




































AN ASSESSMENT OF THE THEORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

ETHICS 

Anthony Ugochukwu NWOKOYE 

 

Abstract 

Environmental issues have become problematic over the years, ranging from the 

conflicting theories of environmental ethics to the appropriate ethics suitable in addressing 

environmental problems. The constant abuse of the environment, the destruction of 

biodiversity and its correspondent threat to posterity are the foundational and fundamental 

insight that motivated this research work. It becomes necessary to pinpoint the appropriate 

environmental ethics to address the pressing environmental needs of the ecosystem. In an 

attempt to proffer solutions to the environmental challenges, numerous environmental 

ethics were developed to express the relation between human beings and the environment. 

However, this paper focuses on the assessment of the two broad divisions of 

environmental ethics: Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism. This paper employs the 

philosophical method of analysis to examine the two environmental ethical theories in line 

with the appropriateness in ameliorating the pressing environmental challenges. This 

paper discovered that ecocentric environmental ethics is an inclusive ethics that 

accommodates all the members of the ecosystem and places intrinsic value on human 

beings and nonhuman beings. It becomes paramount if such environmental ethical 

approach should be adopted by individuals, government, corporate bodies, organizations, 

et cetera to manage the rising environmental issues. Inasmuch as technology, civilization, 

industrialization, technologies are necessary for human existence, this paper calls for 

moderation in exploration of the environment for human‘s benefit. 

Keywords: Environmental Ethics, Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, Intrinsic value 

 

1. Introduction 

Some environmental ethical philosophers have attacked the traditional Western 

deontological and teleological ethical theories on the ground that they exclude the moral 

consideration of non-human species; this exclusion, they argued is the basic cause of 

environmental degradation. Callicott stated categorically that environmental ethics begins 

with the assumption that traditional metaphysics and moral theories are the root of 

environmental problems than tools for their solution. The traditional ethical theories 

impose limitations only on interpersonal freedom of action and on personal freedom in 

relation to society as a whole, neglecting the place of environment in man‘s relationship. 

A historical excursion to western ethical theory will reveal that nothing or little was said 

about man‘s relation to nature, the major consideration was on how man relates with 

himself, others and the society. Callicott sees this as a great negligence or vacuum in the 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 

ethical history of the west, and proposed that an environmental ethic would define the 

extent of human freedom of action in relationship to non-human natural entities and to 

nature  as  a  whole.  In  reference  to  Leopold  maxim,  ―a  thing  is  right  when  it  tends  to 

preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community‖ (262), he envisaged a 

holistic non-anthropocentric environmental ethic. A holistic non-anthropocentric ethic 

regards non-human species as possessing intrinsic value because they are members of the 

ecosystem, and their continued existence depends on the health of the ecosystem. 

Furthermore, he enumerated what Po-Keung stated as the basic problem of environmental 

ethics; 
 

I take it that the major task of environmental ethics is the construction of a 

system of normative guidelines governing man‘s attitudes, behavior, and 

action towards his natural environment. The central question to be asked is 

how ought to man, either as an individual or as a group, to behave or to act 

towards nature? By nature, I mean the non-human environment man finds 

himself in…. Any viable environmental ethics, it seems to me, should 

provide adequate answers to three questions (1) What is the nature of 

nature? (2) What is the nature of man? (3) How should man relate…to 

nature? (116) 
 

Callicott   once   said,   ―to   begin   adequately   to   address   environmental   problems   and 

eventually ameliorate the environmental crises, (1) metaphysical foundations must be 

brought into alignment with ecology—the principal basic science of environment—and 

(2) ethical theory must be enlarged so as to include within its purview both nonhuman 

natural entities…‖ (177). In concordance with his assertion, Callicott writes on Lynn 

white‘s position ―what we do about ecology [that is, natural environment] depends on our 

ideas of man-nature relationship. More science and more technology are not going to get 

us out of the present ecological crisis until we find a new religion, or rethink our old one‖ 

(120). 

 

2. Environmental Ethics 

Environmental Ethics as a concept is derived from two words: environment and ethics. 

