Environmental ethics and possibility studies

Abstract

Possibilities are not neutral. Our engagement with the possible – the possibilities we value and the possibilities we ignore – will, to a degree, always be constrained by the moral universe we inhabit. Philosophy has always been concerned with normative questions – how should we live, what should we value? With growing inequality, rapid and potentially destructive technological development, and multiple environmental crises, the limits of traditional ethical and political philosophies are becoming apparent, particularly in areas focused on novel technologies and the environment. There can be an extremely fruitful dialogue between Possibility Studies and environmental ethics in examining the possibility of realising novel ethical frameworks to help us navigate the myriad problems of the world.

Introduction

Thinking about the relationship between possibility studies and ethics opens up exciting new vistas. This article focuses the potentially positive collaboration between possibility studies and ethics. Following a brief sketch the interlinkages between possibility studies and traditional ethics, the paper focuses on the potentially fruitful discourses between possibility studies and environmental ethics. Firstly, the emphasis possibility studies places on hope and optimism is discussed in relation to environmental ethics. Secondly, the possibility of a new philosophical framework is explored. It is argued that (a) possibility studies may provide new methodologies that can aid the acceptance of green philosophies and (b) this would be a responsible course of action to take.

Ethics and possibility studies

As noted in ‘Possibility Studies: A Manifesto’ (Glăveanu, 2022) an ethics of possibility is imperative. Obviously not all possible things are desirable, not all possibilities should be pursued. When advancing possibilities, we will need to consider the impact of the action, the purpose of whatever is being created. So, questions around the possible will be suffused with ethical considerations. This can be observed in relation to the dual-use dilemma, which ‘arises in the context of research in the biological and other sciences as a consequence of the fact that one and the same piece of scientific research sometimes has the potential to be used for harm as well as for good’ (Miller & Selgelid, 2007). This dilemma has been prominent in biological research, much of which provides numerous possible healthcare and medical benefits but carries a risk that the data produced can be weaponised by malevolent actors (Atlas & Dando, 2006; Dando, 2012; Miller & Selgelid, 2007; Selgelid, 2009).

More broadly, scholars focusing on possibility studies will be obliged to consider potential risks that certain possibilities might entail. With regard to the biological sciences, the risks are more or less concrete, for example, terrorists creating extremely deadly pathogens by utilising academic data; and policies to ensure the minimisation of such risks can be put in place. Given that possibility studies is more open-ended than the biological sciences, the potential risks will be wider and less easily quantifiable. But given that ‘experiences of the possible transform the self’ (Glăveanu, 2022, p. 3), the possibility of a code of ethics for possibility studies is likely to be a fruitful area for researchers in the field.

The importance of hope

Let us take our cue from the aim of possibility studies to foreground hope, imagination, agency and creativity (Glăveanu, 2022, p. 1). There is much that philosophy, and ethics can learn from this hopeful aspect of possibility studies. This stance will be the most important in relation to environmental ethics. When considering the environment and the challenges we face relating to global heating, biodiversity loss, and so on, the fact that possibility studies aims to foreground hope is intriguing.

The ways in which environmental issues are framed are likely to have practical impacts. Frames can be described as perceptual lenses, filters, and organising principles and how we respond to phenomena, shape what we aim at, and organise our interpretation of information (Hall, 2016). The concepts used in considering environmental problems and their solutions are likely to both shape and constrain ‘the political imaginary and discourse surrounding environmental concerns’ (Meyer, 2017). This is relevant to catastrophic discourses around the possibility of environmental collapse, which can lead to fatalism, leaving people feeling powerless and unwilling to act. We have seen that in healthcare settings, people are more motivated by messages that stress the importance of taking action than they are by messages that concentrate on the negative consequences of inaction (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). Whilst the importance of hope in relation to creating an environmentally world has been discussed in environmental philosophy (Meyer, 2017; Nolt, 2010; Thompson, 2010), there is no doubt much that can be learned from possibility studies. The possible ‘has a strong motivational and emotional dynamic’ (Glăveanu, 2022, p. 3) and it is this dynamic that can inform environmental ethics and ultimately the discourses around the climate and biodiversity crises humanity currently faces. The emotional dynamic and focus of possibility studies can inform and be informed by such environmental discourses.

