Many environmentalists and animal rights advocates dispute that Kant
is of value for helping us negotiate the current need for an
environmental ethic. Even some Kantians, like Christine Korsgaard, are
doubtful about the use of Kant’s apparent valuing of human beings over
other animals, especially, animals like us. She appeals to a kind of
Aristotelian concept of final good in order to develop appreciation for
other animals. In the face of climate challenges,
it is clear that we need an ethic that values other animal species, but
as a species, and values their role in biodiversity, and hence accords
other animal species moral consideration and value as a species rather
than as individuals. Kantians have been using Kant to argue that we have
indirect duties to other animals, but this is not enough for a climate
change environmental ethic. A climate change environmental ethic needs
an account of how animal species play a role in the biosphere and how
that biosphere is affected by the atmosphere. A Kantian ethic of
indirect duties owed to other individuals (human and animal) is
insufficient for a climate change ethic. A climate change ethic needs to
be global in nature and has to consider living and non-living systems.
Some recent environmentalist critiques of Kant, like Chakrabarty’s,
doubt that Kant’s emphasis on reason as a distinctive human trait can
give us justifications for valuing biodiversity, since Kant seems to pit
human reason against animality. He suspects that Kant’s
emphasis on human reason blinds us to an appreciation of other animal
organisms, including microorganisms. One of the great perils of climate
change is the threat to biodiversity, and there is significant doubt
among environmentalists as to whether Kant can provide reasons for
valuing biodiversity and other animals and organisms. There is thus
great doubt that Kant can respond to our climate crisis and give us the
motivation to make the changes we need to avoid catastrophes like
species extinctions that we anticipate with climate change and the
warming of our atmosphere. Helga Varden, using Hannah Arendt, criticizes
the way our rationalistic capacities have given us a false sense of
superiority and caused us to distance ourselves from our animality thus
making us unable to integrate our animality in a spiritually and
ethically satisfying way. On the other hand, Inês Salgueiro argues for
the need to discipline our animality and use our reason responsibly. So
contrary directives come out of Kantian ethics. Is being in touch with
our animality going to help us save human civilization or is using our
reason to restrain our animality going to help us solve the climate
crisis? Reason according to Kant is key.
Varden is correct that there is a kind of belief in the superiority
of contemplative knowledge that accompanies the scholarly knowledge of
modernity. I will go further and say that this belief in the superiority
of scholarly knowing over faith has alienated some people, especially
some Christians. These Christians have repaid the favor and rejected
expert and scholarly knowledge about climate change. Yet without a
consensus about climate change we cannot marshal the resources we need
to make the changes that are necessary. What is the solution? Expert
knowledge must also exhibit intellectual humility. This is something
that is promoted by the Templeton Foundation as it mediates between
faith and science. Intellectual humility is also
promoted by Plato so this is not just a faith-based virtue. Expert
knowledge is partial knowledge since scholars and scientists become
experts by limiting the scope of their knowledge through specializing.
Therefore, it is pretty clear that expert knowledge is not comprehensive
knowledge. There is a need for humanists/scientists to bring expert
knowledge to a comprehensive whole and to convey it in a way that is
accessible to non- experts. This is exactly what humanist/scientists
like Bill Nye and Hugh Ross are attempting to do. Kant, also, attempted
to be that kind of humanist/scientist in his day and time. He brought
together commentary on the Lisbon earthquake with a reflection on the
meaning of human life and happiness. Hugh Ross and Bill Nye are not
associated with universities, but they nonetheless cite hundreds of
scientific papers and scholarship to support their accounts of climate
science. They make climate science accessible to non-experts.
This paper will argue why Kant is of great value to environmental
philosophy as we continue to negotiate the possibility of addressing
climate change and the threat that it poses because he too wrote what he
called ‘popular philosophy’ meant to reach non-experts. In his popular
work, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, he
articulated a theory of human nature that can help us elucidate climate
change issues. He also wrote three articles on the Lisbon earthquake
that were addressed to the public. These works provide a framework for
addressing climate change in our generation. In contrast to other
environmentalists who find ways to value other animals and organisms at
the cost of valuing human beings, Kant offers us reasons for valuing
human beings not only because of their capacity for morality, but also
because of their capacity for using reason. It is because human beings
do have reason and can respond to reasons that we can appeal to them
morally and appeal to their use of reason in making decisions about how
to address the threat of climate change. Although our climate is not
fully within our power, there are some ways we can affect our atmosphere
in order to maintain a stable climate for the near future, but we need
to motivate human beings to use their reason and restrain their
excesses, and take into consideration how protecting the biosphere, the
hydrosphere, and atmosphere will have a long-term impact on human
well-being, happiness, and human civilization. Human beings, according
to Kant, not only respond to reasoned arguments regarding morality but
also to arguments about how to best deal with the technological options
that confront the whole human species and other animal species because
they have a technical predisposition. They alone are able to understand
how the atmosphere affects the biosphere. In this human beings are
exceptional.
In addition, human beings, because they have reason, can also respond
to reasoning regarding the best means to the ends of human happiness.