Environment  derived  from  the   French  word,   ―enviromer‖  meaning  to  ―encircle   or 

surround‖, thus, it can be defined as (1) the circumstances or conditions that surround an 

organism or group of organisms… (Cunnigham et al.16). It can be referred to as the 

natural compositions of an organism which includes, water, soil, air, land, etc. On the 

other hand, ethics is defined as the branch of philosophy that deals with the standard of 

right or wrong, good or bad, justice, fairness. Ekwutosi citing Consalves conception of 

ethics writes, ―ethics grows out of life-situation in which we are confronted with some sort 

of perplexity or doubt about what is the right thing to do or the best course to follow…‖ 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

(1). Thus, environmental ethics deals with the application of ethical principles in man‘s 

relation with the environment. It is concerned with the moral attitudes that guide man‘s 

relationship with the environment. Baird Callicott, a philosopher of environmental ethics 

opines   that   ―environmental   ethics   has   emerged   as   a   new   sub-discipline   of   moral 

philosophy…. Environmental ethics may be understood to be but one among several new 

of applied philosophies‖ (116). On his clarification and distinction of environmental ethics 

from other new applied philosophies, Rolston avers that; 
 

Environmental ethics is more radical in applying ethics outside the 

sector of human interests. Contemporary ethics has been concerned 

to be inclusive: the poor as well as the rich, women as well as man, 

future generations as well as the present. Environment ethics is even 

more inclusive: whales slaughtered, wolves extirpated, whooping 

cranes and their habitats disrupted, ancient forest cut, Earth 

threatened by global warming. These are ethical questions 

intrinsically, owing to values destroyed in nature, as well as 

instrumentally, owing to human resources jeopardized. Humans 

need to include nature in their ethics, humans need to include 

themselves in nature (518). 
 

Rolston‘s argument is that environmental ethics is often regarded as an applied ethics, but 

there seems to be a sort of difference between the two. In applied ethics, the traditional 

and metaphysical ethical theories are applied say, to medicine, business, work, genetic 

engineering and professional ethics. On the contrary, Rolston argues that ―environmental 

ethics begins with the assumption that traditional metaphysics and moral theory are more 

at the root of environmental problems than the tools for their solution‖ (115). Thereby 

stating that environmental ethics is a kind of anti-applied ethics, in the sense that, it refutes 

the principles of traditional ethics in addressing the environmental abuses. Environmental 

ethics transcend the common application of ethical principles; it is an exploration of 

alternative ethical principles that can adequately address the environmental issues. 
 

Richard  Sylvan  arguing  in  line  with  Rolston  posits  that,  ―it  is  increasingly  said  that 

civilization, Western Civilization at least, stands in need of a new ethic… setting out 

people‘s relations to the natural environment‖ (12). The western conception of ethics has 

been human centered, it only dictates human to human relation, the human person is both 

the subject and object of the western ethics. Subsequently, giving the new development or 

using Charles Darwin terminology, evolution, human being has discovered the need to 

extend moral relation to other nonhuman species, hence the beginning of environmental 

ethics.  Nnamani  in  his  explication  on  environmental  ethics  opines  that,  ―environmental 

ethics begins with two basic assumptions: firstly, that human behavior towards the natural 

world should be governed by moral norms, and secondly, that we are charged with some 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 

responsibilities towards nature‖ (393). Rolston points out that ―environmental ethics starts 

with human concern for a quality environment, and some think this shapes the ethic from 

start to finish.‖ (517). Thus, environmental ethic arises from human‘s concern to conserve 

and preserve the environment from the imminent environmental crisis that is gaining 

ground in the world. Human beings must ensure a sustainable environment for a healthy 

living. 
 

Environmental ethics is a branch of environmental philosophy that deals with moral 

relation of human species to nonhuman species. It is an extension of ethical cum moral 

consideration to animals, plants, soils, rocks, etc. Jardins puts this rightly, environmental 

issues are not primarily political matters, but ethical affairs, they raise fundamental 

questions about ethics and philosophy‖ (4), Nnamani in addition to what Jardins has said, 

avers that ―environmental ethics raises questions about the place of human beings among 

other living organisms and about their relationship to nature and environment‖ (393). 
 

