1

Nick Race
ENVL Philosophy
An Examination of Environmental
Ethics and Environmental Terrorism
12/17/2015

Humans, unlike many other organisms trouble themselves with

classification. This need to classify things permeates every aspect in our
lives. We classify each other by race, by social class, by political party, and
most importantly by differing ideology. There also tends to be this black and
white divide that forces us to choose. It is either this way or that way, or this
one or that one. You are either with us or against us. Looking at the natural
world this way, and classifying each other into the deep ecology camp, or the
social ecology camp does very little to help remediate the environmental
problems. Rather, by dividing two groups of people that genuinely care about
environmental issues, it weakens their impact and diminishes their salient
points.
Both of these different ideologies strive for environmental stewardship,
and they each make valid arguments to justify their views. This is why it is
important to be allowed to blend the two together when forming a set of
environmental ethics. The following essay examines both the deep ecology,
and social ecology view on environmental ethics. The hope is to come out
with a set of environmental ethics that can appeal to both camps and foster
a rapport between these two seemingly incompatible ethics theories.
In order to talk about the points in each theory that make sense we
must have a general understanding of both theories. First we will start with
the deep ecology approach. The essay Deep Ecology written by Bill Devall
and George Sessions does a very good job in identifying the important

aspects of the deep ecology movement. They also manage to boil down deep
ecology into eight basic principles a few of which are discussed below:
The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman Life on Earth
have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of
the non-human world for human purposes.(Devall et.al)
This first principle states that there is intrinsic value in the natural
world. It is important to realize that looking at the natural world solely as a
way to advance human expansion and consumption is not a very effective
way to preserve these natural systems. Deep ecology tries to move our
perceptions of the environment away from an anthropocentric approach and
pushes us to find this intrinsic value. It fosters a greater understanding of the
natural world in this respect.
Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of
these values and are also values in themselves. (Devall et.al)
Again this next principle pushes humans to find value in nature in a
way that has nothing to do with their perception or use of the natural world.
It also offers a set of guidelines in which one can define value, these
guidelines being a richness and diversity in the natural world. Deep
ecologists see richness as biodiversity, or diversity of habitats and the
organisms that inhabit them. Although the subjectivity of these terms could
muddy the waters so to speak, since richness can be defined in other ways

by other groups, it is still a jumping off point into defining intrinsic value
which is very important in the deep ecologists point of view.
The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman
life requires such a decrease. (Devall et.al)
Here we see almost a subjugation of humans when compared to nature
and the environmental world. This is where deep ecologists may want to
reconsider their position if they are really pushing for bioicentric equality.
Flourishing is also a term that can be very subjective. The definition of
flourishing is not some clearly delineated idea. It can, and should differ
among different species and environments. Human flourishing is
substantially different than the flourishing of a paramecium and the deep
ecologists would reach more people if they acknowledged these apparent
differences. It does not make sense to put humans on a lower tier, since it is
they who must change to initiate any meaningful reform in todays
environmental policies. The differences in species to species flourishing must
be made apparent.
Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic
economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of
affairs will be deeply different from the present. (Devall et.al)
The deep ecologists are trying to stimulate a change in our current
state of environmental thinking. This is a call to action that bravely admits

that if people were to subscribe to this environmental ethics system that the
world would be a radically different place, and people would need to
understand this. It is refreshing to see an environmental ethics ideology that
owns up to their ideals and recognizes that they are going to rustle some
feathers with some change.
The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality
rather than adhering to an increasing higher standard of living. There will be
a profound awareness of the difference between big and great. (Devall et.al)
This principle speaks more about the increased wants and desires that
many people do not actually need. They should be content with what they
have if it is sufficient to satisfy their vital needs. Driving towards higher
standards of living only worsens the divide between humans and their
environments. This makes sense to a certain point, but may also turn some
people away since from a very young age many were taught simply to strive
for more. More wealth, more resources, more exuberant lifestyles. This
approach tends to leave the environment on the backburner, and it is not a
sustainable way to support the environment.
Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation
directly or indirectly to try and implement the necessary changes. (Devall
et.al)
This principle just makes sure to remind people who decide to choose
deep ecology as an ethical guideline towards environmental preservation,

