What do you think?
Rate this book
Ecological Ethics 2nd (second) Edition by Curry, Patrick [2011]
Excellent Book
Unknown Binding
First published November 11, 2005
6 people are currently reading
131 people want to read
About the author
Patrick Curry
29 books17 followersI hold a B.A. (University of California at Santa Cruz, 1978, in Psychology, with highest honours), M.Sc. (L.S.E., 1980, in Logic and Scientific Method), and Ph.D. (University College London, 1987, in the History and Philosophy of Science).
Since September 2006 I have been a Lecturer (0.5) in Religious Studies at the University of Kent (Canterbury), where I teach in the MA programme on the Cultural Study of Cosmology and Divination. From 2002-06 I was a Lecturer (0.5) at the Sophia Centre, Bath Spa University College, where I co-taught the MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astronomy.
I have reviewed books for History Today, New Statesman, The Guardian, The Independent and (most often) the Times Literary Supplement; appeared on two television programmes; and taken part in two programmes on BBC Radio Four. I also appear in interviews of two of the three extended New Line DVD’s on The Lord of the Rings.
My ongoing project (when I get time) concerns enchantment as a common but little-mentioned human experience – one which touches on and connects a wide range of strange bedfellows: nature, erotic communion, art, divination and spirituality. It is influenced by the work of Max Weber and succeeding critical theorists, as well as other writers such as as J.R.R. Tolkien, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, David Abram, Sean Kane, Val Plumwood, Bruno Latour and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. I am also very interested in related issues such as the nature of truth, metaphor, embodied phenomenology, pluralism and post-secularism.
Since September 2006 I have been a Lecturer (0.5) in Religious Studies at the University of Kent (Canterbury), where I teach in the MA programme on the Cultural Study of Cosmology and Divination. From 2002-06 I was a Lecturer (0.5) at the Sophia Centre, Bath Spa University College, where I co-taught the MA in Cultural Astronomy and Astronomy.
I have reviewed books for History Today, New Statesman, The Guardian, The Independent and (most often) the Times Literary Supplement; appeared on two television programmes; and taken part in two programmes on BBC Radio Four. I also appear in interviews of two of the three extended New Line DVD’s on The Lord of the Rings.
My ongoing project (when I get time) concerns enchantment as a common but little-mentioned human experience – one which touches on and connects a wide range of strange bedfellows: nature, erotic communion, art, divination and spirituality. It is influenced by the work of Max Weber and succeeding critical theorists, as well as other writers such as as J.R.R. Tolkien, Lucien Lévy-Bruhl, David Abram, Sean Kane, Val Plumwood, Bruno Latour and Eduardo Viveiros de Castro. I am also very interested in related issues such as the nature of truth, metaphor, embodied phenomenology, pluralism and post-secularism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
December 27, 2015
I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the plus side, the ‘Deep Green’ ethics Curry describes and supports are enormously appealing to someone like me who greatly values the natural world and wants to see its richness safeguarded, while still caring for human and non-human life. I would love see such ethics more widely adopted and humanity learning to live in harmony with the rest of nature - something we’re a long way from doing.
It is also a serious work, copiously referenced, in which Curry looks at other forms of ‘lighter’ green ethics to expose their shortfalls, as well as extensively examining the implications of a Deep Green eco-centred approach to how we live our lives. Nor does he only consider the theoretical implications of the ethics he is writing about, but also looks at practical steps that can be taken in a world where few will share such an outlook, at least until forced by the reality of ecological collapse to do so. He does have an occasional tendency towards impenetrable wordiness, bordering on post modernist gobbledygook, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what point it is he is trying to make, but by and large this is a clearly written book.
Yet it is also a very personal view of ecological ethics, which means it is coloured by Curry’s personal biases and that’s where, for me, there are problems, ones I sometimes see in the wider ‘Green’ movement.
First is his tendency to sneer at science and deny its full ability to inform our understanding of the natural world. He seems to fall into the trap of thinking that understanding destroys wonder and respect, whereas the reverse is true. He also criticises science for not providing meaning only facts, which is a bit like criticising B&Q for only providing building material, not a finished house. His disdain for inconvenient facts is particularly apparent in the chapter on population growth, where he happily discounts the growing understanding of how to curb birthrates in order to push his own pet solution (which smacks somewhat of authoritarianism). Yet he is happy to declare that ‘climate change is happening’ on the basis of scientific evidence.
He also seems to have an issue with ‘rationalism’, although I’m not clear exactly what his objections are - he may see it as somehow allied with science and so tarred with the same brush. Anyway, it’s an odd position to hold in a book where he makes rational arguments as to why we should choose Deep Green Ethics over any other sort.