Nnamani in his essay ―Environmental Ethics,‖ set forth to provide a philosophical ground 

of environmental ethics, he argues that environmental ethics can be a type of descriptive, 

normative and philosophical ethics. As a descriptive ethics, environmental ethics describes 

and summarizes ethical belief that helps us to understand the complexity of environmental 

challenges; as a normative ethics, environmental ethics makes ethical judgment and 

evaluations of environmental issues, and appeals to some standard or norm of ethical 

behavior; as a philosophical ethics, environmental ethics examines values in conflict and 

the competing reasons that underlie the conflict, in order to be able to evaluate normative 

judgment and ensure suitable environmental decisions and policies (394). 
 

However, environmental ethics is of recent origin, though many ancient philosophers have 

said something about the environment or nature, but it was from the humanistic point of 

view. Richard Sylvan was right at stating that-: ―it is not of course that old and prevailing 

ethics do not deal with nature; they do, and on the prevailing view man is free to deal with 

nature as he pleases, i.e, his relations with nature, insofar at least as they do not affect 

others, are not subject to moral censure‖ (12). Serious academic inquiries into 

environmental ethics started in the 1970s. During this period a fervent awareness grew 

among scholars on the need to rethink human‘s relationship with the environment. On the 

first World Earth Day in 1970, environmentalists started urging philosophers, who were 

involved in the environmental discussion to proffer a solution to the imminent 

environmental crisis by formulating an environmental ethics. There were three papers that 

really inspired the desire for an environmental ethics; An essay in Aldo Leopold‘s A Sand 

County Almanac, ‗The Land Ethic‘ (1949), where Leopold explicitly avers that the root of 

environmental crisis is philosophical. The second paper is Lynn White‘s ‗The Historical 

Roots of our Ecological Crisis (1967) and thirdly, Garett Hardin‘s ‗The Tragedy of the 

Commons‘ (1968). These papers were influential in the environmental discussion of the 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

1970s. Subsequently, many philosophers took interest in the enquiry to save the planet 

from environmental crisis and possible extinction. Callicott writing on the existence and 

establishment of environmental ethic within the philosophical circle, states explicitly; 
 

In 1973, with the publication of three seminal papers, environmental ethics 

made its formal debut on the staid and conservative stage of professional 

philosophy. That Spring, the young Australian Philosopher Peter Singer 

published  ―Animal  Liberation‖  in  the  New  York  Review  of  Books.  That 

summer, ―The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range Ecology Movement: A 

Summary‖ by distinguished Norwegian philosopher and mountaineer Arne 

Naess appeared in the international philosophy journal, Inquiry. That fall, 

another young Australian philosopher, Richard Sylvan (then Routley), 

addressed his colleagues at the Fifteenth World Congress of philosophy in 

Varna,  Bulgaria,  with  a  question:  ―Is  There  a  Need  for  a  New,  an 

Environmental, Ethic‖ (―Environmental Philosophy, from Animal Rights to 

Radical Ecology‖ 3) 
 

3. Theories of Environmental Ethics 
 

In the bid to formulate an environmental ethics that can suitably address the environmental 

challenges, Nnamani observes; 
 

The true nature of these norms and responsibility gave rise to two 

conflicting theories of environmental ethics: philosophers who hold that we 

owe responsibilities directly to other human beings and merely indirectly to 

the non-human part of the natural environment. In other words, nonhuman 

parts of the natural environment deserve man‘s moral consideration only 

insofar as they serve humanity interest. The second camp is the 

philosophers that hold that we owe direct responsibility to the whole 

universe- plants, animals, species, and ecosystem. In this case, every 

natural object and the ecosystem have moral standing in their own right 

(393). 
 

Consequently, the first camp is the anthropocentric philosophers that advocate for the 

human centered ethics, while the second camp is the non anthropocentric philosophers that 

clamour for the intrinsic value of the whole ecosystem. The non anthropocentric 

philosophers are further divided into two: the biocentric philosophers, the ecocentric 

philosophers. But due to the scope of this study, we shall only examine anthropocentric 

environmental ethics and ecocentric environmental ethics. 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 
4. Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics 

Anthropocentric environmental ethics is the branch of environmental ethics that is human 

centered. The word, anthropocentric, is derived from the Greeks words, ‗anthropos‘ – 

human- and ‗kentron‘ –centered- thus, it is the idea that human beings are the most 

significant species on the ecosystem in the sense that they are considered to have a moral 

status or value higher than that of other animals. Anthropocentrism emphasizes on the 

superiority of human beings over nonhuman species, and these nonhuman species are 

valued through the lens or perspective of human. In other words, human beings are 

assigned higher intrinsic value while nonhuman species are accorded instrumental value. 
 

