In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics (review)

Ethics and the Environment, 4(2): 235-239 ISSN 1085-6633 © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. BOOK REVIEW Gary E. Vamer In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Pp. 154. $35.00 ISBN 0-19510865 (Hardback). Reviewed by: Jon Jensen, The University of Colorado, Boulder. To say that Gary Varner's new book is an ambitious project would be an understatement . In Nature's Interests? takes on not only the animal rights (individualism)environmental ethics (holism) dispute, but also the debate over anthropocentrism as a grounding for environmentalism. As if this isn't enough, Varner attempts to resolve these disputes while defending the view that even plants have interests, a position that is sometimes ridiculed as an example of "wacko" environmentalism. How does Varner tackle this enormous task? In the same manner as his previous work: with clear, concise writing, careful development and analysis of arguments, and enough interesting examples to coax the reader along to the conclusion. In the tradition of some of the best work in environmental ethics, this book provides both theoretical and practical arguments. Theoretically, Varner is following in the footsteps of Kenneth Goodpaster and Paul Taylor in developing an account of biocentric individualism , the view that all living things are morally considerable. Unlike Taylor, however , whose deontological approach focuses on duties and rules, Varner defends the claim that all living things have interests and that "satisfaction of interests is of primary and overriding moral value" (p. 3). Although Varner's utilitarian leanings come through, the book is primarily an argument about the existence and prioritizing of interests and stops short of claiming specific duties or responsibilities as a result of these interests. Direct all correspondence to: J. Jenson, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0232; Fax: 303-492-8386. 235 236 ETHICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Vol. 4, No. 2,1999 On the practical side, In Nature's Interests? attempts to resolve some bitter conflicts by exposing what Varner calls "two dogmas of environmental ethics" (p. 142). He argues both that "the anthropocentrism-nonanthropocentrism dichotomy makes little difference in environmental matters" (p. 9) and that animal rights are compatible with larger, more holistic environmentalist goals. In this regard, the book is reminiscent of Bryan Norton's Towards Unity Among Environmentalists in that it downplays theoretical differences in an attempt to show convergence at the level of policy. Varner begins with a critique of J. Baird Callicott and Callicott's interpretation of Aldo Leopold as an ethical holist. Holists like Callicott must bear a "conceptual burden of proof," according to Varner, in showing how ecosystems either have interests or have intrinsic value in some other way. He argues that all available versions of holism, including Callicott's, have failed to meet this burden of proof. Ultimately, Varner wants to embrace holism, but only at the policy level. He argues for a practical holism that takes a holistic perspective on management questions but ultimately relies upon a reductive account of the good of the ecosystem so that it simply aggregates the constituent individual goods. Ethical holism, on the other hand, must rely upon some understanding of ecosystem health, or a related concept, that identifies the good of the ecosystem itself, not its individual members. Such a concept may work well as a metaphor but ultimately fails as a criterion for the intrinsic value of the ecosystem. Varner uses this critique of Callicott's holism as a launching point to reexamine the idea of interests. Desires are generally seen as the paradigm case of interests, so Varner moves on to the question of which creatures have desires. His discussion here contains as much biology and psychology as it does philosophy and thus is challenging for those with more limited training in the sciences. One of the strengths of In Nature's Interests? is Varner's comfort in moving between disciplines when necessary and drawing upon the resources of ecology and organismic biology to bolster his arguments. He explores the capacity for desires through an examination of behavioral and physiological comparisons between humans and other broad categories of vertebrates...