Rather than focusing on narratives of sacrifice, which can be a source of resistance to the pursuit of environmentally sustainable policies (Meyer, 2017), concentrating on the hopeful possibilities can be practices insofar as an optimistic emotional dynamic focused on positive possibilities might propel the realisation of some of the putative climate solutions. It is certainly within our abilities to shift the discourse around the planetary environment away from sacrifice and impending disaster to focus more on possible solutions, many of which are within our grasp. These might be technological solutions such as renewable energy (Breyer et al., 2022) and in-vitro meat (Bhat et al., 2015; Laestadius, 2015; Post, 2012; Schaefer & Savulescu, 2014). Other philosophers prefer to focus on changing behaviours, for example, reducing consumption (Knights & O’Neill, 2016; Westra & Werhane, 1998), conserving wildernesses (Cafaro, 2017) or political transformations such as ‘greening of the state’, which sees the securing of conditions of sustainability emerging as a new core function of the state (Meadowcroft, 2005).

Emphasising that these solutions are possible can act as a bulwark against fatalism and environmental despair. Despite the scientific community issuing numerous warnings about the need for fundamental change, progress has been slow and halting (United Nations, 2021, 2022; World Economic Forum, 2022), with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warning that humanity risks making the Earth ‘uninhabitable’ (United Nations, 2023). Nonetheless, there is a still a window of hope (Owen-Burge, 2022). The realisation that positive outcomes are possible may act as a motivating factor in terms of obtaining funding and/or public support for technological innovations. The intertwining of the possible and the actual is essential in the task of finding solutions to the climate crisis and other environmental crises – a focus on the possible benefits rather than a focus on catastrophe makes the actual realisation of such environmental benefits more likely.

New visions

More ambitiously, possibility studies explore the potential adoption of novel ethical frameworks and, ultimately, new visions of the world, a recurrent theme in environmental philosophy. Just as experiences of the possible can transform the self, new philosophical systems can transform society. This relates to frameworks for understanding specific issues and, more widely, to philosophical systems, and to worldviews. The philosophical worldviews that shape our views of the world are complex and intricate systems that result from centuries of thought and practice (Midgley, 2002, 2005) but were developed centuries or even millennia ago, before the impact of human activity on the natural environment was understood.

It has been suggested that our philosophical systems act as barriers for effective environmental action (Callicott, 2010; Naess, 1973; Plumwood, 1991) and the possibility of developing new philosophical systems is a perennial theme in environmental philosophy. For instance, we do not value nature for its own sake with the result that ‘we have environmental crises because we treat everything in the non-human world as having no moral significance of its own. We treat nature as something to which we owe no direct moral duties’ (Thompson, 2015). Additionally, we have ‘a narrowly individualistic conception of self-interest’ that is particularly prevalent ‘among economists, rational choice theorists, and at least some other liberal theorists’ (Meyer, 2017, p. 544). Moreover our ethical perspective it anthropocentric, meaning that we value humans over and above the rest of nature, animate and inanimate. This has been traced back to the West’s Judeo-Christian heritage (White, 1967) or to traditional Western philosophy’s emphasis on the separation of humanity from the rest of nature (Midgley, 1978; Plumwood, 1991). When non-human nature carries no moral worth in our conceptual frameworks, it is easy for us to ignore the mounting problems; they barely register as a pressing concern. All of this distorts our ability to confront climate crisis and other environmental crises.

However, the development of new philosophical ideas about the environment might transform how humanity relates to non-human nature. Environmental philosophers have been exploring these ideas for decades (Leopold, 1949; Naess, 1973) and have argued that we should expand our value systems to include non-human animals (Regan, 1984; Singer, 1975) or all life (P. W. Taylor, 1986) or ecological collectives (Rolston, 1975). Novel ethical frameworks would expand our horizons about what is valuable, what should be conserved, what should be pursued, both collectively and individually. Such a move would be both psychological and political. The facts of the environmental crisis suggests to us that something has gone awry in our current models; yet we struggle to adequately deal with this. Mary Midgley argues that this is due in part because ‘our moral, psychological and political ideas have all been armed against holism’ despite new scientific ideas ‘bringing back into focus the traditional imaginative vision of a living earth’ (Midgley, 2002). In focusing too much on the parts of the system, rather than the system as a whole we risk missing problems as they emerge and risk overlooking useful solutions to our most pressing difficulties. Improved conceptual and ethical worldviews will aid us in escaping such traps and help us develop the sorts of policies that are genuinely responsive to the sorts of difficulties we face. We can change our values in response to events in the world, for example, we might begin to view waste as unethical. At the same time, as we change our values, we might also begin to acknowledge new facts, for example, that non-human animals suffer. Midgley argues that we need to adopt a more holistic worldview, one in which we develop an awareness of how the Earth as a living system has managed to maintain conditions in which life can flourish and be preserved. Midgley like others, suggests that we should adopt a stance of gratitude and wonder in response to these facts. The role of wonder has more recently been a focus of environmental philosophers (Bendik-Keymer, 2021; Nussbaum, 2017). When we experience wonder at the natural world, we are experiencing the natural world as something different from us, something with its own way of being, its own freedoms and goals. As such, we move beyond egocentrism and anthropocentrism. This experience of wonder entails an ethical responsibility of respect and care towards that which induces wonder. Nor are such perspectives new to humanity – many cultures hled nature or aspects of nature as sacred (B. Taylor, 2017; Armstrong, 2022).

Increasing awareness of profound environmental crises is based on facts, but has not yet resulted in a wholesale change of values. Insofar as our practices reflect our values, it is apparent that the world and its ecosystems are still viewed as a resource, rather than as a complex and fragile living system on which we depend. The adoption of a more holistic view of the world, which accepts the interconnectedness of everything within the earth system and generates a sense of wonder, both collectively and individually would act as a significant spur to changing our practices.

While moving from one moral framework to another is not an easy task – possibility studies and moral philosophy can help each other in mapping such a transition. The possibility of another way of looking at the world, another set of values that would be help us confront the environmental crises is tantalising. There is scope then for possibility studies to engage with moral philosophy in re-evaluating assumed value judgements and moral schemes. The focus of possibility studies on both the cognitive and neurological processes at work in considering possibilities and on the emotional and motivational dynamics inherent in the possible can undoubtedly inform environmental ethics and environmental political theory and help realise the transformation of ethical ideas and frameworks into actual practices and ways of being.

Conclusion

The meeting of possibility studies and environmental philosophy promises much. Environmental philosophies have been developed that clarify and address the problems inherent in our current anthropocentric worldviews, but these have thus far had little cultural and political impact. They have lacked social and emotional energy. It seems that there will be fruitful areas of research focusing on the overlaps and alliances between possibility studies, with its diverse and creative methodologies, and traditional environmental philosophy. Emphasising the hopeful nature of many solutions may make them easier to realise, and as practices change, the possibility of the emergence of new visions becomes more likely. Technological changes will mediate how we think about the world and can help accelerate the conceptual changes so many call for.

Whether or not such a transformation is possible strikes me as a key area for possibility studies to examine. Given the climate crisis may constitute an existential threat to humanity, thus ending all possibility in the anthropocentric sense of the term, there is a strong case to be made that possibility studies ought to focus on these issues as a matter of urgency. Discussion of possible technological and social solutions will work as a shield against apathy arising from despair. However, as mentioned, it is imperative to avoid the complacency associated with technological optimism. The possibility of novel philosophical worldviews is more speculative – philosophical revolutions are undoubtedly slower than technological ones. Perhaps neither change will, by itself, suffice; but together they would be enact profound and radical changes. Moreover,

Investigating the possibility of novel philosophical frameworks in relation to the natural environment could be a hugely important theme within possibility studies. Both traditional philosophy and possibility studies would benefit from such collaborations.