Anthropocentrism evaluates the behavior of human towards nature on the sole basis of 

how it affects human beings. Human interests become the determinant factor in the 

conservation of the environment. The only reason for conserving the environment is that 

not doing so can harm the human beings, otherwise humans have no reason to conserve 

the environment. In order to comprehend this better, reference would be made to the 

scenario painted by Richard Routley, which he called the last man example, ―the last man 

(or person) surviving the collapse of the world system lays about him, eliminating, as far 

as he can, every living thing, animal or plant…what he does is permissible according to 

basic chauvinism‖ (16). Routley‘s argument is that the last man behaves in an 

anthropocentric mannerism, he was eliminating every living thing, animal or plant because 

they do not have value, apart from serving the interest of man. Though Routley was not in 

support  of  such  environmental  value,  ―one  does  not  have  to  be  committed  to  esoteric 

values to regard Mr. last Man as behaving badly‖ (16). 
 

The proponents of anthropocentrism posit that, every instance of value originates in a 

contribution to human values and that all elements of nature can, at most have value 

instrumental to the satisfaction of human interests. This point is made clear in the 

assertion,  ―anthropocentrism  views  humans  as  the  centre  of  ethical  concern,  while  the 

environment is often seen as a usable resource, there for our personal exploitation,‖ 

(nuigalway.ie) underlying this position is the argument that values cannot exist without a 

valuer. The nonhuman species cannot be valued by and for itself because in the absent of 

man, they seem to possess no worth at all. It can be argued that the proponents of this  

view got their inspiration from classical philosophers. Thus, anthropocentric view of 

environment can be traced down to the ancient philosophers. Spinoza writing on the early 

conception of man notes; 
 

…they look on all things of Nature as means to their own advantage…they 

could not believe them to be self-created, but on the analogy of the means 

which they are accustomed to produce for themselves, they were bound to 

conclude that there were some governor or governors of nature, endowed 

with human freedom, who have attended to all their needs and made 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

everything for their use….Thus it was that this misconception developed 

into superstition and became deep-rooted in the minds of men (qtd in 

Spinoza 164 ). 
 

Man has always see nature as an instrument of manipulation and use, nature has no 

function except to satisfy the human race. Aristotle once affirmed, ―nature has made all 

things specifically for the sake of man.‖ (Bk 1, Ch 8) This anthropocentric view of 

Aristotle was followed by his medieval student Thomas Aquinas, who following the line 

of his master argues that nonhuman animals are ordered to man‘s use. Thomas Aquinas 

contributing to the anthropocentric conception puts it, ―hereby is refuted the error of those 

who said it is sinful for Man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence they are 

intended for man‘s use in the natural order‖ (112). In other words, human beings have right 

to subjugate other beings below on the hierarchy, because these beings are meant for 

human‘s consumption and usage. 
 

Another radical philosopher who vehemently espoused anthropocentrism is Francis 

Bacon. Carol Merchant, a professor of environmental history, philosophy and ethics in the 

University of California, writing on Bacon‘s contribution to the death of Nature, describes 

in Bacon words; 
 

[T] he new man of science must not think that the ―inquisition of nature is 

in any part interdicted or forbidden.‖ Nature must be ―bound into service‖ 

and  made  a  ―slave‖  put  ―in  constraint‖  and  ―molded‖  by  the  mechanical 

arts.  The  ―searchers  and  spies  of  nature‖  are  to  discover  her  plots  and 

secrets‖ (qtd in Merchant 272). 
 

Bacon from his statement is advocating for the exploitation and control of nature for 

human benefits. He went further to claim that knowledge is the ability to command nature, 

to penetrate into the inner and further recesses of nature, in order to discover the secrets of 

nature, ―there is therefore much ground for hoping that there are still laid up in the womb 

of nature many secrets of excellent use having no affinity or parallelism with anything that 

is now known… (qtd in Merchant 273). Bacon raised a call to dominate nature and  

exploit the natural environment for the good of the entire human race. Though Bacon is 

not an environmental philosopher, but his view greatly influenced man‘s conception of 

nature, Merchant puts this succinctly, ―human dominion over nature, an integral element 

of  the  Baconian  program,  was  to  be  achieved  through  the  experimental  ―disclosure  of 

nature‘s secrets.‖ Seventeenth-century scientists, reinforcing aggressive attitudes toward 

nature, spoke out in favor of ―mastering‖ and ―managing‖ the earth (Merchant 275). Thus, it 

can be argued that human anthropocentric conception of nature stemmed from Baconian 

program of dominating nature, such that man sees nature as a commodity to be used. 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 