This may seem obvious, but it is not in the environmental literature
because, as Varden argues, it may be that reason is at fault for our
inability to relate to our own animality, and through that to other
animal species. I do not think that the culprit is reason, but a lack of
insight into the complexity of the situation we are facing. We need
humanists/scientists who have insight into the complex relationship
between the biosphere and the atmosphere to help non-experts understand
that changes need to be made to human consumption practices in order to
keep a good balance between the atmosphere and the biosphere. Scientists
must use their reason to understand this complex relationship and
humanists need to use their reason to mediate the findings of scientists
to non-experts in a way that it makes sense and does not diminish the
value of human beings. Scientists and humanists are using their
respective technical skills to understand and resolve the climate crisis
that we face. We need non-experts to trust the expertise of scientists.
We do not need more animality, we need more reason. We need more people
to trust reason, exercise reason, and understand that experts have more
knowledge than non-experts. With the democratization of knowledge that
came from the internet and widespread use of it, we have now the
widespread demeaning of expert knowledge. Many climate skeptics seem to
think that their opinions are just as good as any one else’s opinions.
But that is not true. Pilots have knowledge about how to fly planes that
non-experts do not have, and climate scientists have knowledge about the
atmosphere and biosphere that non-experts simply do not have. We need
humanists/scientists who can mediate expert knowledge and build trust in
climate experts, rather than cast doubt on experts. We do not need a
critique of modernity; we need to learn how to trust experts. We do need
to use reason to understand our own animality and relate to it better,
and it is certainly not wrong to have feelings, but feelings of awe in
nature are not going to solve the climate crisis. We
need reason for that.
1. Immanuel
Kant’s Theory of Human Nature and Reason
Kant holds that human beings have four natural
predispositions. Three of these natural
predispositions predispose them to respond to reasons and to use reason:
the technical predisposition, the pragmatic predisposition, and the
moral predisposition. Only the predisposition to animality
is not structured by reason, but nonetheless submits to reason through
discipline and self-restraint. We may need to discipline our animality
in our consumption practices, in order to make a difference to our
global atmosphere. However, this may not be enough. We need scientists,
entrepreneurs, and business people to use their technical skills to
solve the problems we have with our atmosphere and biosphere. We need
humanists to help consumers understand the need for self-restraint.
Kant holds that one of the unique features of human beings that
differentiates them from other animals is not just reason by itself, but
that human beings are capable of reason. They are not the rational
animal, as Aristotle held, but the animal capable of becoming
rational. In fact, the human being must be
educated to use reason and develop their humanity. Human beings need
someone who teaches them and hence appeals to their reason. While they
have a need for a teacher (Herr), they also have a need to question
every master and to think for themselves.
Kant’s enlightenment philosophy is still needed today. We still need to
think for ourselves regarding the anthropogenic climate crisis. We need
to question the authority of pastors and politicians who deny the
crisis, and deny that we are capable of making a difference in averting
it. Kant holds that we need to think for ourselves and think in the
place of others.
It is no wonder that environmentalists write books and articles to
other human beings because they are appealing to human beings to use
their reason to change their minds and educate them to the threats that
the human species faces. Human beings comprise the species that responds
to calls to use their reason. They can change their perceptions, their
behavior, their institutions, their goals, and the means they take to
their goals and ends. This may seem obvious, but it is not obvious in
the environmental literature which is often misanthropic. Some ethicists
are pessimistic, and think we are not able to make a difference in the
climate crisis. Kant would however be optimistic. A good deal of
environmental literature is misanthropic – it blames human beings and
reason (misology) for having caused our environmental problems and it
blames human beings for being selfish and self-congratulatory
(anthropocentric). As a result of a misunderstanding, Kant is also
castigated as anthropocentric and anthro-supremacist, and blamed
partially for the fact that we have the crisis we now have.
One of the reasons for the hostile perception of human beings is the
narrow view of the climate crisis itself that focusses almost
exclusively on the atmosphere and how human beings have accelerated
their impact on it through anthropogenic carbon emissions.
Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross takes a long view of human impact and argues
that actually human agriculture, deforestation, and domestication of
cattle created an usually stable climate for the past 9,500 years. These human activities have warmed
the atmosphere and contributed to stabilizing the climate so that all
species on earth have benefited from this environmental impact. The norm
for earth is not a stable climate. Behind a lot of the
hostile rhetoric against the human species appears to be an assumption
that earth would have a stable climate for billions of years were it not
for human beings and their use of fossil fuels. But that is not a
complete picture. Human civilization, and the wide diversity of species
we see today, have been possible in part because of human agriculture
and human activities. We have been contributing to the
warming of the atmosphere through methane emissions and cutting down
trees for the past 9,500 years and only now through the use of fossil
fuels have accelerated that impact. Fossil fuels and cars have helped us
develop energy sources that contribute to the further development of
human civilization. The very fact that critics of the human species call
this acceleration the “Anthropocene” in contrast to the “Holocene,” is
meant to cast doubt on human activity.
No credit and acknowledgement is thus given to human beings for creating
a stable climate in the first place and for having produced incredible
opportunities for human civilization. With the acceleration of
emissions, the human species is being blamed for climate change and
extreme weather. While this is true, it is no reason to become
misanthropic and deny the larger picture of positive human activity.
Human activity created a stable climate and that made human civilization
possible. While now a few people produce food for the rest of us, we can
engage in all the activities of human civilization. The freedom human
civilization provides is enormous and so essential to human
happiness.