His final target for sniping is what he refers to as ‘secularisation’. He does not use this in either of the established meanings of the word (a state that shows no preference for any religion, or a non-religious approach to life in general). Instead he seemly uses it to refer everything he does not like about the modern world. His biggest beef with ‘secularism’ is that he sees it as incompatible with the definition of spirituality he sees as a fundamental underpinning for Deep Green Ethics. Yet in reality there is nothing a secular person would object to in his definition of the word, for he uses it to refer to an awe and respect for nature, something many secular people would have no problem with. I was not surprised on further investigation to find that Curry appears to be a fan of astrology and has taught religious studies.
To be fair, these are particular irritations because they conflict with my own worldview. However there is a more serious issue to be faced. Early in the book Curry contrasts the three schools of ethics - deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics. He highlights the well known drawbacks of the first two, analysing how they fail to provide a basis for any ethical system that values the natural world in its own right, rather than instrumentally. But he skips over the equally well known drawback of virtue ethics - who decides what the virtues are?
Not surprisingly it is virtue ethics that he sees as the foundation for the Deep Green ethics he is in favour of. Essential to this, for him, is that such ethics are not centred on human needs. Yet without some firm grounding it could equally be argued that what humans are doing to the planet is itself a natural process, one all ‘intelligent’ species may well be doomed to repeat, and that, breaking away from human centred timescales to geological ones, the destruction we are wreaking is only a temporary glitch - give it 25 to 30 million years and the planet will be as biodiverse at it ever was. To value, as he urges, biodiversity and to preserve the richness of natural habitats as they exist now cannot really be justified other than by a call on human values and invocation of consequentialism.
It is also a serious work, copiously referenced, in which Curry looks at other forms of ‘lighter’ green ethics to expose their shortfalls, as well as extensively examining the implications of a Deep Green eco-centred approach to how we live our lives. Nor does he only consider the theoretical implications of the ethics he is writing about, but also looks at practical steps that can be taken in a world where few will share such an outlook, at least until forced by the reality of ecological collapse to do so. He does have an occasional tendency towards impenetrable wordiness, bordering on post modernist gobbledygook, which sometimes makes it difficult to understand what point it is he is trying to make, but by and large this is a clearly written book.
Yet it is also a very personal view of ecological ethics, which means it is coloured by Curry’s personal biases and that’s where, for me, there are problems, ones I sometimes see in the wider ‘Green’ movement.
First is his tendency to sneer at science and deny its full ability to inform our understanding of the natural world. He seems to fall into the trap of thinking that understanding destroys wonder and respect, whereas the reverse is true. He also criticises science for not providing meaning only facts, which is a bit like criticising B&Q for only providing building material, not a finished house. His disdain for inconvenient facts is particularly apparent in the chapter on population growth, where he happily discounts the growing understanding of how to curb birthrates in order to push his own pet solution (which smacks somewhat of authoritarianism). Yet he is happy to declare that ‘climate change is happening’ on the basis of scientific evidence.
He also seems to have an issue with ‘rationalism’, although I’m not clear exactly what his objections are - he may see it as somehow allied with science and so tarred with the same brush. Anyway, it’s an odd position to hold in a book where he makes rational arguments as to why we should choose Deep Green Ethics over any other sort.
His final target for sniping is what he refers to as ‘secularisation’. He does not use this in either of the established meanings of the word (a state that shows no preference for any religion, or a non-religious approach to life in general). Instead he seemly uses it to refer everything he does not like about the modern world. His biggest beef with ‘secularism’ is that he sees it as incompatible with the definition of spirituality he sees as a fundamental underpinning for Deep Green Ethics. Yet in reality there is nothing a secular person would object to in his definition of the word, for he uses it to refer to an awe and respect for nature, something many secular people would have no problem with. I was not surprised on further investigation to find that Curry appears to be a fan of astrology and has taught religious studies.
To be fair, these are particular irritations because they conflict with my own worldview. However there is a more serious issue to be faced. Early in the book Curry contrasts the three schools of ethics - deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics. He highlights the well known drawbacks of the first two, analysing how they fail to provide a basis for any ethical system that values the natural world in its own right, rather than instrumentally. But he skips over the equally well known drawback of virtue ethics - who decides what the virtues are?
Not surprisingly it is virtue ethics that he sees as the foundation for the Deep Green ethics he is in favour of. Essential to this, for him, is that such ethics are not centred on human needs. Yet without some firm grounding it could equally be argued that what humans are doing to the planet is itself a natural process, one all ‘intelligent’ species may well be doomed to repeat, and that, breaking away from human centred timescales to geological ones, the destruction we are wreaking is only a temporary glitch - give it 25 to 30 million years and the planet will be as biodiverse at it ever was. To value, as he urges, biodiversity and to preserve the richness of natural habitats as they exist now cannot really be justified other than by a call on human values and invocation of consequentialism.
