Rethinking ethics in policymaking: Dharma,reversibility and the imperatives of environmental policymaking

Abstract

Since the age of Enlightenment, some philosophical traditions have assumed that human actions are ethically neutral, based on the belief that the non-human world is self-regulating and capable of maintaining balance regardless of human impact. However, with increasing human interference in the climate system and the accelerating rate of species extinction driven by human activity, this assumption appears to be flawed. Given the current environmental realities, the consequences of these actions are becoming increasingly difficult to manage, which demonstrates the need to challenge these frameworks. This paper outlines a framework for analysing political action by shifting the focus away from a solely human-centred perspective in ethics and decision-making, drawing on the concepts of reversibility and dharma. Reversibility integrates normative theory, political practice and policymaking, offering a way to address contemporary political challenges in a complex and pluralistic world. It emphasises that the human and non-human worlds are deeply interconnected and cannot be treated as separate. This perspective aligns with the principles of dharma, which advocate for the maintenance and preservation of cosmic order. Both reversibility and dharma highlight the responsibility humans have towards both the human and non-human realms, emphasising our interconnectedness. By bringing these approaches together, this paper proposes a novel framework for critically assessing the ethical dimensions of policies in today's uncertain and contingent world.

‘The ‘control of nature’ is a phrase conceived in arrogance … it is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects it has also turned them against the earth.’ - Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (2020: p. 257)

Published nearly 70 years ago, Carson's Silent Spring popularised and shaped modern ecology and environmentalism, by highlighting the interconnectedness of nature and detrimental effects of the excessive use of technology on ecosystems. Through the example of pesticide usage in the United States, Carson demonstrated how the use of biological and technological interventions in nature might produce disastrous, uncontrollable and unintended consequences for humans and non-humans alike. She critiques not only the agriculture industry but also the government, and calls into question the paradigm of scientific progress that defined the United States and the West (Carson, 2020)

This quote from her book demonstrates the need to question the indiscriminate, and uncritical adoption of technology by humanity, and establishes the need for cautious policymaking. While Carson's efforts impacted policymaking through stricter testing regulations for poisonous chemicals as well as a more robust discourse in environmentalism and agricultural science, much is still needed in terms of policymaking for the complex problems posed by environmental degradation and climate change.

This paper argues that traditional and dominant ethical paradigms, often rooted in rationalism and instrumentality, are inadequate in grasping complex, interconnected features of the world, due to the anthropocentric focus of these ethics. In an era marked by uncertainty due to rapid climate change and unprecedented environmental challenges, the issues we face have not only grown more urgent but also more complex. Further, the consequences of our actions have spread across the interconnected web of human–non-human life.

In this article, I propose two concepts – reversibility and dharma ¹ – that offer a robust ethical foundation for environmental policymaking and conservation. Reversibility is rooted in an ethics that emphasises the need for self-restraint and malleable action in the face of contingency at the core of policymaking (Behr, 2024). Dharma, derived from Hindu philosophy, provides a spiritual guide to ethical action, which calls for harmony with the natural world and recognises the profound interconnectedness of all living beings (Creel, 1977). While reversibility advocates for a self-restraint as cognitive reflection on action under conditions of uncertainty, dharma's framing of responsibility as an inherent duty ensures that the ethical restraint in policymaking responds to an implicit commitment to avoid harm. Reversibility's pragmatic adaptability, in the face of contingency, and its political framing of the problem of ethics in policymaking, along with dharma's expansive view on responsibility, serve as a basis for the framework I outline in this article. The framework seeks to analyse policymaking by de-centring the human, with the notion of an inherent responsibility towards the human and non-human world as the basis for action and policymaking.

Interconnectedness in policymaking: an Ethical perspective

The instrumental lens of policymaking and its inherently damaging nature of its consequences point to a larger trend of the overreliance on the dominant ethical paradigms of our times, that are rooted in empiricism and rationalism. These ethical paradigms have diverged the human and non-human by viewing the consequences of human action as ethically neutral, and nature or the non-human as self-balancing, implying that our actions as humans have little to no negative consequences on non-humans (Jonas, 1984; Chakrabarty, 2016). In this context, it is imperative that we acknowledge our responsibility towards the non-human world and broaden our ethics to look beyond anthropocentricism.