On the other hand, we have realized our negative impact on our
atmosphere in the past, and we have made changes in our activities to
correct the situation. We might think that carbon emissions are
different than acid rain and CFCs and HFCs
in that they are so much more wide-spread and harder to change but we
need to resist the misanthropic voices and apocalyptic screaming, and
get down to analyzing what steps we need to take to stop the
acceleration of emissions into the atmosphere. Where we need the
cooperation of everyone, we need to reason with human beings to gain
their cooperation in our plans to change our impact on the atmosphere
and through that our impact on the hydrosphere, biosphere, and
atmosphere.
Human beings are capable of moral, technical, and prudential action
based on reason according to Kant because these natural predispositions
are based on reason. One can appeal to human reason. We cannot appeal to
the reason of other animal species to change their behavior. Human
beings must take the role of parental care for other animal species and
for the biosphere. We cannot expect animals to join us in our attempts
to mitigate climate change. Even though many animal species are becoming
extinct because of climate change we cannot expect them to advocate for
themselves. Human beings with technical skills and knowledge must be
their voices. Even though an organism like COVID can pose a threat to
billions of people and animals, we cannot appeal to reason in the virus
to stop its damaging behavior. We need scientists to speak for viruses.
Human beings too through their own actions are capable of effecting
great damage to the planet, to many living organisms, species, and
animals including to the human species, however we can only appeal to
human beings’ reason to change their cognitions and their behaviors that
are threatening the planet. It is only the human species who has the
ability to mitigate climate change and take biodiversity into
consideration as it does that. Not every human being has to take
biodiversity into consideration, but we can also change our laws and
policies that will impact those who have significant effects on
biodiversity. We can, for instance, continue to regulate the harvesting
of whales which have such a huge impact on other species in the oceans,
and contribute to the removal of carbon from the atmosphere through
managing our forests and oceans. All of this, undercuts
the objection that human beings are anthropocentric. We cannot allow
this accusation to undermine our ability to engage the climate crisis.
We alone bear the responsibility for action that can restore stability
to our climate. And we do not need indirect duties to other animal
species to be convinced of that. We can see that the well-being of the
biosphere is key to human well-being when we view the interconnection of
the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrosphere and the geosphere. Human
civilization has become possible because of climate stability, and the
stability of the biosphere is also key to that continued stability.
Kant provides a framework in which appealing to human beings to
change their behavior and engage in action in the face of climate change
makes sense because he understands how human nature works and he
understands what makes a human being a human being. In order to change
human behavior to address the threat of climate change, we can appeal to
human reason in four different ways: through moral claims, prudential
claims, technical claims, and appeals to discipline human animality.
Kant emphasizes the agential quality of human beings. He not only wrote
works on practical philosophy but also works on prudence and pragmatic
philosophy. He knows how to get action going and how to motivate people
to transform their actions because he understands the essential and
necessary ends that human nature seeks through reason. Kant understands
wisdom. He attempted to apply reason to all kinds of practical issues in
his own day, including to natural disasters.
When we take seriously the way that reason can be appealed to in
these four areas, we can see that Kant’s scaffolding and architecture of
human nature is valuable for addressing the threat that climate change
poses to human life and to other living organisms. Kant has a framework
that is not only useful but also gives us the basis for being optimistic
about our ability to address climate change, while providing a framework
that is consistent with moral justifications that identify human beings
as having dignity. This dignity ultimately means that human beings are
responsible for their actions and that each individual human being
matters including poor people, and that is why we can have a just
expectation that human beings can change their minds and their behavior.
However, human dignity also sets a limit to what can count as a solution
to the threat of climate change. We could not, for instance, demand that
human beings deny their reason in order to preserve biodiversity or that
some human beings should suffer while others are benefitted. Nor can we
demand that human species completely sacrifice itself for the sake of
biodiversity. It may not sacrifice its animality by committing genocide
or homicide, nor its capacity for using skills whether technical or
pragmatic. There is a wide field of possibility where human beings can
choose to use their skills, but they may not refuse to develop their
skills and use them. Human beings may not deny their own happiness as an
end in order to preserve biodiversity and end carbon emissions. They may
have to redefine what happiness is, but they may not deny the end of
human happiness, since it is an essential end for oneself and a moral
end for other human beings.
In order to address greenhouse gases which are threatening to heat up
the planet, human beings will have to discipline or restrain their
animality using their reason and Kant is not opposed to this since
animality is not the same as reason. Human beings must develop their
humanity by discipling their animality.
Unlike some environmentalists who want to equate human beings with other
species (animal egalitarians), Kant wants to distinguish human animality
from reason, and argue that human animality, unlike the animality in
other species, is not normative for human beings. Its ends are not
essential, necessary, nor normative so human beings may and must
discipline their animality in order to achieve their humanity. This
discipline can take the form of changing eating habits, changing heating
and cooling habits, or adapting new driving habits. For Kant, human
happiness may serve as a reason for human beings in the form of
corporations to use their skills to develop alternative means of energy
or find ways to capture carbon emissions. Scientists must use their
technical skills to give corporations and governments accurate feedback
on the probability and success of these methods. Individuals all must
reassess what makes for human happiness in order to limit what they eat
and consume as part of their pursuit of well-being. Humanist/scientists
must use their rhetorical skills to help educate non-experts understand
the importance of biodiversity and the causality of anthropogenic
climate change. Politicians need to use their skills to formulate laws
that will help all people make better choices about the kind of energy
we use and the kind of food we consume. All of this is feasible because
human beings respond to moral reasons, develop skills, and interact with
each other in order to secure their happiness, according to Kant.