that they must actually follow the guidelines and do what they can to keep
pressing this ethical system forward.
Deep ecology has some very great ideas for an ethics system. It
attempts to level the playing field by removing anthropocentricity. In doing
this, the natural worlds intrinsic value becomes more apparent, which is very
important when considering the value of nature itself. By removing this
human lens when viewing the natural world, the other values besides human
usefulness become apparent. By mentioning flourishing of organisms
however, the deep ecologist does not admit that the flourishing of organisms
is simply not all the same. Human flourishing and tree flourishing are two
completely distinct entities. Some of the same things that allow the tree to
flourish (sunlight, water, etc.) are similar to the needs that make up of
human flourishing, but you would not plant a human in the soil and expect
them to flourish. Also you would not issue prescribed burns on a suburban
development, expecting human flourishing to progress as would forest
ecology.
The fact that these definitions of flourishing and needs are so different
between species and environments leads to the conclusion that they cannot
be lumped into one broad category as the deep ecologists tend to do.
Although humans and their environmental neighbors are absolutely
connected, there has to be some distinction in regards to humans and other
species because they are different and there is no way around this. This is

where social ecology can come in and help explain and possibly categorize
these distinctions.
The essay A Critique of Anti-Anthopocentric Ethics by Richard
Watson, points out some of the flaws that the deep ecologists perpetuate. He
makes the point that deep ecologists are not advocating for true egalitarism
or bio centricity, since humans are a product of the natural world, and
imposing limits or restrictions on humans would go against this idea.
(Watson) If the deep ecology movement was truly in favor of bio centricity,
deep ecologists would classify viruses and other diseases as endangered
species. Murray Bookchin raises this point, albeit harshly, and launches other
attacks on the deep ecologist in his essay Social Ecology Versus Deep
Ecology. Humankinds systematic eradication of small pox, for example,
would go against the deep ecologist point of view on intrinsic value of all
nature. However, one can argue that the eradication of small pox was a vital
need for human flourishing. This would be a case in which one species and
its flourishing takes precedent over another due to vital needs. It is very easy
to fall into these pitfalls, if there is not a way to include a type of gradient in
classifying the flourishing of different species.
Bookchin then offers a new ethics system called social ecology as an
alternative to the deep ecologist view. Social ecology can be used in
conjunction with deep ecology, in order to have a more realistic view of the
flourishing that deep ecologists hold in high regard. His description of social
ecology takes from many different philosophical ideas, many of which relate

with deep ecology views, however it is the description of the moral aspect of
social ecology which highlights an important flaw in this ethics system.
Bookchin writes:
Social ecology accepts neither a bio centricity that essentially denies
or degrades the uniqueness of human beings, human subjectivity,
rationality,

aesthetic

sensibility,

and

the

ethical

potentiality

of

humanity, nor an anthropocentricity that confers on the privileged few

the right to plunder the world of life including human life.(Bookchin)
It is impossible to argue for an absence of any type of centricity which
is what Bookchin tries to do. The reason for this is because when one species
is valued over another that automatically taints the lack of centricity. From
the human point of view, eradication of smallpox seems like an
anthropocentric thing to do, and this is simple because it is true. If the small
pox virus could think cognitively then it too would argue that humans are
valued more than itself, thus throwing off the supposed lack of centricity that
Bookchin mentions in his essay. The very fact that this system is called social
ecology implies that it is an anthropocentric ethic system. Masking this fact
under the guise of lack of centricity weakens the main take away from
social ecology, which is that humans are different in terms of what they
require to flourish than other organisms. (Bookchin)
Deep ecology places a great deal of importance on the flourishing of
different species. This flourishing is inherently different between all species.