August 24, 2024
I am a dark green environmentalist or ecocentrist, but this book did not do it for me. The author's reticences about science and rationality grated against my deepest convictions, his meta-ethics seemed retrofitted for his politics (something I had already encountered among libertarians), and I was not too enthralled by the numerous references to animism and Buddhism. The book overall feels more like a very long opinion piece than a work of academic ethics, and though many more authors than I could read in my lifetime are referenced, some were missing or underrepresented (Holmes Rolston III is hardly touched upon; the Nature-study movement and Rachel Carson's essay on he cultivation of wonder could have been discussed in the chapter on environmental education; Pentti Linkola is omitted; and the power of Garrett Hardin's (admittedly anthropocentric) arguments is underestimated.)
October 1, 2017
I'm not so sure what I think about this book. That is mainly because I'm not a philosopher, but a biology student. Therefore, it is not always easy to judge the philosophical arguments. A lot of good reviews are already available on goodreads, but I'll try to add some more.
The first 10 chapters of the book are really interesting. They are mainly an introduction to ethics, ecological problems and environmental ethics (shallow/light green, intermediate/mid-green, deep/dark-green). It has to be said that it is a subjective introduction to all these theories, as Curry clearly shows his own preferences.
Curry clearly is a fan of virtue ethics, as he propagates green virtue ethics (GVE), and he is opposed to monist ethics. He has some good arguments for this. However, he does not make clear who should decide what values we should hold, or how we can get to these values. Second, he does not clearly mention values that he associates with GVE, although they become clear implicitly in the last few chapters of the book.
One thing that I found weird is Curry's attitude towards rationalism. He uses science when it suits him, but is very critical when scientific evidence is in contradiction with his beliefs, it seems. In addition, he blames western ethics for being too rationalistic, and for placing rationalism on a pedestal. However, he himself mentions that green virtue ethics should be developed through education. Isn't this a rationalist argument? Education should apparently aid in teaching people the right values, according to Curry.
In addition, Curry is very critical of secularism, but fails to clearly define what he means by secularism. It almost seems as if he sees secularism as a prohibition of religion, in his case animism.
I enjoyed the first 10 chapters of the book, as they acquainted me with ecological ethics. However, the last few chapters were a little bit too subjective, and in some cases dogmatic, in my opinion.
The first 10 chapters of the book are really interesting. They are mainly an introduction to ethics, ecological problems and environmental ethics (shallow/light green, intermediate/mid-green, deep/dark-green). It has to be said that it is a subjective introduction to all these theories, as Curry clearly shows his own preferences.
Curry clearly is a fan of virtue ethics, as he propagates green virtue ethics (GVE), and he is opposed to monist ethics. He has some good arguments for this. However, he does not make clear who should decide what values we should hold, or how we can get to these values. Second, he does not clearly mention values that he associates with GVE, although they become clear implicitly in the last few chapters of the book.
One thing that I found weird is Curry's attitude towards rationalism. He uses science when it suits him, but is very critical when scientific evidence is in contradiction with his beliefs, it seems. In addition, he blames western ethics for being too rationalistic, and for placing rationalism on a pedestal. However, he himself mentions that green virtue ethics should be developed through education. Isn't this a rationalist argument? Education should apparently aid in teaching people the right values, according to Curry.
In addition, Curry is very critical of secularism, but fails to clearly define what he means by secularism. It almost seems as if he sees secularism as a prohibition of religion, in his case animism.
I enjoyed the first 10 chapters of the book, as they acquainted me with ecological ethics. However, the last few chapters were a little bit too subjective, and in some cases dogmatic, in my opinion.
August 8, 2016
General Theme of the Book:
We're terrible people because we consume materials and exist. 3/4 of people on the planet need to die right now for us not to meet a terrible fiery horrific end.
Secondary Theme:
Bleh, homework reading. Can't it be positive sometimes?
We're terrible people because we consume materials and exist. 3/4 of people on the planet need to die right now for us not to meet a terrible fiery horrific end.
Secondary Theme:
Bleh, homework reading. Can't it be positive sometimes?
March 15, 2020
Deep. Instructive. A true jewel.