In my book, Kant’s Pragmatic Anthropology, Iargue in Chapter
4 that Kant has a robust theory of human nature that is made up of four
natural predispositions: the predisposition to animality, the technical
predisposition, the pragmatic predisposition (or the predisposition to
humanity), and the moral predisposition. I
maintain that Kant argues in the Religion that all the predispositions
require reason and are subject to reason except the predisposition to
animality. This means, Kant does not believe
the predispositions may be characterized by biologists, but rather they
are subsumed under philosophy since the natural predispositions are
subject to reason. What Kant means by this is that each predisposition
is exercised through the normative use of reason. This also entails that
animality is subject to reason in the other predispositions. All of the
predispositions are ultimately subject to the moral predisposition in a
hierarchy, which requires that all means and ends be subject to the
moral law. Each predisposition has a
particular means to its development and particular ends. The ends of
animality are sociability, procreation, preservation, and freedom. The
ends of the technical predisposition are arbitrary and subordinated thus
to other pragmatic and moral ends. The ends of the pragmatic
predisposition are necessary and essential but must also be subject to
moral ends. Every human being shares the four natural predispositions,
and also share in what they create when human beings work together. The
four natural predispositions create the disciplines of the arts and
sciences and human civilization. All humans share in those realities
more or less, and our climate challenges are the result of those shared
realities, so climate change cannot be addressed by simply focusing on
individual moral action alone.
I maintain that there are specific educational means to developing
the predispositions: animality is developed through discipline (this
means self-restraint or self-regulation). The technical predisposition
is developed by cultivating one’s talents into skills that meet
arbitrary ends such as writing, reading, working, etc. The pragmatic
predisposition is developed by forming one’s skills for prudence –
getting along with other people and collaborating with other people for
the sake of one’s happiness, and subordinating short term pleasure to
long term well-being. Finally, the moral predisposition is developed in
submitting one’s maxims (used in animality, technical and pragmatic
contexts) to the moral law. This human architecture appears to be a more
global and complete framework to use to develop an environmental ethic
because it is about the full human nature that includes one’s animality,
skills, and moral norms.
We can draw the conclusion that natural predispositions unite the
human species because we participate in the natural predispositions
communally. Reason unites the human species and hence the technical,
pragmatic, and moral predispositions which require reason, are developed
not just in the individual but in relationship with other members of the
human species. The technical predisposition for instance gives rise to
the disciplines of the arts and sciences. The pragmatic predisposition
gives rise to human civilization, something all human beings share in
common. The moral law particularly orients human beings toward one
another.
2. Discipline of animality
Unlike other animal species, human beings can submit to a discipline
of their animal inclinations. They have inclinations to nourish
themselves, procreate, survive and be sociable. In the context of
anthropogenic climate change human beings can discipline their animality
in terms of what they eat. Instead of drinking milk and eating meat they
can choose to drink other types of nourishment so that they are not
contributing to the atmospheric gases that result from meat and milk
production. Refusing to eat meat or choosing meat that does not have a
huge carbon footprint (like Ostrich meat), and refusing to drink milk
products can mitigate methane gas that enters the atmosphere when cattle
and dairy cows are raised for food. Human beings are capable of changing
the means to their nourishment because they are not linked inordinately
to their environment like other animal species. However, there are
agricultural situations among humans where this flexibility in
nourishment is not as easy to achieve as in other contexts. Thus, it
might make sense to expect developed countries like the US to develop
alternative food and drink while tolerating more damaging agricultural
practices in less developed countries while they create new strategies
for nourishment.
3. Exercise of technical
skills
Human beings, unlike other animal species, are capable of using their
reason and technical skills to develop alternatives to the energy that
derives from natural gas and oil. Technical skills use means to ends.
The human being can abandon the ends if unacceptable or take other means
to achieve them. This is the function of the hypothetical imperative on
skill. Human beings can use their skills to develop ways to mitigate the
gases that they are releasing into the atmosphere by switching to other
energy sources or by developing tools that cut carbon emissions. Human
beings are capable of understanding what an ecosystem is, and they have
the foresight to see how they can negatively impact an ecosystem and the
resultant biodiversity. Kant’s moral law would not be subordinated to
technical skills, but would rather subordinate technical skills to human
happiness and morality. Therefore, it would be possible to reason with
human beings to choose to engage in those technical skills that produce
happiness, preserve biodiversity, and promote the well-being of all
people, even poor people. Because technical skills are regulated by the
hypothetical imperative, we can reason with people that if we reject a
particular end – such as a particular type of energy consumption, we
must also reject the necessary means to that end. Likewise, if we accept
another end – preservation of biodiversity, then we must take up the
necessary means to those ends if we are to remain reasonable.