The fact that it is different should indicate that all organisms cannot simply
be lumped into one category of flourishing or not. These different levels of
flourishing can be fleshed out between individual species, and this would be
a more accurate way to craft a system of environmental ethics. Deep
ecologists however, try to level the playing field so to speak, and make all
organisms equal in their regards to the environment. Thus humans, are no
more important than small pox and vice versa. They try to back up this claim
by talking about the intrinsic value of all of nature. This is a very important
point to take into account when modeling an environmental ethics system,
and as such intrinsic value must always be considered. But this means that
the intrinsic values of humans should also be considered. Social ecology
maintains that humans are part of the natural world, and as a product of the
natural world they have all rights. What it does, is identifies that human
flourishing is drastically different than the flourishing of other species, so in
this case, the deep ecologist blanket categorizations would fall upon deaf
ears.
An ideal environmental ethics system would be a form of pluralism. It
would recognize the substantial difference in the flourishing of different
species. It would not try to make claims that the flourishing of a forest is the
same as that of a lobster. These broad categorizations do very little to help in
forming an environmental ethics system that could get anything done. This
pluralist environmental ethics theory would embrace the aspects of social
ecology, in that it would not mask human rationality, since after all everyone

10

who is reading this is undoubtedly human. It would allow for a ranking of

needs for flourishing on a gradient that takes into account intrinsic value,
vital need, and environmental stewardship. It would be unwise to try and
divide and classify the deep ecologist and social ecologist views so starkly
that, their overall message of environmental protection is ultimately lost and
becomes of no use to any species that calls Earth and the environment
home.
Having a useful environmental ethics system, although extremely
important, is only half of the battle. Meaningful change and ways to bring
about this change is the other half. There are many ways change can be
brought about, as we have seen throughout history. Several different activist
movements have used many different tactics to bring about regulatory, civil,
and even social change. The environmental activist movements of today also
have different options they can take to stimulate necessary reforms in
current policies and management issues in regards to the environment.
Change in environmental protection can be put into place by
governmental laws and regulations. This has been done in the past for
example with the creation of the clean water act of 1972. Since these
regulations have been put into place they have greatly improved the quality
of the waterways that we fish in, swim in, and drink from. This is just one
example of policy making a difference. These changes have often been
spurred by dramatic events that catch the publics attention. For instance

11

rivers across the country were catching fire because of the pollution that was
present.
Even with these catalysts, the bureaucratic processes that govern the
people tend to be notoriously long and tedious. Also, different political
agendas frequently dominate the rhetoric for environmental protection or
lack thereof. This is where environmental activism comes in. These activists
are people who put the serious condition of the worlds natural resources in
the spotlight. They manage to shed light on environmental issues no matter
how hard they are covered up by industry or the government. These
environmental activists sometimes resort to less than legal measures to
achieve this task. Some have even been labeled eco-terrorists.
In todays day and age, terrorism has an extremely negative
connotation. It conjures up images mostly of modern terrorism such as the
September 11th attacks on the world trade center, beheadings perpetrated
by ISIS, mass shootings, and bombings. With these horrendous acts of
violence being perpetrated and labeled by the international community as
terrorism, it is no surprise that the term terrorism is associated with extreme
violence towards people. This however is simply not case for environmental
terrorism or even all forms of terrorism. If you take a step back and look
through history, terrorism has been a prevalent and even, necessary catalyst
for substantial societal change. The English colonists that turned against the
crown met every definition of terrorism. They staged gorilla style attacks on
British troops, and performed acts of sabotage. These colonists were not