January 12, 2015
I've found quite challenging rating and writing a review of “Ecological Ethics”, because from one side it's sure an important, highly interesting and scholarly review of the different “ecological ethics”, from the “light/anthropocentric” one to the “dark/ecocentric” version (the one clearly favoured by the author), touching subjects like the three schools of ethics (deontological, consequentialism and virtue ethics), ecofeminism, moral pluralism or why you can't have “self-evident truths”.
“Ecological Ethics” is a must read just for these chapters (from 3 to 11), because it's too often assumed by many if not most people that all these ideas are at best just nonsense or worse nihilistic and anti human. Patrick Curry makes an excellent work showing that it's perfectly possible and reasonable to argue for this positions in intelligent, informed ways, and even if you don't agree, all these ideas cannot be discounted that easily, and the leading "eco ethicists” are clever, highly learned and not necessarily misanthropists.
On the other hand, unfortunately, a bit too often Curry himself seems also to confirm the worst prejudices against (deep)environmentalists, especially when he's “grounding” these theories in more tangible realities. For example he's sure right when he points that believing in a “technological fix” for everything is unfounded, but then he quite often seems to believe there's never such a fix, even when it's quite obvious there's one, like in the overpopulation chapter when Curry wants the reader to try an interesting if somewhat smelly “thought-experiment”: “after your next bowel movement, pause and consider before flushing away. Now multiply what you're looking […] 6.9 billion times [as] that stuff has all to go somewhere”, apparently unaware that what's crucial is not how big what you're looking becomes after the multiplication, but if there's or not a sewage treatment plant before it reaches a river or the aquifer... Sewage treatment (especially toilets sewage...) isn't rocket science, it can be done quite easily and relatively cheaply provided there's political will, and it's actually an example of a successful “technological fix”.
The subject of “Human Overpopulation” is possibly where Curry has his strongest opinions, because whenever he writes about that (and it's quite a lot, a whole chapter is dedicated to the topic, and paragraphs on it are scattered everywhere) it's pretty always in a very one sided (and imho often very naive) way, like when he points that “Malthus has been vilified [for his ideas] with a bitterness that suggests his critics attachment to some deeply (and not necessarily consciously) held belief that they feel is threatened”. So far no problem (and most if not all critics of Malthus would probably agree), however a few lines further we read “despite being killed off many times, Malthus's idea continue to resonate”, and Curry seems to be unaware that if he and everybody else who keep reviving an idea already, and repeatedly, “killed off”... well, it means that supporters too, and not just critics, have some sort of “deeply (and not necessarily consciously) held belief that they feel is threatened”!
Another similar case of inconsistency happens with the notorious “reductio ad Hitlerum”: on page 84 Curry criticises (imho quite rightly) a certain Ramachandra Guha for having attacked “tigers-lovers” using words that associate them with Nazis. Then, from page 201 on, discussing Climate Change he doesn't only uses scare quotes or add “so called” to the sceptics of “global warming”, he explains it's more “accurate” to call them “deniers”, associating them with the Nazis!
“Ecological Ethics” ends with a huge list of references, many pages of notes and a very useful index... and whatever your opinions on ecology/environmentalism are, this book is a must read.
Finally, “Birdfoot's Grandpa”, the poem by Bruchac at the start of the book, is simply fantastic!
“Ecological Ethics” is a must read just for these chapters (from 3 to 11), because it's too often assumed by many if not most people that all these ideas are at best just nonsense or worse nihilistic and anti human. Patrick Curry makes an excellent work showing that it's perfectly possible and reasonable to argue for this positions in intelligent, informed ways, and even if you don't agree, all these ideas cannot be discounted that easily, and the leading "eco ethicists” are clever, highly learned and not necessarily misanthropists.
On the other hand, unfortunately, a bit too often Curry himself seems also to confirm the worst prejudices against (deep)environmentalists, especially when he's “grounding” these theories in more tangible realities. For example he's sure right when he points that believing in a “technological fix” for everything is unfounded, but then he quite often seems to believe there's never such a fix, even when it's quite obvious there's one, like in the overpopulation chapter when Curry wants the reader to try an interesting if somewhat smelly “thought-experiment”: “after your next bowel movement, pause and consider before flushing away. Now multiply what you're looking […] 6.9 billion times [as] that stuff has all to go somewhere”, apparently unaware that what's crucial is not how big what you're looking becomes after the multiplication, but if there's or not a sewage treatment plant before it reaches a river or the aquifer... Sewage treatment (especially toilets sewage...) isn't rocket science, it can be done quite easily and relatively cheaply provided there's political will, and it's actually an example of a successful “technological fix”.