Paul Taylor writing on the distinction between anthropocentric environmental theory and 

the life centered theory, observers critically the nature of anthropocentric values; 
 

According to the latter, human actions affecting the natural environment 

and its nonhuman inhabitants are right (or wrong) by either two criteria: 

they have consequences which are favourable (or unfavourable) to human 

well-being, or they are consistent (or inconsistent) with the system of 

norms that protect and implement human rights. From this human centered 

standpoint it is human and only humans that all duties are ultimately 

owned. We may have responsibilities with regard to the natural ecosystems 

and biotic communities of our planet, but these responsibilities are in every 

case based on the contingent fact that our treatment of those ecosystems 

and communities of life can further the realization of human values and/or 

human rights. We have no obligation to promote or protect the good of 

nonhuman living things, independently of this contingent fact (198). 

 

5. Ecocentric Environmental Ethical Theory 

Ecocentric environmental ethic deals with the argument for the intrinsic value of the 

whole ecosystem, it employs the insights derived from ecological studies to advocate for 

value within ecological entities, processes and relationships. The tenet of ecocentrism is 

that we cannot adequately understand the value of an individual organism, unless we 

discover the value in the interconnected relationships that exist within the ecosystem. ―The 

world is an intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations in which there are no 

absolutely discrete entities and no absolute dividing lines between the living and non- 

living, the animate and the inanimate, or human and the nonhuman‖ (Eckersely 49). Thus, 

the seeming disparity between human and nonhuman stemmed from the traditional 

anthropocentric conception of nature. It is on this view that the ecocentrism rejects 

traditional ethical theories, arguing that they are insufficient and inadequate in addressing 

the environmental challenges. 
 

The major argument advanced by the proponents of ecocentrism is that value lies in the 

processes as well as in products; 
 

To value individuals among the fauna and flora and not the evolutionary 

and ecological processes is like valuing the eggs that the golden goose 

produces more than the goose able to produce them. It will be a mistake to 

value the goose only instrumentally. A goose that lays golden eggs is 

systemically valuable. How much is an ecosystem that generates myriads 

of species or even, as we soon see, an Earth that produces billions of 

species, ourselves included (Rolston III 524). 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

The position of ecocentrism was first advocated by Aldo Leopold in his highly influential 

essay "The Land Ethic", Leopold begins his essay explicating the moral evolution over the 

millennia. According to him, the earliest notions of morality regulated conduct between 

individuals, as reflected in the Ten Commandments. Later notions regulated conduct 

between an individual and society, as reflected in the Golden Rule. Leopold argues that  

we are on the verge of a new advancement in morality which regulates conduct between 

humans and the environment, which he calls the land ethic. For all three of these phases in 

the evolution of ethics, the main premise of morality is that the individual is a member of  

a community of interdependent parts. For Leopold, "The land ethic simply enlarges the 

boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: 

the land‖ (262). This involves a radical paradigm shift in how humans perceive themselves 

in relation to the environment. Originally we saw ourselves as conquerors of the land. 

Now we need to see ourselves as members of a community which also includes the land. 

The role of conqueror is self-defeating, for it assumes that the conqueror knows all. Yet, 

clearly, we do not know all of the inner complexities of the environment. Leopold 

illustrates this by noting how human history has been altered by specific changes we have 

imposed on the environment. 
 

According to Stan Rowei, writing on the significant nature of the ecosystem, and its 

integrated nature, which demand respect for it, writes, 
 

[T] he ecocentric argument is grounded in the belief that compared to the 

undoubted importance of the human part, the whole ecosphere is even more 

significant and consequential: more inclusive, more complex, more 

integrated, more creative, more beautiful, more mysterious, and order than 

time. The environment that anthropocentrism misperceives as materials 

designed to be used exclusively by humans, to serve the needs of humanity, 

is in profoundest sense humanity‘s source and support:. econcentrism 

goes beyond biocentrism with its fixation on organisms, for in the 

ecocentric view, people are inseparable from the organic/inorganic nature 

that encapsulates them. They are particles and waves, body and spirit in the 

context of earth‘s ambient energy (106-107). 
 

