Abstract No one disputes the fact that the current environmental crisis requires a response. The subject of this paper is a relatively novel response that is gaining increasing traction: the rights of nature (RoN) approach. Proponents of RoN claim that if we recognize that natural objects and ecosystems are not things with which we may do as we like, but in fact are subjects of rights that place limits on the scope of permissible actions, then we might have a shot at addressing the environmental crisis in a satisfactory manner. This paper sets out to assess this claim, concluding that RoN is (1) morally problematic (it either leads to endless rights conflicts (biocentrism), or it problematically subordinates individual organisms to the biological whole (ecocentrism), (2) conceptually flawed (because rivers, mountains, and ecosystems are not the sorts of things that can bear rights), and (3) inefficacious in practice (appeals to RoN have typically failed in court and the instilment of environmental virtue in us will require more than just good laws). Two alternative approaches are discussed that combined could secure fundamental rights for humans regarding the environment, cultivate the appropriate character traits in them, and protect nature in the process.
Eric R. Boot (Thu,) studied this question.