I was glad to see that the holistic ethics of Aldo Leopold
were discussed at greater length in our last reading (chapter 8). Being
somewhat convinced that I’m not either in the anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric
camps I feel this chapter would be quite significant in my understanding of my
ethical stance. In breaking down Leopolds ethical holism, Desjardins seems to
progress through the perspective of Leopold’s Holism. He cites the very popular
quote in his description of this ethics: “A thing is right when it tends to
preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is
wrong when it tends to do otherwise” (DesJardin, 186). To me, initially the rule seemed to be quite
sound in it’s logic, but I found my notion to quickly change. DesJardin lays
out exactly how deep Leopold was thought to hold this ethic and how he found it
“reasonable to adapt ethical holism in regards to ecological communities.” It
seemed to be the most practical means of making decisions about resource
management, “an adequate understanding of ecology can come only from
holistic…explanations” and the metaphysical claim that the earth can be
regarded as a living thing.
Many struggled with two particular concepts of this
interpretation: how such properties as integrity, stability, and beauty” can be
given to characterize ecosystems and “how (can) ecological facts support
ethical conclusions?” (DesJardins, 185) The second concern in particular I
struggled with as well, having been so involved with the sciences in college
that there certainly has been difficulty bridging is and ought, although
Jon Moline’s response that Leopold’s approach was more of an indirect holism
has made it easier to reconcile these two.