Likewise, the issue of atmospheric conditions posing a threat to
human and animal well-being is not something that is beyond human
technical capacity. Human beings recognized in 1977 that acid rain
threatened human and environmental well-being. Humans used their
technical skills to mitigate the situation, and we resolved the threat.
Likewise, when it was recognized that we were putting CFCs in the
atmosphere and this posed a threat to human and environmental welfare,
human beings used their technical skills to mitigate the issue, and we
had a positive impact on our atmosphere. Finally, in many cities where
the air quality had deteriorated due to pollution, human beings have
again used their skills to mitigate the situation, and they have had a
positive impact on air quality. We have every reason to believe that we
can also mitigate the moral law carbon emissions and have a positive
impact on our atmosphere. Kant has a positive evaluation of human
technical skill as it is part of our human nature. Kant would not see
any reason why we would artificially restrain human skill unless it were
to negatively impact human happiness or go against the moral law. Carbon
emissions that are human generated are the result of human exercise of
skills. Since carbon emissions are causing greenhouse gases to warm the
planet and the warming of the planet is causing extreme weather events
which negatively impact vulnerable human beings, ecosystems, and
biodiversity it is now evident that we must abandon the end of
exclusively using carbon-based energies and diversify our energy
sources, so that we can lessen the negative impact we are having on our
atmosphere, biosphere, and hydrosphere. Or we need to learn how to
sequester carbon so that it is not released into the atmosphere. Kant
would not be defeatist and maintain that this is too great a problem for
human beings. He would be optimistic and would not artificially limit
human skill and ingenuity but subordinate all action to moral
action.
4. Exercise of
the pragmatic skills of happiness
Human beings are capable of happiness according to Kant. Kant’s moral
theory however over rules some interpretations of happiness for human
beings. Because the moral imperative governs human action, it also
limits the kinds of things human beings can take as productive of
happiness. Again, the hypothetical imperative governs prudential skills.
Human beings cannot use other human beings as mere tools to their
happiness. Likewise, human beings may not treat other animals cruelly in
order to be happy. Animals may be eaten when cultivated, but not
oppressed. Animals may serve in experiments, but they should nonetheless
be treated as individuals, and not just as instances. Kant illustrates
this moral consideration with a worm that served in an experiment by
Leibniz. Furthermore, human beings are capable of understanding that
biodiversity is important to human happiness. Many medical cures can
come from unknown organic beings. Other animal species may serve to
enrich the ecosystem and play a role in maintaining the biosphere which
human beings benefit from not only for technical uses and health uses,
but also for pleasure and the experience of beauty. Biodiversity is key
to maintaining climate stability. Climate stability is
key to civilization and human happiness. Human beings belong to the only
species that is capable of seeing this overall picture and the
connection between climate stability and animal and human welfare.
Kant’s moral system demands that we take human happiness into moral
consideration. The preservation of ecosystems and biodiversity can
easily be seen as important to meeting human needs and human happiness.
It would thus be wrong to neglect the needs of other animal species and
their need to be persevered in ecosystems. Knowing that someday a
particular unknown species may play a role in medical science, or play a
role in the beauty of the ecosystem, gives us reason to engage in
activities to preserve that species for the sake of human happiness.
There is nothing that can limit this claim. Human beings are capable of
seeing the interconnectedness of each living organism (microorganisms
even) in each ecosystem and thus there is no inherent limit to the claim
that biodiversity is a good thing and can contribute to human happiness.
Experts are the ones who will know exactly how important a particular
species is to the ecosystem. Whales, for instance, are a key to
maintaining the ecosystem in the oceans.
As we gain technical expert knowledge of our earth and the likely
effects of climate gases in raising the temperatures on the planet, we
also become aware of how weather can become more extreme. Extreme
weather events like hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, rising sea levels,
mudslides, etc can bring about the extinction of species, affect
biodiversity, damage animal and human habitats, and also negatively
impact human happiness. We can anticipate that rising sea levels will
affect coastal cities and many people who may not have contributed to
greenhouse gases. Poor people are also very likely to be affected by
warming temperatures due to greenhouse gases as it affects weather and
crop production. Populations that are particularly tied to crop
production may be especially affected by extreme weather. Because Kant
believes in human dignity, he believes that all human beings matter and
their happiness matters. This does not mean that animals do not matter
but they matter through human beings since, for Kant, human beings only
have indirect duties to other animal species. There is no reason to
limit how much they will matter, however, since we can always
characterize their importance in many ways and to many people. It is the
capacity of the human species to have technical expertise that makes
possible knowing how particular species play a role in maintaining the
biosphere, and contribute to climate stability.
Kant is not an animal egalitarian but nor is he is an
anthropo-supremacist. Other animal species and
biodiversity matter because those things affect human well-being in a
myriad of ways. If anthropo-supremacy were true, each individual human
being could proclaim superiority over every individual animal species.
That is absurd. We cannot simply reduce all other species and
biodiversity to arbitrary human ends, but must consider that human
happiness is always to be subordinated to morality. If some human beings
claim they are allowed to simply deprive all other human beings of the
experience of rhinos, we cannot accord their claims as having the same
status as the claim that rhinos should be preserved for the enjoyment of
the whole human species. The reason we can say that is because pleasure
is not the same as happiness for Kant. The claim of producing pleasure
for one person cannot outweigh the happiness of the whole human species.