Climate change fundamentally alters the ethical landscape by introducing a new imperative for human action – one that recognises the unprecedented and irreversible nature of action consequences. The effects of climate change persist for centuries, shaping ecosystems, societies and futures long after their initial cause. Since the 1950s, scientific efforts have been made to demonstrate that the continued use of fossil fuels will lead to increased levels of carbon dioxide (Revelle and Suess, 1957) and subsequently raise the temperature of the atmosphere by 2.3°C (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967), which in turn could lead to the possibility of the Antarctic ice collapsing (Mercer, 1978). In 2015, the average surface temperature of the world increased by 1°C, above the pre-industrial average, and in just nine years, as of February 2024, global warming increased over the 1.5°C mark, which was the crucial benchmark to avoid the most detrimental impacts of the rise in global temperatures (Poynting, 2024). The longevity of impact demands an ethical framework that prioritises interconnectedness between human and non-human worlds, long-term sustainability and intergenerational justice.

The ethical concerns regarding the critical vulnerability of nature, with the advent of technology, are not a new one. Jonas (1984) observes that the scale and consequences of technology have surpassed the limits within which the dominant ethics of Enlightenment function. The perspective that views human actions is ethically neutral towards non-humans, meaning they have no impact on the long term or permanent well-being of the natural world, fails to consider the potential for significant environmental damage. The ethics from the age of Enlightenment only considered doing good deeds or avoiding harm, associated with the act itself and was therefore limited in space and time, and did not consider the consequences of the action for the future (Jonas, 1984). Consequences of action are considered to be limited to those currently alive and those with a relationship to the actor. Jonas adds to this by stating that in the age of rapid technological advancements of the twentieth century, actions and their consequences, are no longer in proximity but stretch across space and time. This enormity demands a new ethical framework of responsibility (Jonas, 1984). The age old, Biblical proposition of ‘man's dominion over earth’ is greatly challenged by these ethical questions raised in the face of climate change. In consequence, Chakrabarty asks some 30 years later: ‘…(What) should humans do, now that our animal/natural life overwhelms the natural lives of nonhumans?’ (Chakrabarty, 2016, p. 388). This question further demands the re-examination of the dominant ethical paradigms of functioning modern society.

Chakrabarty (2016) explains that the ethical challenges that come with rapid climate change require humans to possess the ability to empathise and see something from another's point of view; the ability to understand the predicament of the other person. This extends beyond the gambit of human concerns since unabated global warming may accelerate the already growing rates of human-induced extinction of non-human species. As per Chakrabarty, this marks a critical turning point from Kantian ethics, in which we observe a stark separation of the human and non-human; a tradition which has had a significant role in shaping our view of the role of nature in our everyday lives, and in policymaking. This assumption, that the non-human life can take care of itself while we only manage our collective moral life, has failed (Chakrabarty, 2016). Furthermore, Chakrabarty (2018) remarks on how the concepts of globalisation and global warming, while evoking mental images of the ‘globe’, conceptualise in vastly different ways, leading to skewed understanding of the climate change problem. While the story of globalisation centres the human and narrates how humans across the world are connected, global warming is meant to be a place the planet, at the centre of the discourse, for ‘….the central protagonist of Earth System Science is not human life but life in general’ (Chakrabarty, 2018, p. 265); commenting on how the meaning of the word ‘global’ indicates a predicament for a commitment to modernity, in scholarly discourses. In addition to these issues, there is also the problem of considering human limitations in knowledge to predict and prevent harm, especially in policymaking. While he does not specifically address the ethics of climate change, Morgenthau, like Jonas and Chakrabarty, also critiques rationality and empiricism, as mode of engaging with understanding human beings’ political nature, which he grouped under the term ‘perfectionist ethics’ (Morgenthau, 1945, p. 7). These ethics, Morgenthau observes, have manifested through the juxtaposition of private and public life. The division between public and private ethical standards has lowered expectations for ethical behaviour, allowing individuals or institutions to conform to the bare minimum. This, in turn, creates the appearance of ethical compliance, rather than genuine ethical responsibility. In more recent literature, Gardiner (2006), in silent agreement with Jonas and Morgenthau, he argues that to effectively address climate change, we must recognise and confront these ethical challenges, developing robust ethical frameworks that account for the global scale, intergenerational impacts and theoretical complexities of the issue (Gardiner, 2006).

