Human Accountability towards
Ecosystem: An Ethical Constructive Study
Sudip Karmakar,
PhD Research scholar,
B.B.M.K. University,
Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India.
&
State Aided College Teacher (SACT-1),
Department of Philosophy,
Sukumar SenguptaMahavidyalaya, Keshpur,
Paschim Medinipur, West Bengal, India.
&
Soma Samanta,
Assistant Teacher of Philosophy,
B.N.H.K. High Madrasah (H.S),
Cooch Behar, West Bengal, India.
Abstract: The ecosystem is a system where living and non-living components interact through energy flow and nutrient cycles. Humans, as the only self-aware moral agents in this system, have an ethical duty to keep ecological balance. This paper looks at human responsibility toward the ecosystem by examining both anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric ethical views. While anthropocentrism values nature only for human benefit, extreme non-anthropocentric perspectives often overlook important human needs. To resolve this ethical conflict, the study highlights Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic as a useful and broad approach. Leopold’s framework acknowledges the intrinsic value of the living community while respecting the legitimate needs of human life. The paper argues that moral responsibility should include preserving the integrity, stability, and sustainability of the ecosystem as a whole. Given the issues of environmental damage, climate change, and fairness for future generations, the study stresses the importance of ecological awareness for achieving a balanced and sustainable future.
Keywords: Ecosystem, Environmental Ethics, Anthropocentrism, Aldo Leopold,
Human Responsibility, Sustainability
Introduction -“An ecosystem is a
geographic area where plants, animals and other organisms, as well as weather
and landscape, work together to form a bubble of life.”1
(“Ecosystem”) An ecosystem can be huge, such as a large forest or
lake, or it can be small, such as a puddle of water or a rotting log.“An
ecosystem can be categorized into its abiotic constituents, including minerals,
climate, soil, water, sunlight, and all other nonliving elements, and its
biotic constituents, consisting of all its living members. Linking these
constituents together are two major forces: the flow of energy through the
ecosystem, and the cycling of nutrients within the ecosystem”2(“Ecosystem
| Definition”).The term ‘Ecosystem’ was coined by A.G. Tansley in
1935. Therefore, an ecosystem cannot simply be described as a "bubble of
life"; it must be defined as a structural and functional unit of nature,
where the biotic components (living organisms) and their abiotic environment
(non-living components) are constantly engaged in mutual interaction. In 1935,
Arthur George Tansley used the term 'ecosystem' to demonstrate that living
organisms and their physical environment together form a unified, dynamic
system, where energy flow and nutrient cycles bind the entire system together.
From this perspective, 'ecology' is no longer the study of isolated plants and
animals, but rather the science of the structure and function of the entire
ecosystem—that is, the interdependent relationship between living and
non-living components; and we, as human beings, are not outside this ecosystem,
but merely a part of this system.3(“Ecosystem Structure and Functions”)And the relation between the
natural environment and the world of living things and studies and research
related to those is called Ecology. Ernst Haeckel coined the word ‘ecology’ in
1866. The term has derived from two Greek words: ‘aeiko’ and ‘logos’; ‘oikos’
meaning ‘house’ and ‘logos’ meaning ‘science’. So, Ecology is the ‘study of the
household of nature’. And when ecology is concerned with understanding the
interconnectedness of nature's "household system" or family
structure, fundamental questions of environmental ethics—regarding
responsibility, rights, and moral accountability—arise from this reality.
Every living thing in the ecosystem is dependent on one
another in a food-consumer relationship. We can construct an imaginary pyramid
of the ecosystem based on this relationship, which is called the ecological
pyramid. So ecological pyramid is “a graphical representation designed to
show the biomass or productivity of each trophic level in a particular
ecosystem.”4 (Liwayway Memije-Cruz) The use of Ecological
Pyramids was first described by Charles Elton in 1927. These types of
quantitative diagrams are generally divided into three categories—the pyramid
of numbers, the pyramid of biomass, and the pyramid of energy flow—each of
which represents the different trophic levels or steps of the food chain.