Kant’s moral system does not rely on a calculus of pleasure and pain,
but rather on an account of what is required for human happiness and
well-being. We have a duty to beneficence toward all other human beings,
but we do not have a duty to do everything that another person holds as
important to their particular perception of happiness.
5. Exercise of the moral
predisposition
Kant has a moral theory that embraces the idea that there is a moral
law, and that moral law imposes restraint on human action. Kant’s
account of the moral law is found in reason and hence is universally
valid for all human beings no matter what niche or country a person
resides in. This universal validity gives Kant’s theory a powerful
justification since it is claiming that all human beings are subject to
the same moral law. We can reason with people from any other part of the
earth because as a Kantian we believe the moral law has the same power
over every human being’s reason. However, within a Kantian framework we
would not consider other animal species to be subject to the same moral
law so human beings would have to parent other animal species and
organisms and do what we consider best for the species taking as far a
possible human happiness and animal happiness into consideration. Kant’s
theory takes seriously human responsibility for the environment upon
which human beings depend for survival.
We can conclude this section on the natural predispositions by
observing that all human beings have the same natural predispositions,
and we can understand the reasoning of all other human beings as regards
their animality, technical skills, skills for prudence, and also moral
reasoning. No matter how diverse the circumstances and foreign the
culture, we can understand the other human being and culture because of
these four natural predispositions and our share in their fruits.
6. Kant and the Lisbon
Earthquake
Kant may not have articulated an extensive environmental awareness in
Königsberg, Germany, but his theory of human nature which he did
articulate is sufficient to give us directions for an adequate and
comprehensive environmental ethics that addresses climate challenges.
Kant was attentive to the earthquake off the coast of Lisbon in November
1755, which killed tens of thousands and caused flooding and fires. The
earthquake destroyed over two thirds of the human dwellings and
buildings in Lisbon. Kant wrote three articles on earthquakes attempting
to give a scientific explanation that would replace the superstitious
idea that God caused the earthquake. Earthquakes are not
within our power to stop, but Kant thought we could build our houses in
such a way that we could minimize the damages. He did not bemoan our
helplessness, but rather put his mind to work determining how we could
mitigate the damages caused by earthquakes. In his work on Religion,
Kant makes it clear that we cannot rely on providence passively, but we
should actively intervene in our circumstances:
“Yet, human beings are not permitted, on this account to remain idle
in the undertaking [of an ethical community] and let Providence have
free rein, as if each could go after his private moral affairs and
entrust to a higher wisdom the whole concern of the human race (as
regards its moral destiny). Each must, on the contrary, so conduct
himself as if everything depended on him. Only on this condition may he
hope that a higher wisdom will provide the fulfillment of his
well-intentioned effort.”
When Kant asserts in the “Speculative Beginnings of Human History,”
that “man became conscious of an ability to go beyond those limits that
bind all animals,” he is pointing to the capacity human beings have to
intervene in the environment and care for realities like our atmosphere,
geosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere.
He continued that human beings can “…rule over the earth, and not as one
designated as bovine contentment and slavish certitude.”
We are not impelled to passively take whatever our environment or
climate offers us but we can impact it positively so that it is stable.
Everyone, he tells us, has a role to play in this project.
So, although we should do what we can to mitigate the effects of
natural disasters, we should also draw another lesson from such
tragedies that are not within our power. The earth is not meant to bring
us unmitigated happiness. We build houses that are vulnerable to
destruction by natural disasters. Kant draws the conclusion that “Man is
not born to build everlasting dwellings on this stage of vanity. Since
his entire life has a far nobler aim, how well does this harmonize with
all the destruction fit into this which allows us to see the transience
of the world in even those things that seem to us the greatest and most
important and to remind us that the goods of this world cannot provide
any satisfaction for our desire for happiness!”
Another way we can look at this is that our happiness, which is an
essential end, is not meant to be fulfilled by physical material
reality, but by our state of mind which must be prepared to seek
happiness in a way that is not tied to our circumstances.
For Kant, our priority is morality, and we become worthy of happiness
through accomplishing moral purposes. His reflections on the earthquakes
led him to conclude that the earth is not meant to provide human beings
with happiness as sensible contentment.
He gives us an additional reason in the Groundwork why happiness as
based on sensible conditions is elusive for human beings:
“Now, it is impossible that the most insightful and at the same time
most powerful but still finite being to frame for himself a determinate
concept of what he really wills here. If he wills riches, how much
anxiety, envy and intrigue might he not bring upon himself in this way!
If he wills a great deal of cognition and insight, that might become an
eye all the more acute to show him, as all the more dreadful, ills that
are now concealed from him and cannot be avoided, or to burden his
desires, which already give him enough to do, with still more needs. If
he wills a long life, who will guarantee him that it would not be a long
misery? (…) In short, he is not capable of any principle by which to
determine with complete certainty what would make him truly happy,
because omniscience would be required for this.”