Gardiner identifies the three critical challenges (which he refers to as storms) we face with increasing climate change; the first one being the global storm. He goes on to explain how climate change, while it is a global phenomenon, is restricted to nationalised, short-term commitments rather than long-ranging commitments for global well-being. The second one would be the intergenerational storm, wherein, the effects of climate change will affect future generations negatively, aptly stating that ‘Human-induced climate change is a severely lagged phenomenon… a substantially deferred phenomenon.’ (Gardiner, 2006, p. 402–403). The third one, he terms the theoretical storm, explicitly citing ‘our theoretical ineptitude….. Even our best theories face basic and often severe difficulties addressing basic issues such as scientific uncertainty, intergenerational equity, contingent persons, nonhuman animals and nature. But climate change involves all of these matters….’ (Gardiner, 2006, p. 407). These challenges create the ‘perfect storm’, ripe for moral corruption wherein individuals and institutions may exploit the inherent uncertainties and complexities to justify inaction or self-serving behaviours. These critiques of traditional or dominant ethics calls for a radical shift in the purview of human responsibility, especially towards the non-human worlds. The anthropocentric focus of dominant ethics has made humanity ill-equipped to deal with the long-term consequences of their actions, especially in the face of climate change. We not only need to consider the future generations through our action but also need to abandon our anthropocentric focus and expand our efforts to include all living things. Our collective technological practices have manifested in not only novel means of production but also unprecedented ways in which they affect humans and non-humans, in indefinite and cumulative ways. This has altered the nature of human's power and position in nature, and the nature of the consequences for the non-human word. Thus, a new ethic needs to acknowledge the spatiotemporal interconnectedness of humanity and the environment. In the next section, I explore how the concepts of reversibility and dharma provide a framework for analysis of ethics in policymaking, and the role of the ethics of self-restraint in policymaking.

The ethics of self-restraint: responsibility in reversibility and dharma

These critiques of traditional ethical paradigms expose a need for a new ethics to guide action, moving beyond the anthropocentric conceptualisation of human action in the age of technology, and facing the limitations of human knowledge to predict the consequences of action as well as, and the profound and inherent interconnectedness of all life. To address the ethical challenges, it is essential to embrace frameworks that promote human self-restraint and responsibility across time and space.

Two concepts that provide guidance for a novel approach to ethics in policymaking are reversibility and dharma. Reversibility, rooted in the recognition of contingency, calls for policies to be adaptable to changing circumstances, with self-restraint being central to ethical action. Dharma, on the other hand, provides spiritual guidance on living in harmony and balance with the natural order. Dharma transcends the limitations of human-centred ethics by grounding responsibility not just in individual actions but in the broader context of interconnectedness among all beings. A combination of these two concepts promises to provide a framework by which environmental policymaking can be deconstructed and infused with new directions in a reconstructive sense.

Reversibility

Drawing on the works of authors that write and think beyond anthropocentricism in politics, such as Hans Jonas, Dipesh Chakrabarty, Bruno Latour, Hans J Morgenthau among many, reversibility de-centres the human. It suggests that treating the human world and the non-human world (animals, nature or the physical world) as separate can no longer work. Behr (2024), in his conceptualisation of reversibility, argues that the separation was nothing more than a ‘mere construction…. emerging from the Western enthronement of human reason through Enlightenment and secularised thinking’ (Behr, 2024, p.155). Thus, the concept of reversibility provides a critique of the instrumental and utilitarian thinking that is based on rationalist assumptions about the world and human agency. It is motivated by the reflection upon the limitations of human knowledge to predict the consequences of our actions.

