




































123 

 

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 ethical 

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



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

124 

 

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…” (1). 

Thus, environmental ethics deals with the application of ethical principles in man’s 



Nwokoye                                                   An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

125 

 

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 



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

126 

 

assumptions: firstly, that human behavior towards the natural world should be 

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

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 



Nwokoye                                                   An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

127 

 

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 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 



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

128 

 

philosophers, the ecocentric philosophers. But due to the scope of this study, we 

shall only examine anthropocentric environmental ethics and ecocentric 

environmental ethics. 

 

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 



Nwokoye                                                   An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

129 

 

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 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 



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

130 

 

nature stemmed from Baconian program of dominating nature, such that man sees 

nature as a commodity to be used. 

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 



Nwokoye                                                   An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

131 

 

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). 

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 



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

132 

 

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 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 



Nwokoye                                                   An Assessment of the Theory of Environmental … 

133 

 

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 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.  

 

 

 

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. 

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


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

134 

 

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,  

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 

 14th 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/RoweEcocenrism.html
http://www.unweitethikk.at/

