Aldo Leopold The Land Ethic Analysis

These dilemmas brought up in Part II make the Round River essays, inserted as the modern edition’s Part III, titled "A Taste for Country," particularly apt, because this is the section of the book that deals primarily with philosophies. It is here that Leopold states that "poor land may be rich country, and vice versa". It is here that Leopold introduces the concept, radical then but widely accepted now, that the planet itself is a living organism and, through the natural cycles of earth, wind, fire and water, continually replenishes its own means of remaining alive. The human role in this "Round River" ecosystem is prominent, of course, and for thousands of years indigenous people depended directly on the bounty of this natural system to supply their needs of food and fiber. Although modern civilization has been forced by its increasing population to create artificial cycles, replacing elk and deer and grouse with beef and hogs and poultry, and replacing the oaks and bluestem grasses which fed the wild meat with corn and alfalfa.

Aldo Leopold is another American environmentalist who was dominant in the development of modern environmental ethics. Aldo was more for holistic ethics regarding land. According to him, “An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct.” He describes in his article that politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which free-for-all competition has been replaced by co-operative mechanism with an ethical content.” He thought that ethics direct individuals to cooperate with each other for the mutual benefit of all. Also he believes that community should be

The relationship between people and their environment in A Land Remembered is one where the profit from land exploitation is naturally corrupting and exponentially increases the exploiters lust for larger profit, leading to the exploiter planning larger scale endeavors in the future. The author, Patrick D. Smith (1984), suggests the idea that communities naturally grow in a hedonic cycle to crave more resources to fuel loftier endeavors that require even more resources from the environment, an idea that is also discussed by Aldo Leopold in the Land Ethic as wholly negative, and that is also part of my world view that is rather more optimistic.

If everyone thought this way our wildlife, animals, nature, and environment would be in better the way you would want them to be treated. This saying is simply stating to people love to have nice things and when we get them we like to keep it that way. So in relation to Leopold we have a nice beautiful environment in which we should keep it that way. Think of our environment as a condition than what it is now. Aldo Leopold was right when he said “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and the beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”(Sand CountyAlmanac, pg. 224-225). It is important for people to reach and follow the values of Leopold explaining that beauty is not just scenery, stability does not mean unchanging for change is essential to nature and the natural world and integrity is wholeness, having all the parts. These three simple values will change our perspective of the

According to National Geographic, 40% of the Earth today is farmland—soil being manipulated to feed the 7.6 billion human beings on this world. We have taken over this world like ants swarming to a piece of rotting fruit, without much thought to the organisms that have been on Earth long before us. Our lives may be easier in that we do not have to forge for our food or water anymore, but with the stress of today’s world, was the tradeoff worth the natural land? Willa Cather’s novel, O Pioneers! brings attention to the way we choose to use the land, whether it is in our best interests, the land’s, or both. The characters in O Pioneers! demonstrate how in order to maintain a successful relationship with the land we live on, it is necessary to be able to both adapt to the land and mold it to fit our physical, emotional, and spiritual needs.

Roderick Frazier Nash’s book, Wilderness and the American Mind, compiled contemporary debates about wilderness by outlining the changing positions concerning wilderness throughout history. In chapter 11, “Aldo Leopold: Prophet,” Nash discuses Aldo Leopold’s house metaphor. Here, Leopold refers to six vacant lots and what it would mean to build houses on all six lots. He describes how the first few houses might make sense; however once you build upon all six lots you no longer remember the meaning of the homes. He argues that they somehow the sixth house would become “stupidity.” Conversely, I disagree with this theory. I feel each house, so to speak, is built differently and suits different needs and wants. Just as in the wilderness,

Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

Within Aldo Leopold’s Thinking Like a Mountain and Annie Dillard’s Living Like a Weasel there is a communal theme, which incorporates the conflict between people and nature. Throughout Dillard’s piece, she uses comparisons between the life of humans and the life of a wild weasel while applying the theme of freedom of choice. After an unexpected encounter with a weasel, Dillard concludes that humans can learn from the wild freedom of weasel. She states, “...I might learn something of mindlessness, something of the purity of living in the physical senses and the dignity of living without bias or motive” (Dillard 8). In Aldo Leopold’s writing, his overall motive is to communicate to the reader that we humans must not destroy the wilderness, as

In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.

Mark Sagoff, ‘Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce’, in Environmental Philosophy, edited by Michael E. Zimmerman, et al. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1993, pp. 84-94

What exactly is land ethics? According to Leopold, “Land ethics expands the boundaries of ethics by including soils, waters, plants, and animals,” (Leopold, page 239). However, a land ethic cannot prevent the alteration, management, and the use of the resources stated above. Basically, Leopold states that land ethics change the role that we humans play from that of a land-conqueror to that of a citizen and member. In class, we learned that land ethics imply respect for the surrounding community. We as humans are important, and thus, have more responsibility to protect the environment.

“The Land Ethic” written by Aldo Leopold was critiqued by J. Baird Callicott. “The Land Ethic” in short explained the idea that humans are not superior to animals or species on earth, but humans should live on earth as simple members. (Leopold, 2013) Callicott found three things that lead to the confusion, contempt, and contempt of Leopold’s writings.

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical

Animals of all kinds have inhabited this earth far beyond humans have. Is it wrong to take over the land that was once home to God’s other beautiful creatures? Forster struggles with the concept of expanding his “wood” in order to give the animals living there more space. Forster claims, “Something seemed grossly amiss here, something that would not have occurred had the wood been larger” (247). However, if he was to develop his wood he would, in turn, take over other animals' homes as well. The feeling of guilt overwhelms Forster when the realization hits that his own home disturbs nature and all its creatures. He does not view himself as above or more important than these animals and hence wonders what gives humans the right to invade and conquer the land beyond. We have become a race that craves land because with land comes wealth, authority, and power. When Forster voices, “I could not suppose that my wood was the destined nucleus of the universal domination” (247), he acknowledges the typical notion society would express when validating their actions for expanding its wood. When