Environmental ethics are a current hot topic in the United States right now. In fact, a politician’s stand on certain environmental issues could win or cost him an election. Morally speaking, Americans are looking to feel good about how their choices impact the environment, to include who they vote for as president. The end result is that if there is ever to be a true positive impact on the environment, it will come from individuals who build their belief systems on a foundation of environmentally ethical behavior. Unfortunately, if we go back to the beginning and start with Socrates’ ideas of how to measure good against evil, the future looks bleak.
Historically speaking, the overall impact of humans on the planet prior to the industrial revolution was minimal, so there was no real need to take an interest in environmental issues. Quite possibly, the worst impact man made until the industrial revolution was made by the Romans in that as they conquered, they also destroyed. The remnants of their rule are still felt today in parts of Africa and the Middle East, as sections of these regions were deforested for their potential to provide grain, leaving them vast and empty today.
On the other side of the Mediterranean (at the same time the Romans were ruling with an iron fist), Socrates had a great following in his teachings. To the Romans, “the real issue was not whether Socrates was right – about, say, the nature of human wisdom, virtue or the soul – but whether he represented a good or a bad image of how to live and, above all, how to die” (Wilson, E. R.). Perhaps this could be considered the earliest debate on environmental ethics, based more on a person’s moral values as learned from his cultural background rather than man’s environmental impact. Through the hawkish and oppressive Roman eye, Socrates’ belief that everyone wants to be happy – and that the best way to achieve happiness was through virtue, which was determined by knowledge – could...