In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

42 The question we must now confront is how field sports might be directed toward a new good, one that will require significant sacrifices. What is the good of the biotic community and how might field sports be directed to bring about this good? In terms of virtues, which list is most appropriate for the good of the biotic community and how might it be enabled by field sports? In order to answer these questions, we will first explore the central principle of the land ethic. Secondly, we will define the biotic community. And finally, this community will provide the context needed to explain the new virtues to be engendered by field sports. ThePrincipleoftheLandEthic Much of Leopold’s contribution to the evolution of the sportsman thesis is due to his articulation of a new good that requires a new list of virtues associated with hunting. This new good is expressed in his famous principle of the land ethic: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”1 I will explain two parts of this principle in this section. First, by addressing the question of what is meant by a “thing” that is right? This will help us understand the scope of the principle. Second, the list of properties: integrity, stability, and beauty will be examined. These properties will be connected with the environmental virtues developed by field sports. There are many other controversies surrounding the interpretation of the principle that I will not explore because they lead us into complex issues in ethical theory, such as the inherent value of nature.2 Let’s be clear about what “things” are right or wrong. It is my belief that what Leopold means by “things” are those arts or practices that either acquire goods from or produce goods by way of biotic communities. So hunting, fishing, farming, logging, mining, etc. are all included. So are policies advocated by both governmental and nongovernmental agencies, such as the now abandoned plan to extirpate wolves or the continuing policy of stocking streams with non-native fish. Individual actions are rarely included; it’s the big picture that ChapterFive:TheBioticGood The Biotic Good 43 is evaluated by this principle. In an earlier version of this principle, Leopold actually uses the phrase “practices of conservation” in place of “things.”3 So while the principle has quite wide application, it is certainly not universal. Many activities simply don’t fall under its purview, but surely field sports do. Secondly, we need to come to understand integrity, stability, and beauty as properties that need to be preserved. On the one hand, it is reasonable to collect them all together under the label of “diversity.” Each of the three properties is linked by Leopold to diversity. For instance, he says: “Diversity . . . means a food chain aimed to harmonize the wild and the tame in the joint interest of stability, productivity, and beauty.”4 The good of the biotic community is determined by its diversity. Hunters, Leopold says, cannot “love game and hate predators.” Predators are part of the necessary diversity of the biotic community. Diversity remains the good of the biotic community even though we as yet do not understand very well how such diversity works. Indeed, we might conclude that it is our very ignorance of the inner workings of the biotic community that demands we respect its diversity. On the other hand, if Leopold simply meant “diversity” as the property to be preserved, why didn’t he just say so instead of complicating matters with three additional concepts? I therefore think there is something important in his choice of “integrity, stability, and beauty.” Integrity is a term that has both ethical and material meanings. A bridge might fail to have integrity and so might a politician. What is meant is that the bridge is unable to withstand the stresses it will likely be subject to and the politician’s character will be unlikely to withstand the temptations and compromises he or she will face. Integrity is in both cases a matter of strength in the face of adversity. Biotic communities undergo continuous stress, both from human and non-human sources. The eruption of a volcano, a forest fire, and a flood, are all tests of the integrity of a biotic community. So too do activities such as farming, logging, building suburbs, or contributing to acid rain. Surely hunting and angling also...

Share