(Source-“Lesson 4.” Biology, 2025, https://schsbio.weebly.com/lesson-4.html Accessed 5 Dec. 2025.)
From the perspective of energy flow, it is observed that
on average, only about 10% of the energy is transferred from one trophic level
to the next; the remaining energy is used by the organism for its own survival,
growth, and reproduction, and is lost to the environment as heat. This is why
the upper levels of the pyramid have comparatively fewer organisms and less
biomass, and they are entirely dependent on the producers and lower-level
consumers of the broader levels below.5(PMF IAS)If there
occurs a change in any of the stages of the pyramid or there is a crisis in the
elements of that stage, the whole pyramid structure will breakdown. This kind
of relation of dependency has been going on since the Earth's beginning. Even
though humans did not exist in the beginning, they have secured the apex spot
of the pyramid today.
Currently, humans are the
ideal and only self-conscious entity in the ecosystem among all others. So, the
issue of ethics comes up with every human activity. Now the question arises as
to what extent humans have the right to enjoy the other elements of the
ecosystem? In other words, we can ask if the world of ethics is only about
humans. Is the sphere of ethical discourse limited only to humans? Based on the
questions raised, we get two kinds of views: first, anthropocentric and second,
non-anthropocentric. According to the anthropocentric view, humans are the most
important and the central characters of this ethical world. According to Hebrew
ideology and Greek philosophical views, the human being is the receptacle of
the ethical world. That is why it is said in the cosmology of the Old Testament
– God sent his son as a human being and conferred on him the supremacy of the
world – ‘dominance over aquatic fish, over the ethereal bird, over all the terrestrial
creatures. God intended that aquatic fish, ethereal birds and all the
terrestrial creatures would be afraid and obey man as their master. Aristotle says that “everything has
evolved according to human needs.”6(Bhattacharya 194)Aristotle
further says, “Plants exist for the sake of animals, and brute beasts for
the sake of man, domestic animals for his use and food, wild ones (or at any
rate most of them) for food and other accessories of life, such as clothing and
various tools. Since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is
undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.”7(Singer
267)In environmental ethics, the 'anthropocentric' perspective
primarily refers to a human-centered value system, where moral status and
intrinsic value are recognized only in humans, while the rest of nature—plants,
animals, rivers, or mountains—is generally considered merely as instrumental
resources for human well-being. Britannica, therefore, defines anthropocentrism
as a doctrine in which humanity is considered superior to nature, and non-human
entities are viewed as 'resources' subject to legitimate exploitation by
humans.8(mpetruzzello)
Contemporary discussions also
distinguish between “strong” and “weak” or “enlightened anthropocentrism.” In
its strong sense, anthropocentrism views nature merely as a resource to be used
for fulfilling immediate human needs; however, “enlightened anthropocentrism,”
by considering the long-term consequences of environmental destruction—health
risks, resource scarcity, climate change, etc.—argues that protecting nature
becomes a moral imperative even from an anthropocentric ethical perspective.9(“Anthropocentric
Worldview”) That is, although the argument for protecting nature is
ultimately expressed in terms of the well-being of humanity and future
generations, in practice, it supports environmentally friendly policies and
behaviors.
On the other hand, according
to the non-anthropocentric view, other elements of the ecosystem are recognized
along with humans. It is said here that, if all forms of colonialism and
imperialism are condemnable, then humans will only spread their empire, denying
everything non-human for their self-gain, which is equally condemnable. The
core tenet of non-anthropocentric value theory is that moral status and
intrinsic value are not limited to humans alone; some non-human entities are
also worthy of consideration for their own sake. Within this framework, several
sub-perspectives can be found:
(a) Biocentric views (such as
Paul Taylor's Respect for Nature) where all living beings are considered to
have equal intrinsic worth;
(b) Eco-centric/holistic
doctrines, which consider not only individual organisms but also entire
ecosystems, species populations, and landscapes as part of the moral community;
(c) And rights-based animal
ethics, which recognizes the individual rights of at least sentient animals.