12

recognized as a sovereign nation until after the end of the revolutionary war.
Also, during the Second World War there were many acts of terrorism
perpetrated by resistance forces in Nazi occupied territories. It is clear from
this perspective that there are some justified forms of terrorism.
With that being said, it is important to note that the aim of
environmental terrorism, or monkey wrenching, or ecotage, or whatever you
may want to call it, is not intended to cause massive casualties to humans,
nature, or basically anything living. This is why it is important to make the
distinction between the violent and unjustifiable acts of terrorism that we see
today, and that of eco saboteurs or monkey wrenches. In Dave Formans
essay Strategic Monkeywrenching he clearly states that Monkey
Wrenching is non-violent and that it is not directed toward harming human
beings or other forms of life. It is simply wrong, and unfair to place these
groups that value environmental conservation into the same category as Al
Qaeda and the Islamic State. The only reason this is done is to reduce the
legal rights of such environmental activist groups. In the following pages the
pros and cons of environmental sabotage and other acts that may be
considered terroristic are examined, and their usefulness in the cause for
environmental protection under the ethics system proposed above will be
determined (Foreman).
There is no doubt that eco sabotage is illegal. Arson, destruction of
property, trespassing, all break the law. Environmental activists realize this.
They are prepared to risk jail time to bring about meaningful change to

13

environmental policies and publicize their message. The problems with some
of these violent acts are the collateral risks involved. The arson of an
industrial site may harm humans. Spiking of trees may injure lumber jacks or
workers in the saw mill. Even though these were not the intended
consequences, they are still much more serious than what was intended. But
there are ways to reduce these risks which eco saboteurs use. They place
signs that state trees are spiked, or participate in surveillance to make sure a
boat they are about to sink is unoccupied. These measures are clearly
directed at protecting the lives of people, while also trying to preserve the
natural environment.
The New Jersey Pine Barrens are an ecologically sensitive area of
preserved land in the southern part of the state. The million acre reserve is
managed by the state department of environmental protection and offers
many recreational opportunities such as hiking, swimming, fishing and
camping. Many people also use the wooded trails to go off-roading in their
jeeps or ATVs. This has been shown to damage sensitive vegetation and
habitats. Recently some jagged metal spikes have been turning up on these
trails with the intent of puncturing tires. Supporters of the off-roading
community have been quick to state that these spikes are terroristic acts and
that the people responsible should be brought to justice. They also state that
hikers or animals could be injured by these spikes.
The example above is quite recent and ongoing and presents
interesting facets to this argument against or for ecotage. Although it is true

14

that these spikes could injure people or wildlife, this should not be classified
as an act of terrorism. It could more reasonably be defined as monkey
wrenching or eco sabotage much like the tree spiking examples. There was
no intent to inflict mass casualties for a politically motivated agenda, or the
destruction of large amounts of property. The fact of the matter is, even if
these spikes do not damage any vehicle, they were still doing the job of
attention grabbing; publicizing the matter at hand which is that off-roading in
these ecologically sensitive areas may be doing irreversible damage. Without
this incident, many people would not even know about what is going on in
the south jersey pine barrens, let alone care. At least this way the public can
now research the issue on their own to see what is really happening. Ecotage
is important because it can serve as a vessel to attract more publicity to
issues that are swept under the rug by corruption and greed. It can be used
as a last resort when all other legal methods of action have failed, which
they regularly do.
There is an international moratorium on the hunting of whales in the
waters of the Antarctic, yet many whales are still harvested under the guise
of research by Japanese whaling fleets. These very whales end up in
Japanese cuisine. Hundreds of whales are slated to be collected for
research this very year. Clearly the Japanese government is exploiting this
loophole in a law and no one really tries to do anything to stop them, except
environmental activist groups such as the Sea Shepherds. These groups go
out and physically try to prevent the whalers from capturing these whales.