J. Baird Callicot in his criticism of the western ethics and its inadequacies for protecting 

the environment envisions a new ethic that will incorporate the intrinsic value of the 

environment. This new ethic advocates for the intrinsic value of the environment which he 

refer to as ecocentrism. The environment is understood in terms of a complicated web of 

relations, where different organisms interact and depends on the health of the ecosystem 

for their survival. Thus, it becomes paramount that man should adopt an ethic that will 

respect the place of other nonhuman species, because just like humans, they are part of the 

ecosystem.    ―ethics  is  to  be  reformed  by  moving  away  from  a  strict  concentration  on 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 

humans and their relations to include the nonhuman‖ (McDonald 13). In other to set out the 

foundation of this new ethic, Callicott made recourse to the land ethic of Aldo Leopold, he 

argues that; 
 

the land ethic, founded upon an ecological model of nature emphasizing the 

contributing roles played by various species in the economy of nature, 

abandons the ―higher/lower‖ ontological and axiological schema in favour 

of a functional system of value. The land ethic... is inclined to establish 

value distinctions not on the basis of higher and lower orders of being, but 

on the basis of the importance of organisms, minerals, and so on to the 

biotic community (qtd in McDonald 16). 
 

Similar to the earlier postulation at the beginning of this section, ecocentrism was 

championed by Aldo Leopold, but Callicott established the philosophical foundation for 

the acceptance of the land ethic in the philosophical circle. The land ethic is grounded on 

the intrinsic value of the ecosystem, the respect for nonhuman species. This ethic was 

necessitated by the human degradation of the environment, the exploitation of mineral 

resources, which to a great extent poses threat to human life and whole ecosystem as well. 

Thus, the need arose as to the formulation of an ethic that can adequately address the 

human  relation  to  the  environment.  In  response  to  this,  Callicott  point  out  that,  ―an 

adequate value theory for non-anthropocentric environmental ethics must provide for the 

intrinsic value of both individual organisms and a hierarchy of super-organismic entities- 

populations, species, biocoenoses, biomes, and the biosphere‖ (qtd in McDonald 17). 
 

The assumption that the ecosystem poses intrinsic value implies that the whole species 

within the ecosystem also possesses intrinsic value and therefore equal. Paul Taylor argues 

to the contrary, that there is difference between human and nonhuman species, in his 

words, he writes: ―we do not deny the differences between ourselves and other species, 

but we keep in the forefront of our consciousness the fact that in relation to our planet‘s 

natural ecosystems we are but one species population among many (207). Thus, human 

has higher degree of sentience than the nonhuman species but we must realized that we are 

part of an interdependent system, and must coexist with other species, ―this is the fact that 

the well-being of humans is dependent upon the ecological soundness and health of many 

plants and animal communities, while their soundness and health does not in the least 

depend upon the human well-being‖ (Taylor 208). 

 

6. Conclusion 

The moral consideration of nonhuman species cannot be neglected at this age because 

studies have proven that the ecosystem is interrelated and abuse of one member of the 

ecosystem invariably results to the dysfunction of the entire ecosystem. The discussion on 

the primacy of the human species on other nonhuman species has provided justification on 



Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

the constant abuse of the environment. However, this study is a call to change the 

perception of human relation with the environment. Nature has inherent value besides its 

benefit to human. Thus, in exploration of nature, human beings should respect the intrinsic 

value of other members of the ecosystem. Development, technology, industrialization and 

civilization are necessary element of human species but ecocentric environmental ethics 

argues for a moderation of these activities in order to curb extreme extinction of some of 

these nonhuman species. It must be noted the upholding the intrinsic value of the 

environmental is indirectly beneficial to human beings; if the other nonhuman species 

would go into extinction, then, human would have little or no resources to explore. 



Nwokoye An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

 
References 

Aquinas, Thomas. (1975). Summa Contra Gentiles, translated by V.J. Bourke, (London: 

University of Notre Dame Press, BK.3, Part 2, Ch.112 

Aristotle,( 1948).Politics translated E. Barker, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Bk.1, 

Ch.8 

Callicott, B.J. (1997).―The Challenge of a World Environmental Ethics,‖ American 

Journal of Theology and Philosophy, Vol.18, No.1. 