The subject of “Human Overpopulation” is possibly where Curry has his strongest opinions, because whenever he writes about that (and it's quite a lot, a whole chapter is dedicated to the topic, and paragraphs on it are scattered everywhere) it's pretty always in a very one sided (and imho often very naive) way, like when he points that “Malthus has been vilified [for his ideas] with a bitterness that suggests his critics attachment to some deeply (and not necessarily consciously) held belief that they feel is threatened”. So far no problem (and most if not all critics of Malthus would probably agree), however a few lines further we read “despite being killed off many times, Malthus's idea continue to resonate”, and Curry seems to be unaware that if he and everybody else who keep reviving an idea already, and repeatedly, “killed off”... well, it means that supporters too, and not just critics, have some sort of “deeply (and not necessarily consciously) held belief that they feel is threatened”!
Another similar case of inconsistency happens with the notorious “reductio ad Hitlerum”: on page 84 Curry criticises (imho quite rightly) a certain Ramachandra Guha for having attacked “tigers-lovers” using words that associate them with Nazis. Then, from page 201 on, discussing Climate Change he doesn't only uses scare quotes or add “so called” to the sceptics of “global warming”, he explains it's more “accurate” to call them “deniers”, associating them with the Nazis!
“Ecological Ethics” ends with a huge list of references, many pages of notes and a very useful index... and whatever your opinions on ecology/environmentalism are, this book is a must read.
Finally, “Birdfoot's Grandpa”, the poem by Bruchac at the start of the book, is simply fantastic!
May 9, 2015
The central theme of the book explores the different 'green' moral reference frames humans can use to judge and define their actions and surroundings. On one end of the spectrum you have the anthropocentric reference frame that is currently used by 99% of humanity. It places the human individual above anything else (you can easily use the word 'racism' here!). Everything else (living or not) must be at our service. At the other end of the spectrum you have the ecocentric ethical framework that we desperately need. It places humanity as just one part of a whole ecological system. Between both extremes are different green ethics with increasing importance for a civilization that wishes to become sustainable and morally correct. But I'm afraid none of them will suffice or at least be enough to achieve a high moral culture. The book discusses many such graduations and with many references.
But this book is not only about discussing these different ethical systems (not more then two thirds of the book), it is well introduced and the concluding chapters are also very interesting. The introduction paints the picture of an earth in crisis and some general concepts in ethics. The last chapters talk about the practical implications of such ecological world views. Alternative movements that put them in practice are discussed. In fact, the best chapter is saved for last, overpopulation! If we wish to guarantee a good quality of life for a very long time for every living sole (human or not) it is crucial that we have to grow to a much lower population size.
It gives you a bit of hope or better said it concludes by telling you not to worry to much about if we can make it or not. We simply have to start by ourselves and the most important thing to do is to become independent of the existing economic system (food, shelter and energy). The storm is going to come, so be prepared! Finally, I enjoyed the writing style and it was easy to follow, even for a non-english speaking reader like me.
But this book is not only about discussing these different ethical systems (not more then two thirds of the book), it is well introduced and the concluding chapters are also very interesting. The introduction paints the picture of an earth in crisis and some general concepts in ethics. The last chapters talk about the practical implications of such ecological world views. Alternative movements that put them in practice are discussed. In fact, the best chapter is saved for last, overpopulation! If we wish to guarantee a good quality of life for a very long time for every living sole (human or not) it is crucial that we have to grow to a much lower population size.
It gives you a bit of hope or better said it concludes by telling you not to worry to much about if we can make it or not. We simply have to start by ourselves and the most important thing to do is to become independent of the existing economic system (food, shelter and energy). The storm is going to come, so be prepared! Finally, I enjoyed the writing style and it was easy to follow, even for a non-english speaking reader like me.
March 27, 2017
I realize this is meant as an introductory book, but honestly I think 50 more pages of detail and substance would have made this a much better book. As it stands, it seems mostly to be a synopsis of the authors opinions of various ethical movements with very little evidence to support any of his claims. I honestly didn't even come to a good understanding or even get a feel for most of the differing deep green schools of thought that I had never heard of before. So even as an introduction it failed with me.
April 3, 2009
BORING! I'm bored. Environmental ethics is such an amazing topic with potential for an amazing read. This is not it. I preferred reading a range of articles from various authors rather than read this. I think my professor felt the same way because eventually she told us it didn't matter all that much to her if we read the chapters or not, as long as we read the articles posted on line. Not a good sign.
July 22, 2013
Informative but contradicting and a bit confusing. This book was used in my environmental ethics class and it was hard to follow for the author is introducing the various topics and then analyzing them. However it did introduce me to topics I was able to look deeper into on my own.
March 8, 2013
This books teaches you how to reconnect with nature!
January 3, 2017
we are so totally fucked
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews