Phil reading questions #9

1. What is the significance of the first two principles of the deep ecology movement (pp. 19-20) in relation to
Naess' distinction between the narrow and comprehensive self?
2. Explain how Naess accommodates the existence of conflicts of interest with his view of wide identification?
Give an example that illustrates how conflicts of interest in Western society do not exist through wide
identification.
3. Explain Naess' critique of the Western view of self-realization and the implications for the egoism-altruism
distinction.
4. What do you think Naess means when he says Only special social conditions are able to make people inhibit
their normal spontaneous reaction toward suffering (32)?
5. Explain why Guha rejects the deep ecological view that proper response to environmental problems requires
the transition from anthropocentrism to biocentrism?
6. What is Guha's worry about American environmental groups applying their methods in places like India? How
does he use this as a critique of deep ecology?
7. Explain Guha's claim that American deep ecology is not as radical as it presents itself. What, in contrast, does
Guha's radical alternative look like?

1. One of the points is the bio spherical egalitarianism view, the other being the
rejection of man-in-environment image. In our society we dont really have a
connection to any specific environment (easy for many people to move around).
The idea of the man-in-environment view must be changed, to a holistic view, the
total field view. The reality is we are deeply connected with our ecology, and we
must realize that. The Man in nature image is the example of the narrow self, an
anthropocentric view. The bio centric view is far more encompassing.
2. Due to conflicts of interest, it is hard to put a holistic, biocentric ethic in practice,
because natural preferences will take precedence in interactions between two
separate species (ex. A fur coat in order to stay warm, to the detriment of the
animal the fur comes from.) Egalitarianism can only be applied in principle, and
we must approximate the idea of equality as best we can (we arent doing well.)
3. Ultimately the western view of self-realization is one of individualism, and how
we understand our capacities and ourselves as an individual. According to Naess
the social and natural bonds are either our means to get to our fulfillment, or they
are obstacles in the way of the realization. The distinction between egoism and
altruism collapses in his idea of wide ecology. If one identifies with nature then
aiding nature is ultimately egotistic because it is helping you, as opposed to
altruistic aid. The distinction between the two only comes about because of the
distinction between person and nature.
4. We have a natural instinct to respond to the suffering to others by sympathizing
with others. But the conflict of interests that come along due to an alienation
from nature that cuts off that knee jerk reaction. Urbanism is also a numbing

agent in that it dilutes our concern for others. We become used to the suffering
and are able to pass them by.
5. Due to the problems of overconsumption by the industrialized world and the third
world elite, as well as militarization (colonialism), the idea of anthropocentrism
and biocentrism are inadequate to describe our environmental issues. Many of
these issues are selective and do not apply to all humans, and thus cannot be
anthropocentric. The comparison must be drawn between true anthropocentrism
and a more western-centric idea. Concern for all humans would solve the root of
the problem (changing social structures and how we interact with each other,
rather then interacting with nature).
6. The predominate protection technique in America is preservationism. Setting
aside a piece of land to create little island. The problem with this is it is
culturally relative. The idea is the separation of nature and humans. The issue is
also one of property ownership, and one of strict legal system. This makes the
access to this island restricted to certain people, often times people who will
pay. Indigenous peoples are removed and the area is sectioned off.
7. The problem is it is rooted in control over nature. The base of the system is
empiricism and control over nature, or other peoples. It is not a radical system
because it is simply a repackaging of the same. What is require.ed is a cultural
integration between nature and culture. How we live directly affects the
environment and then directly affects you. We must depend on our local
environments rather then taking from someone else.