15

They have stepped up when laws simply have not done enough. Now
ecotage such as this does not entirely stop the problem, but it sheds light on
the issue so that the public can influence the decision makers in government.
These actions show those that exploit the law or destroy natural resources
and nature without regard will still be held accountable, and if anything, that
they are being watched by someone.
In Erin OBriens article Justifications and Limits in the Politically
Motivated Law-breaking of Environmental Activist Groups many important
justifications for environmental sabotage are presented. Some fall under an
extensional self-defense, which means that activists are protecting nature
because it cannot defend itself. Other groups justify their actions as civil
disobedience. This is a non-violent form of resistance that has had success in
the past with the civil rights movement, and also the movement for Indian
independence from British rule. What most of these groups that commit
these acts have in common are a high set of moral standards that they
follow. They do not intentionally harm humans. They also only perpetrate
these actions because they feel it is the only way to protect, or draw
attention to, a great wrong doing going on in the defenseless environment.
The actions of environmental activists do not make them rich. They do not
make them well liked or popular. These actions are done for a higher moral
purpose. Instead of gaining some monetary or material reward, the
environmental activist that places the earth and its wonderful diversity
before him/her, sees the continued longevity and fruitfulness of this world as

16

enough of a reward. They have the ability to look past themselves through
generations and worry about what this world will look like for our posterity.
This is an admirable act (OBrein).
Diminishing these acts by simply labeling them as terrorism does a few
things. First it allows for the elimination of certain inalienable rights that
everyone gets, at least here in the United States. Current laws place higher
penalties, detain suspects indefinitely, and reduce the rights of any
individual that is suspected of terroristic activities. Lumping all
environmental activism, whether it be ecotage, monkey wrenching, or even
protests as a form of terrorism greatly reduces the legitimacy of
environmental groups and scientists. This is why distinctions must be made
between terrorist groups and environmental groups. It is unfair to tarnish the
image of many hardworking scientists and activists by calling these actions
terrorism. If real acts of terrorism were perpetrated by any group, these
should of course be denounced by all in the environmental community.
As long as these threats of massive environmental degradation remain,
ecotage will remain a staple of the environmental activists arsenal. If done
correctly and without harming anything living, (the model that Dave Foreman
lays out in his article Strategic Monkeywrenching is a good example)
ecotage can help garner public attention, and even support for the
environmental activists cause. This support can eventually lead to policy
reform, and meaningful change to laws that govern us today. This is a very
fine line and there is still a lot of grey area present. It is important for an

17

ecosabeteur or a monkey wrencher to not do anything that takes away

support for a cause. Another aspect that should be considered is that
ecotage also reminds those who wish to continue to do harm to pristine
natural resources, and that people that are a part of these places, that they
are being watched. This constant presence of activists and whistle blowers
may actually make corporations more willing to abide by the laws. They also
force corporations and business that are connected with environmentally
destructive industries to come forth and eventually disclose (be it willingly or
not) the nature of their relationships.
Eco sabotage and Monkeywrenching can be seen today as the flaming
rivers of the sixties. They are present because of underlying issues with
environmental policies or existing environmental management strategies.
These activists that commit these acts do so in a way that sheds light on
these issues, in hopes that they can be changed when the public takes a hold
of this issue. Environmental activism should not be lumped with terrorism in
anyway, unless massive acts of violence are planned against living things. A
good environmental ethics system, along with high moral values for life and
the environment are good checks on most environmental activists and their
actions. In this fight to protect the fragile and vulnerable planet we call
home, Eco sabotage and Monkeywrenching are necessary agents of change.

18

Sources:
1. Bookchin, Murray. "Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology." Socialist Review
88.3 (1988): 11-29. Print.
2. Devall, Bill, and George Sessions. Deep Ecology. Salt Lake City, Utah: G.M.
Smith, 1985. Print.
3. OBrien, Erin (2013) Justifications and limits in the politically motivated
lawbreaking of environmental activist groups. In Richards, Kelly & Tauri,
Juan Marcellus (Eds.) Crime Justice and Social Democracy : Proceedings
of the 2nd International Conference, Queensland University of
Technology, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, pp.
131-140.
4. Foreman, D. (1987). Strategic Monkeywrenching. Ecodefense: A Field
Guide to Monkeywrenching, 10-17.
5. Watson, Richard A. "A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics."
Environmental Ethics (1983): 156-64. Print.

19