Ethics

This is an academic, critical web site that seeks to develop better environmental ethics for space, not to propagate or convert people to the Buddhist religion. I, the author of this site, am a professor, not a monk or priest. However, if we take a critical approach to developing space environmental ethics, we find that Buddhism deserves a voice in space environmental conversation conversations because Buddhist perspectives offer some valuable choices to add to those from our other helpful ethical systems.

 In terms of principles, Buddhism offers the world of environmental ethics important values such as that of not harming others, or ahiṃsā; ideals of compassion (karuṇā) and lovingkindness (mettā); and a philosophical world view that emphasizes the interconnectedness of the physical universe. Embraced in action, these values and perspectives retain the potential to shape positive environmental outcomes. For instance, the precept of nonharm can motivate both environmental protection and cleanup. Values like compassion and lovingkindness helpfully can protect and conserve microbial life forms that NASA scientists expect to find in the solar system. Moreover, philosophical notions such as an interconnected universe that arises interdependently, or paṭicca-samuppāda in the Pāli language, beneficially serve to widen our perspectives of environmental concern when necessary, such as in establishing nature reserves on our moon or in protecting the stones of Mars.

A beauty of these ideals is that they have been time-tested as solid for 2,500 years. But there exists a new weapon in Buddhist environmental efforts, too, and, as I have done elsewhere, I intend to wield this tool to the fullest. Here I talk about personhood attitudes toward nonhumans that remain resident and pervasive throughout the scriptures, because these personhood attitudes help us to ground Buddhist environmental efforts within contemporary science while we remain true to the Buddhist tradition itself.

It may be astonishing to read this but as works in the Resources section show, for decades scientists within animal studies and botany have turned to scientific approaches in which nonhuman natural beings are treated as species-specific persons in their own rights, with respect accorded to their species-specific agency. Of course, the scientists are not talking about treating nonhumans as human persons, as one may find in a Disney movie, but rather treating a squirrel as a squirrel person with its own squirrel life world. Alternatively, we can treat a pine tree as a pine tree person with its own pine tree life world, whether it is easy for us to imagine a pine tree’s life world or not. Animal scientists and botanists increasingly find that bringing such personhood attitudes to the research setting creates positive results. Such personhood thinking also is echoed in many other academic fields, such as philosophy, anthropology, and geography, and thereby exerts a force in today’s academic world.

This type of personhood thinking can be not just a valuable scientific tool, but also a potent environmental preservation tool. A brilliant example of this comes from the Whanganui River in New Zealand. When the river was faced with possible environmental damage from development, the local Māori tribe sued the developers in court. The Māori people argued that the river had always been a person in their tribe, if a river person, and thus the tribe should serve as the legal guardian of the river. With this argument the tribe won in court and later in a law passed by the New Zealand Parliament, thus winning the preservation of the river.