---.  ―Conceptual  Resources  for  Environmental  Ethics  in  Asian  Traditions  of  thought:  A 

Propaedeutic,‖ (1987). Philosophy East and West, Vol. 37, No.2, ―Environmental 

Ethics,‖ Retrieved from www.nuigalway.ie/cobra/links/guides/environmental- 

ethics.html Accessed on 28th August, 2020.Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press. 

---. ―How Environmental Ethical theory may be put into practice,‖ (1996).Ethics   and   the 

Environment, Vol.1No.1. 

---.  ―Introduction‖  in  M.  Zimmernam,  (General  Ed),  B.  J.  Callicott,  Sessions  George, 

Warren Karen J, Clark John. (Assoc, eds.) (1993).Environmental Philosophy, 

from Animal Rights to Radical Ecology, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Cunnigham, W. P., Cunningham M., Saigo, B. (2005).Environmental Science: A global 

concern, 8 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. 

Eckersely, R. (1992). ―Ecocentrism Explained and Defended,‖ Environmentalism and Political 

Theory, London: UCL Press. 

---. R. Environmentalism and Political Theory, London: UCL Press, 1992. 

Ekwutosi, M.C.(2006).Basic Issues in Ethics, Onitsha: Rex Charles & Patrick Ltd, 

Booksmith House, 

Leopold, A. (1949).A Sand County Almanac, New York: Oxford University Press, 

Manson,  N.  (2000).  ―Anthropocentrism  and  the  Design  argument‖,  In  Religious  Studies 

Vol.36, quoted Baruch Spinoza, in The Ethics and selected letters, Samuel Shirley 

(transl), and Seymour Fadman(ed). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Mc Donald, H.P. (2004). ―John Dewey and Environmental Philosophy‖ Albany: State 

University of New York, 

McHarg, (1969).  ―Design with Nature,‖ New York: Doubleday and Company Inc. 

Merchant, C. (1993). ―The Death of Nature‖. In Zimmernam Michael, (General Ed), 

Callicott, Baird J., Sessions George, Warren Karen J, Clark John. (Assoc, eds.) 

Environmental Philosophy, from Animal Rights to Radical Ecology., New Jersey: 

Prentice Hall. 

Nnamani, A.G. (2005). ―Ethics of the Environment,‖ In P. Iroegbu and A.  Echekwube 

(eds.),Kpim  of  Morality  Ethics:  General,  Special   and  Professional, Nigeria: 

Heinemann Educational Books. 

Po-Keung, I. (1987). ―Taoism and the foundations of environmental Ethics,‖ In J. Baird 

Callicott’s Conceptual Resources for Environmental Ethics in Asian 

Traditions of Thought: A propaedeatic University of Hawai‘I Press, 

http://www.nuigalway.ie/cobra/links/guides/environmental-ethics.html
http://www.nuigalway.ie/cobra/links/guides/environmental-ethics.html


Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 1(1), 2021 

 

Rolston 111, H. (2003) ―Environmental Ethics‖, In Nicholas Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James, 

(eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell 

Publishing. 

Rowe, Stan J. (2020).―Ecocentrism: The Chord that harmonizes Humans and Earth.‖ (The 

Trumpter, 1994) p.106-107 Retrieved from http://.www.ecospherics.net/pages/ 

RoweEcocenrism.html. Accessed on 14
th

 July, 2020. 

Sylvan, R. (1993). ―Is there a need for a New, an Environmental Ethic?‖ In Zimmernam 

Michael, (General Ed), Callicott, Baird J., Sessions George, Warren Karen J, Clark 

John. (Assoc, eds.) Environmental Philosophy, from Animal Rights to Radical 

Ecology., New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 

Taylor,     P.     (2020).―The     Ethics     of     Respect     for     Nature‖.     Retrieved     from 

www.unweitethikk.at on 14th July, 

United Nation Development Report (UNDP), Niger-Delta Development Human 

Report,Abuja;UN House, (2006).

http://.www.ecospherics.net/pages/%20RoweEcocenrism.html
http://.www.ecospherics.net/pages/%20RoweEcocenrism.html
http://www.unweitethikk.at/


 