Kant is saying we are not able to come up with a determinate
conception of what will make us happy because we cannot control all of
the consequences and circumstances in our lives. Riches, knowledge, and
long life do not guarantee we will not be afflicted with other kinds of
circumstances that will produce unhappiness. Even if we have riches, we
cannot guarantee that there won’t be a natural disaster that will
destroy all we have. Knowledge cannot guarantee safety against a natural
disaster. Even a long life does not guarantee we will have favorable
circumstances in our bodies and in our lives. Natural disasters are not
something we have within our power. Climate, on the other hand, is
something we can influence and have been influencing for the past 9,500
years even if it is not fully within our control.
These Kantian reflections are important for us today as we face
natural disasters of fire, water, air, and earth because of climate
instability. We want happiness and stability, but with our excessive
carbon emissions we are causing climate instability.
We are thus challenged to find some other understanding of happiness
than the material one of sensible contentment. The fact that we have
reason does not mean we are destined to use it just to secure our
happiness. Kant’s reflections on the Lisbon earthquake led him to
conclude that: “The contemplation of such terrible occurrences is
instructive. It gives man a sense of humility by making him see that he
has no right, or at least that he has lost any right, to expect only
pleasant consequences from the laws of nature that God has ordained, and
perhaps he will learn thereby to realize how fitting it is that this
[present] arena of his desires should not contain the goal of all his
aspirations.” Natural disasters make us aware
that our aspirations should extend beyond our happiness and immediate
gratification as though we were no more than cattle. We have a destiny
to use our reason not merely to be content and comfortable in our
sensible being. Kant acknowledges in the Critique of Pure Reason
that:
“The human being is a being with needs, insofar as he belongs to the
sensible world, and to this extent his reason certainly has a commission
from the side of his sensibility which it cannot refuse, to attend to
its interest and to form practical maxims with a view to happiness in
this life and, where possible, in a future life as well. But he is
nevertheless not so completely an animal as to be indifferent to all
that reason says on its own and to use reason merely as a tool for the
satisfaction of his needs as a sensible being.”
Kant does not deny human beings have needs as far as our sensible
being is concerned but reason has a different destiny than to function
merely as a tool of sensibility and comfort.
At the same time, he is also clear that we should have compassion on
those who suffer natural disasters: “The sight of so many wretched
people as the latest catastrophe caused among our fellow citizens ought
to arouse our philanthropy and make us feel some of the misfortune that
afflicted them with such cruelty.” But Kant also takes a
detached view of natural disasters. We are not treated
better than any other species when it comes to natural disasters. Our natural environment and climate
do not give us a special place in creation. Instead, they impel us to
use our reason, rather than allow us to rest in our happiness and
contentment. When we use reason to gratify our sensible needs merely, we
end up multiplying our needs and creating needs we cannot ever satisfy.
This is the origin of greed and the consumerist society that the Vatican
so deeply bemoans. Kant writes in the Groundwork: “(…) We do
find that the more a cultivated reason engages with the purpose of
enjoying life and with happiness, so much the further does a human being
stray from true contentment; and from this there arises in many, and
indeed in those who are most experienced in its use, if only they are
sincere enough to admit it, a certain degree of misology, i.e., hatred
of reason (…).” The resultant hatred
of reason comes from the misguided attempt to use it merely to satisfy
our excessive sensible needs. Instead, I think we can conclude that
reason is to be used in conjunction with our technical skills,
prudential skills, and morality and to benefit human civilization.
Already because of the wildfires in Los Angeles County, people are
not concluding that no one should live in Los Angelos County because of
the Santa Ana winds, but that they need instead to build their houses
differently out of material that will not easily ignite because of fire.
This kind of reflection is a positive use of reason to address the
causality of the disaster. Kant thought it would be helpful to build
houses along the length of the river which indicates the direction of
the earthquake. That probably would not succeed in
defeating an earthquake, but his use of reasoning is clear. We should
use our reason to respond to natural disasters. We may not succeed in
defeating natural disasters, but we should try.
Likewise, we should attempt to address climate change. We created
climate stability in the first place and have produced a fantastic human
civilization. However, now we have overshot the limits of the
atmosphere, and so we need to adjust our actions and use our reason to
find a way to restore climate stability by positively impacting our
atmosphere, hydrosphere, geosphere and biosphere. We cannot expect each
individual alone to discipline their animality (by changing their diet
and car choices) as though that would be a sufficient response, instead
the experts who have developed their technical skills need to think
creatively about ways to mitigate carbon emissions. Entrepreneurs and
inventors need to work out the possibilities of alternative energy.
Farmers need to give us more options, like ostrich meat. Governments
need to encourage the planting of more trees. Governments needs to
legislate protection for whales. It is pretty clear that other factors
such as the earth’s declining obliquity and orbital eccentricity are
going to eventually move us toward another ice age so we should factor
that in our considerations as well. Hugh Ross holds that
“The opportunity for civilization as we know it appears to be extremely
narrow.” We have been able to develop a complex human civilization over
the last 9,500 years because of climate stability. He predicts, however,
that “We may be able to put [the inevitable onset of another glacial
episode] off for a few more centuries, perhaps even for a little more
than a millennium, but we cannot extend our present interglacial
indefinitely.” We need to work together to limit
carbon emissions, and stop fighting one another, and pointing fingers at
18th century philosophers.