An ethics of reversibility consists of intellectual attentiveness to and the acknowledgment of perspectivity and negation, guided by self-restraint. It guides action by the principle that we must not undermine the very conditions under which we act: that is, uncertainty and contingency, specified by perspectivity and negation. Reversibility argues that policies built on the notion of universal and unchanging consequences undermine the conditions necessary for our existence (Behr, 2024, p.166). Uncertainty and contingency are the inescapable conditions of human existence, and reversibility understands these to be the ontological basis for our actions. At its core, reversibility seeks to mitigate harmful consequences of our actions and recognises an ethics of self-restrain to govern action. Reversibility acknowledges the constant change, limitation and perspectivist refutation (negation) of moral political knowledge claims. The concept critiques rigid politics which do not account for contextuality as well as rationalist ideals to be incompatible with the ontology of uncertainty (Behr, 2024).

Reversibility calls for the revision of traditional policymaking processes by attending to ethical and political self-restraint with the possibility to dismantle or rewind harmful policy consequences. It considers the intended and unintended consequences of action through reflection on the conditions under which we act and live, while also acknowledging that one cannot account for every single consequence, and therefore also critiques instrumental and utilitarian thinking that is based on rationalist assumptions about the world and human agency. Thus, the concept of reversibility asks the question, ‘How do we act under conditions of contingency when the consequences of our actions are unpredictable, the foundations of our actions ambivalent, and our interests perspectivist and pluralistic?’ (Behr, 2024, p.33).

On a policy level, self-restraint can be translated into adopting policies that are rooted in humility and precaution towards long-term consequences. Policies would be limited to short-term economic or industrial projects that prioritise over global sustainability, such as by committing to holistic plans that look beyond simply reducing carbon emissions. In an interconnected world, self-restraint becomes necessary to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and therefore also calls for context-specific, adaptive, flexible and small-scale policies that avoid human exploitation of nature, ensuring ecological balance and intergenerational justice.

Dharma

The principles underlying the ancient concept of dharma in, Hindu philosophy ² resonates with the complexities present in the relationship between temporality, perspectivity and contextuality, recognising our responsibility towards the non-human world. Unlike approaches that posit a universal ‘Good’, classical Hindu tradition defines ‘good’ contextually. Its texts focus on values relevant to particular situations and priorities, suggesting an ethics grounded in context (Frazier, 2021).

The Bhagavad Gita lays an emphasis on the ongoing world processes, akin to a wheel that is in motion; where we have the option to ‘turn accordingly’ and to carry out actions beyond personal goals and events, that are larger than the self, as expressed in the Bhagavad Gita (Gupta, 2006). The Bhagavad Gita alludes to preservation of the cosmos that seems to go beyond the world the human world to not only include animals but also habitats, and ecosystems, and takes on a spiritual meaning by referring to gods, spirits and the universe. Dharma demands that the conditions of life must be supported not because of the value for society or people (like well-being or freedom from pain), but to affirm the possibility of agency, the ability to make choices and to experience anything at all (Frazier, 2021). Therefore, the conditions of life must be supported because these conditions affirm agency – the ability to act, make choices and experience. This provides a broader and more foundational justification for ethical action than traditional utilitarian goals.

However, it is also interesting to note, that dharma does not relate to the connotations of freedom of choice, as in Western literature; it does not view fulfilling one's responsibility as a choice but rather a demand and essence of ethical action, as per their dharma (Creel, 1972). This implies that conserving the natural world or the non-human world is not a choice that has to be reflected on but rather a necessary part of ethical action to enable action and life by caring for their sustained existence.

Additionally, dharma demands a sense of detachment from individual gains of one's labour; it speaks of a responsibility to fulfil one's duty regardless of whether the individual receives reward, recognition or instrumental gain. ‘Thy concern is with action alone, never with results. Let not the fruit of action be thy motive, nor let thy attachment be for inaction.’ (Bhagavad Gita, II-47). It is also important to note here that there is an emphasis on action over inaction. Attachment to one's rewards is considered to be desire, which is the enemy of wisdom; ‘As fire is surrounded by smoke… covered is wisdom by this constant enemy of the wise, in the form of desire, which is greedy and insatiable’ (Bhagavad Gita, III, 38–39). Especially in the context of environmental policies, as the consequences of action extend beyond spatial-temporal boundaries of one's life, an individual may or may not live to see the outcome of their labour, but by carrying out ethical political action that prevents harm to the current and future generations, they would be truly wise.

