Editing Environmental ethics (section)

== Marshall's categories ==
Some scholars have tried to categorise the various ways the natural environment is valued. [[Alan Marshall (New Zealand author)|Alan Marshall]] and [[Michael A. Smith (philosopher)|Michael Smith]] are two examples of this, as cited by [[Peter Vardy (theologian)|Peter Vardy]] in ''The Puzzle of Ethics''.<ref>Peter Vardy, Paul Grosch: The Puzzle of Ethics. New York: Harper Collins 1999.</ref> According to Marshall, three general ethical approaches have emerged over the last 40 years: Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension, and [[Conservation (ethic)|Conservation Ethics]].<ref>{{cite journal|title=Ethics and the Extraterrestrial Environment. In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1993, pp. 227-236. (Also see: Alan Marshall's book 'The Unity of Nature', Imperial College Press: London, 2002)|journal=Journal of Applied Philosophy|last=Marshall|first=Alan|issn=1468-5930}}</ref>

=== Libertarian extension ===
Marshall's libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a commitment to extending equal rights to all members of a community). In environmentalism, the community is generally thought to consist of non-humans as well as humans.

Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the argument that all ontological entities, animate and inanimate, can be given ethical worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of [[Arne Næss]] and his collaborator Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term "[[deep ecology]]". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/learning-resources/what-is-deep-ecology|title=What is Deep Ecology?|date=2007-09-28|website=Schumacher College|language=en|access-date=2020-03-19|archive-date=2021-03-08|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308150641/https://www.schumachercollege.org.uk/learning-resources/what-is-deep-ecology|url-status=dead}}</ref> Their argument falls under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension.

[[Peter Singer]]'s work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of [[speciesism]]. Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or "non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of "Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral worth.<ref>Peter Singer: Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011.</ref> This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of ''Practical Ethics'' after the work of Næss and Sessions, Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is plausible, but at best problematic. Singer advocated a humanist ethics.

=== Ecologic extension ===
Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on
human rights but on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence 
of all biological (and some abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be thought of as flowing 
from a political reflection of the natural world, ecologic extension is 
best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world. 
Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith's eco-holism, and it argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective
ecological entities like ecosystems or the global environment as a whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.

This category might include [[James Lovelock]]'s [[Gaia hypothesis]]; the theory that the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, [[Holism|holistic]] entity with independent ethical value, compared to which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

=== Conservation ethics ===
Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology,' hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology,' and generally argues for the preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value – instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with mankind and inter-generational considerations. It could be argued that it is this ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at the [[Kyoto Protocol|Kyoto summit]] in 1997 and three agreements reached in the [[Earth Summit|Rio Earth Summit]] in 1992.