7. Conclusion
I would like to conclude with a reflection on what Kant provides for
our consideration. Many Kant scholars are disputing right now about
whether Kant has had a negative impact on our environment because of his
philosophy, and are disputing whether he can give us insight into how we
can positively impact our environment. In these battles, there is a
great emphasis on his moral philosophy and theoretical epistemology but
little reflection on his theory of human nature and aesthetics. If my
research is correct, Kant has a robust theory of human nature that
provides us with an architecture of how reason can be used by human
beings. Climate change challenges demand that we discipline our
animality so that we eat and use goods and products that are atmosphere
friendly. It also challenges us to develop our talents into skills and
employ them to mitigate carbon emissions and replace our energy sources
with environmentally friendly energy sources. Climate change that
produces extreme weather events challenges us to revise our
understanding of happiness and to respond to those affected with
compassion and empathy. Finally, climate change and natural disasters
remind us that our destiny is not to dwell on this earth in comfort, but
to use our reason in moral ways to contribute to the possibility of
human civilization. It is not wrong to seek sensible comfort, but we
should not believe our full meaning resides in sensible comfort. We have
the possibility of preserving human civilization for possibly a
millennium by stabilizing our climate, and we should do all that we can
to do that. Human civilization is worth it. We should question any
philosophy that assumes that we can have human civilization without a
stable climate, a diverse biosphere, a stable hydrosphere and an
adequate geosphere. We need to continue to employ our skills to create a
stable climate as we have done in the past. If I may use a metaphor, it
is like household spending. When we are spending beyond our means we
have to begin to cut costs and come up with a budget. In our energy
consumption we are spending beyond the ability of our atmospheric means.
We need to cut back and shift our energy consumption to means that do
not overload the atmosphere with carbon emissions if we want to keep a
stable climate. And we do want to keep a stable climate.
8. References
Baumeister, David (2022). Kant on the Human Animal: Anthropology, Ethics, Race. Northwestern IL: Northwestern University Press.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2016). “Humanities in the Anthropocene: The Crisis of an Enduring Kantian Fable,” New Literary History, 47, 377-397.
Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2009). “The Climate of History: Four Theses,” Critical Inquiry 35, no. 2, 217-220.
Chignell, A. (2022). “Hopeful Pessimism: The Kantian Mind at the End of All Things,” In: DuJardin, T., Eckel, M.D. (eds) Faith, Hope, and Love. Boston Studies in Philosophy, Religion and Public Life, vol 10. Springer, Cham. l duties owed to other individuals https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95062-0_9
Frierson, Patrick (2014). Kant, Individual Responsibility, and Climate Change, Ethics, Policy & Environment, 17:1, 35-38, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2014.885163
Kant, Immanuel (2012). The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Natural Science, edited by Eric Watkins, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (2007). Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view (1798) in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Anthropology, History and Education, edited by Günter Zöller and Robert B. Louden, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (2007). Lectures on pedagogy (1802) in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Anthropology, History and Education, edited by Günter Zöller and Robert B. Louden, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (2001). The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: The Critique of the Power of Judgment, edited and translated by Paul Guyer and Eric Matthews, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1996), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Religion and Rational Theology, edited and translated by Allen W. Wood and George Di Giovanni, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1996). “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant: Practical Philosophy, ed. by Mary Gregor, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine M (2018). Fellow Creatures: Our Obligations to Other Animals, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Louden, Robert (2011). Kant’s Human Being: Essays on His Theory of Human Nature, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nye, Bill (2016). Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World. St. Martin’s Griffen, reprint edition. Richerson, Peter; Robert Boyd, and Robert L. Bettinger. “Was Agriculture Impossible during the Pleistocene but Mandatory during the Holocene? A Climate Change Hypothesis,” American Antiquity 66, no. 3 (July 2001): 387-411.
Ritchie, Hannah (2024). Not the End of the World: How we Can Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable Planet (New York: Little, Brown Sparky).
Ross, Hugh (2020). Weathering Climate Change: A Fresh Approach, Reasons to Believe Press.
Salgueiro, Inês (2024). “Kantian Animal Ethics, Deep Dignity, and the Moral Game,” Environmental Philosophy 21:1, pp. 5-29.
Svoboda, Toby (2023). “A Kantian Approach to Moral Considerability of Non-human Nature,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 36 essay 22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-023-09918-6
Wilson, Holly L (2023) “Kant, Anthropocentricism, and Animal Welfare,” Con-Textos Kantianos, 18, 77-88.
Wilson, Holly L (2016). “The Green Kant: Kant’s Treatment of Animals” in Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application, 7th edition, pp. 87-95, edited by Louis P. Pojman, Paul Pojman, Katie McShane. United States: Thomson Wadsworth Publ.
Wilson, Holly L (2006). Kant’s Pragmatic Anthropology: The Origin, Meaning, and Critical Significance, State University of New York Press.
Varden, Helga (2022). “Kant and the Environment,” Studi Kantiani (35, pp. 27-48).
Vereb, Zachary (2025). Kant and Environmental Philosophy. Forthcoming from Cambridge University Press.
Vereb, Zachary (2023). “A Kantian Philosophy of Hope for the 21st Century?” Studi Kantiani (XXXVI), 111-126.
Vereb, Zachary (2022), “Sustaining the Individual in the Collective: A Kantian Perspective for a Sustainable World,” Kantian Review 27, 405-420. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1369415422000176
