Environmental Ethics Beyond Dualism: An Argument for Mutuality

Abstract

How have shared knowledge systems led to the global environmental crisis, and what alternative philosophical frameworks might exist that do not lead to a comparable level of unreasonable harm? Although thought is neither the sole, nor always the direct, determinant of behavior, it nevertheless plays a crucial role in facilitating our actions and decisions. To meaningfully address any problem, even one so complex as the environmental crisis, it is necessary to identify its conceptual foundations. This paper argues that the Human/nature dualistic framework prevalent within the dominant Western knowledge system, with features of hyper separation, one-way relational definition, and hierarchy, underlies and perpetuates the environmental crisis. Furthermore, the naturalization of dualistic logic within the dominant knowledge system makes it difficult for environmental philosophies aiming to address the crisis to escape dualistic assumptions. This paper examines two significant currents in mainstream environmental philosophy - the Cult of Wilderness, and the Gospel of Eco-Efficiency – and argues that their retention of dualistic assumptions limits their efficacy. This paper turns to environmental philosophies that originate outside of or challenge the dominant Western tradition as examples of non-dualistic ethical-epistemology frameworks. It examines Kyle Powys Whyte’s collective continuance, which draws from the indigenous Anishinaabe intellectual tradition, and Virginia Held’s ethics of care, which is situated in the feminist philosophical tradition. What is common among these alternative philosophies is an underlying mutualistic ontology. This paper argues that ethical-epistemological frameworks founded in mutual relationality rather than dualism provide a robust foundation from which to address the global environmental crisis and guide ethical decision making for the future.