So, we should go beyond
anthropocentric doctrine and adopt non-anthropocentrism. It should be possible
only when we would consider nature to be autonomously precious and would admit
its ethical standpoint. So, it is impertinent to air the feelings of
selfishness if we try to bridge our ethical relationship with nature. We should
not destroy nature as all elements that belonged to it have their merit of
existence and individual purpose. We would accomplish our duty towards nature
in accordance with its intrinsic value. However, if a non-anthropocentric
stance reaches the point where even the slightest harm to every plant and
animal is considered morally impermissible, then the fundamental processes of
human life—eating, farming, disease control, etc.—all become ethically
problematic. This difficulty is what many consider to be the practical
unfeasibility of an extreme biocentric or eco-centric viewpoint that assigns
equal intrinsic value to everything.
Neither of the above-mentioned theories can be accepted
unanimously. Contemporary ethics recognize that our duties and non-duties
cannot be determined based only on a human perspective. This anthropocentric
view introduces an ego-logical perspective, not an eco-logic alone. Here humans
are the rulers of the pyramid, because of which that ecosystem becomes
unsustainable, dualistic, imbalanced and mechanistic also. Again, the
non-anthropocentric view cannot be accepted as well because, if every element
in nature is seen to have value for itself, killing of animals or destroying
vegetation would be strictly prohibited and thereby there would occur an
imbalance in nature. Thus, while on the one hand, an exclusively
anthropocentric approach grants humans the 'right' to stand at the top of the
ecosystem pyramid and exploit and destroy all other levels at will, on the
other hand, many non-anthropocentric positions become practically impossible to
implement in real life. Recent discussions on environmental ethics suggest the
need for a position somewhere between these two extremes, where the intrinsic
value of nature is acknowledged, while the practical needs and responsibilities
of humanity are also considered rationally; Aldo Leopold's land ethic is
considered a powerful example of this middle ground.
So, to get out of this problem, we need a
different solution, a different perspective, according to which these feet
recognize the innate value within natural elements, the anthropocentric values
within those elements will be acknowledged. Aldo Leopold has spoken about
exactly this.
American materialist Aldo
Leopold has spoken about including the elements of nature including the world
of plants and animals, in another world the ecosystem into the sphere of
ethics. We can take Leopold’s theory as neither anthropocentric nor
non-anthropocentric. In Environmental ethics, anthropocentric theory analyses
the natural elements from the point of view of their utility to humans. But
Leopold has approached the natural elements from a Holistic point of view. Many
calls Leopold's theory non-anthropocentric but there are some significant
differences with non-anthropocentric doctrines. Aldo Leopold’s land ethics
described ecosystems as living organisms; they did not completely ban the
killing of animals or the cutting of plants. Despite acknowledging the
intrinsic value of the various entities of nature, he did not deny the
extrinsic value of nature for human welfare. In this context, Zardins has said
that “If we take Leopold’s ecosystem as a whole, we can sometimes speak
about the supplementary values of the biotic entities when discussing them
logically.”10(Khanam 21) Therefore, Leopold's land ethic
can be called "eco-centric" on the one hand, because it primarily
takes the health of the entire biotic community as its moral standard and
places humanity's position within that community. On the other hand, he does
not completely disregard human welfare, economic needs, and practical land
management; rather, he attempts to strike a balance between what is morally and
aesthetically right and what is economically advantageous. For this reason,
many have interpreted Leopold's land ethic not as strictly non-anthropocentric,
but rather as a kind of "ecological" middle ground that transcends
the limitations of both anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric perspectives.
The responsibility and liability that we have for the whole, we have the same
for the parts. We have to invest our ethical responsibilities not only in the
human world but also in the natural world. So, we have to give nature its own
due value for itself and only use its values for human beings, the little that
we need. We can also say that Aldo Leopold’s land ethics theory introduces an
eco-logical approach; where the ecosystem will be stable, holistic,
sustainable, and balanced.
