svedin (1995) put it, one's world view with its cultural-religious connotations creates a frame for one's thinking and ethical choices. Three additional reasons for including religions may be advanced. First, just as philosophy, law and economics may offer guidance based upon a long history of human thought, so also religion has been and remains a major part of human civilization; therefore, its wisdom should be considered. Second, since many in today's world are believers of one religion or another, an appeal for individual environmental responsibility could use, as part of its argument at least, an appeal to the individual's religious beliefs. Third, some states are religious rather than secular (e.g. Pakistan and Iran); therefore, knowledge of religious responsibility can help in appealing to such states for international co-operation on environmental problems such as global warming. In this lecture we will review each major world religion in turn for its view of the ethical relation that should obtain between humans and nature. For comparative analysis across religions we will use a consequentialist ethical schema developed by Tom Hurka. Hurka (1993) distinguishes between opinion and ethics. Surveys to determine what people think is right and wrong about the environment describe opinions rather than ethics. Ethics is about values apart from people's opinions. Ethics assumes that some beliefs about right and wrong can be incorrect or vicious, and ethics wants to discover which ones are correct. In short, there is right and wrong above and beyond what people think is right and wrong-beyond people's opinion. To reach ethical policy decisions about environmental problems, such as climate warming or the vanishing fishstocks, we need two things: scientific knowledge about the risks presented and ethical principles on which to base our judgements. For policy decisions that will carry peoples' behaviour we can move along a spectrum from relatively uncontroversial and widely accepted ethical principles to ones that are more speculative and contentious. Hurka's ethical analysis proceeds by examining the consequences of actions to: humans here and now (e.g. people living in our own country, family or ethnic group); humans everywhere in the present (e. g. includes in the rest of the world, especially developing countries); humans everywhere at all times (e. g. future generations); nature valued for itself (e. g. earth, air water, plants and animals have ethical standing along with humans). We will begin our study with the religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and the Aboriginal traditions before considering Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Case studies developed in the research work of the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society will be employed for illustrative purposes. The ethical principles for environmental action found in each religion will be compared using Hurka's consequentialist schema for the purpose of finding widely based grounds for world policies.