Analysing the ethics of environmental policymaking

A framework that is built on these two concepts of reversibility and dharma responds to uncertainty and provides normative guidance on how to act under these conditions, which has proven to be a necessity in this time of the climate crisis.

While both dharma and reversibility provide guidance on ethical action, they both have separate understandings on how responsibility is to be practiced. Within the framework of reversibility, responsibility emerges as an ethical imperative to be cultivated and enacted, one that emerges from cognitive reflection. This imperative arises from a temporalized ontology, positing ethics as an ontological ought. In contrast, the concept of responsibility as articulated by dharma is not construed as an ethical choice but rather as a natural attitude, based on the instinct to act out our responsibility.

Reversibility offers a more focused approach to responsibility, whereas dharma emphasises the inseparable link between ethics, responsibility and the interconnectedness of all beings, grounding these ideas in a notion of human nature – something the concept of reversibility seeks to avoid. However, if this meaning of responsibility in dharma were to be extrapolated and applied to reversibility, the connotations of interconnectedness are further reinforced, as it emphasises not only the impossibility of divorcing human from the non-human world but also that ethical action and responsibility for one's actions cannot be separated either.

Figure 1 visualises the interplay between reversibility and dharma, where we can see the strength of a combined approach of the two concepts, and its deep-rooted emphasis on interconnectedness and self-restraint. Reversibility's principles on ethics provide a normative guidance for political action, and the political lens through which the framework conceptualises contingency and uncertainty, whereas dharma's natural grounding of responsibility provides an expansive view of responsibility.

Figure 1.

A flowchart illustrating the framework linking ethical responsibility and self-restraint, emphasizing interconnectedness and the mitigation of harm.

One of the ways in which the operationalisation of this analytical framework may work is through the development of criteria that can be used to analyse policies. For example, if the criteria of the framework were to be broken down into the core concepts of interconnectedness, self-restraint (reversibility) and responsibility (dharma), we can ask questions to help evaluate the ethical approach of the policy, such as:

Does the policymaking process adequately consider the impact of human actions on all aspects of the natural world (e.g., biodiversity, ecosystems, climate change)?

Does the policymaking process take a long-term perspective, considering the potential consequences of actions for future generations?

Does the policymaking process acknowledge the inherent value of nature, beyond its instrumental value to humans?

Therefore, the framework works to reinforce the idea that ethics cannot be separated from responsibility for the non-human world, and for future generations of humanity, since we are all interconnected. A combined approach through the concepts of reversibility and dharma demands that we look beyond anthropocentricism, to mitigate harmful consequences of our actions.

Conclusion

As the anthropogenic interference with climate change continues to threaten the balance of the ecosystem and cause negative consequences for non-humans and humans, it is clear that traditional ethical frameworks, rooted in anthropocentricism and rationalism, are insufficient to mitigate harm. The concepts of reversibility and dharma offer a novel approach to environmental policymaking for both present and future generations of the human and non-human worlds.

By acknowledging the inherent interconnectedness of all living things as well as the unpredictability and invertedness of consequences, reversibility calls for malleable policies and policymaking if consequences are found to cause harm so that policies can be adopted to context, changed and revised. This fosters a more reflective and cautious approach to governance. Dharma, on the other hand, offers a spiritual foundation that transcends individualism and prioritises the well-being of the planet without serving immediate and instrumental gains. The political insights that reversibility provides act as an essential lens by which we can understand dharma's emphasis on responsibility rooted in a natural attitude.

These two ethical frameworks, together, provide a new path for ethics in environmental policymaking, one that responds to the challenges that come with climate change, acknowledges our shared responsibility towards all living beings and mitigates harm. This necessary shift in how we conceive our responsibility and action focuses directly on the policymaking process. By embracing this radical shift in ethical perspectives, we can hope to prevent and mitigate harm and safeguard the world for present and future generations.