(Source - Chase, C. (2014, November 22). Systems Thinking:
Seeing How Everything is Connected. Creative by Nature; Creative by Nature.
https://creativesystemsthinking.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/systems-thinking-seeing-how-everything-is-connected/
)
But, today, we are exploiting nature based on
anthropocentric views. Therefore, the ecosystem is under threat today and with
that making, the future generation comes at the verge of imminent
destruction. In this context, Leopold
has said that "In nature, man-made changes neglect the resistant power
of living things. Man is constantly changing the environment. Nature can bear
with the destructions that happen due to changes in nature, itself. But a
complete change is catastrophic for nature".11 (Khanam 17)
Ecosystem and biodiversity are being harmed because of our inhuman affairs
towards nature, which is unethical and condemnable. The responsibility of
humans is to keep the resources available for future generations to come and to
hand over a healthy planet to them. But, on the contrary, we are recklessly
destroying the planet and its resources, for which earthquakes, droughts,
floods, landslides, and other calamities like global warming are becoming
frequent and more alarming. In contemporary ethics, this question is considered
a distinct area of study known as 'intergenerational ethics'. Its central
tenet is that the present generation has moral responsibilities not only to
themselves but also to future generations—especially concerning environmental
protection, resource utilization, and climate change—because the long-term
consequences of today's decisions will profoundly affect their lives, health,
and opportunities. The environment is getting polluted, the lung of the planet
earth - The Amazon is today burning, our oceans are getting littered with
plastic, animals are dying, and the seawater level is rising due to the melting
of the polar ices and so on. Not only that, now are people also seen in various
disorders of diseases. Since children's birth, the skin problems, eye problems,
even though the problem of respiratory problems is seen, the reason for which
the balance of the ecosystem is destroyed in some way.
Therefore, man must show humanity in
him and stop acting cruelly against nature, because, human beings are not
something that stays outside of the ecosystem. If the ecosystem is destroyed,
human beings would also be destroyed. Despite the governments having taken
steps at different times regarding the duties of humans and environmental
reforms, they have not been applied to work properly. It is said in the 48th
article of the Indian Constitution through the 42nd amendment in
1976 that “The State shall endeavor to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife
of the country”12(Nanda 518). Again, in the clause G of Article
51-A, it is said about the duty of a citizen regarding the environment it is
said that “It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to
protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers
and wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”.13(Nanda
518)14th -25thJune in 1993 there was organized
a World Conference on Human Rights in which 171 countries took part. It was
said there that
“The
right to development must be fulfilled to equitably meet developmental and
environmental needs of present and future generations.”14(Nanda
519)
Just as the
"right to a healthy environment" has gradually emerged as a
fundamental human right in international human rights discussions, in the
Indian context too, environmental justice is being viewed at two levels:
(a)
substantive rights: such as the right to clean air, clean
water, safe forests, and biodiversity;
(b)
procedural rights: such as the right to participate in
environmental decision-making, the right to information, and the opportunity to
file public interest litigation on environmental issues in court. These
procedural rights establish the citizen not merely as a victim, but as an
active moral and legal participant.
But, still,
there is not enough consciousness about the environment. We are often engrossed
with self-profit. We are enjoying the natural resources neglecting sustaining
development.
In 1987, the World Conference
on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987) published their report entitled Our
Common Future' which is known as the Brundtland Commission Report' after its
Chair, the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland. The report
popularized the phrase 'sustainable development' and defined it as, “development
that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”.15(“Brundtland Commission”)
This definition encompasses the three fundamental pillars of
sustainable development: environmental protection, economic development, and
social justice. By mentioning "present needs" alongside "not
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,"
the Brundtland Report demonstrated that development cannot simply be understood
as increasing current consumption; the limits of natural resources,
environmental pollution, and the question of intergenerational justice must also
be considered simultaneously. But we are leading
our future generations to the brink of a disaster. We will not be able to
protect our environment if we do not develop the Ecological Consciousness (also
known as Ecological Moral Sense) in ourselves. The main duty of a man is to be
conscious of his environment; to kindle his wisdom and save the environment
from disaster. It does not matter how many natures protection acts we put into
force in our society, unless we can love nature from within, we will not get a
healthy environment.
Even though in recent times man is
becoming more aware of nature and environment, as in, “after the release of
Rachel Carson’s book ‘Silent Spring’
in 1962 a fresh wave of human consciousness spread across the world, through
several nature-loving organizations and other means, there remains a hidden
profitability in the psyche of man”.16 (Khanam 18) Today
the existence of human beings is under threat due to the decaying environment.
Humans are selfish; hence, there remains a lack of consciousness about nature
despite them having put into force so many laws protecting nature; and only
having gained consciousness when their existence is at stake. In reality,
humans want the goodness of nature because they want the goodness for them and
even from that point of view protecting the ecosystem prove to be an utmost
duty for them. In short, it does not matter whether you want the goodness for
nature or yourself; you have to take care of the balance of the ecosystem. In
other ways, we can say that we all have a duty towards protecting nature both
directly and indirectly.
The consciousness of man towards
nature is often adulterated. We talk about the protection of nature but we do
not practice those ourselves. We talk of sustainable development but our
development is unsustainable. We raise our voice against the usage of plastic
bags, yet, we ask for plastic carry bags from the shopkeeper. It means, this
phony environment consciousness not only does not make the environment normalcy
but also pushes us forward towards a disastrous calamity; the result of which
has to be borne by us humans and the beginning of it is already underway.
However, in
the Indian context, it is observed that not only the constitution and court
directives, but also the distinct cultural and religious practices of various
groups have fostered a kind of local environmental ethics. For example, the
Bishnoi community of Rajasthan and Haryana has, for centuries, upheld the
prohibition of tree felling and the killing of wild animals, considering
"nature conservation" as a religious tenet; similarly, in the Chipko
movement of Uttarakhand in the 1970s, hill villagers, especially many women,
embraced trees (chipko) to stage a non-violent protest against commercial
deforestation. These movements and practices demonstrate that "grass-roots
ecological ethics" have often provided an alternative moral language for
coexisting with nature, even before laws were enacted.
But, indeed, human beings cannot be
made completely responsible towards nature. Again, most of the policies that
were taken with the view to protect nature have proven to be failures. So, it
can be said that a change in perspective is required for the government and the
public alike. Such policies have to be undertaken so that the public
spontaneously takes part in it. Hence, that would not only be limited to being
a duty of an individual. The economical side would also be maintained. Not only
the matter should be dependent on the economical side, but ethics and
aesthetics also have to be taken into consideration as well. We have to bring
the environment back to normalcy from the jaws of disaster and maintain the
balance of our ecosystem. We have to give the environment its due respect.
References
1.
“Ecosystem.” Nationalgeographic.org,
2022, https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ecosystem/Accessed 23 Dec. 2025.
2.
“Ecosystem |
Definition, Components, Examples, Structure, & Facts | Britannica.” Encyclopædia
Britannica, 2021, www.britannica.com/science/ecosystem . Accessed 11 Oct. 2021.
3.
“Ecosystem Structure
and Functions – Ecosystem Structures & Functions.” Inflibnet.ac.in,
2015, https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/esp01/chapter/23-ecosystem-structure-and-functions/. Accessed 19 Dec.
2025.
4.
Liwayway Memije-Cruz.
“Ecological Pyramids, Food Chain and Food Web.” Slideshare.net,
2016, www.slideshare.net/memijecruz/ecological-pyramids-food-chain-and-food-web . Accessed 11 Oct. 2021.
5.
PMF IAS. “Energy Flow
through an Ecosystem: Ecological Pyramids - PMF IAS.” PMF IAS, 24
Apr. 2019, https://www.pmfias.com/ecological-pyramids-pyramid-numbers-biomass-energy/. Accessed 19 Dec. 2025.
6.
Bhattacharya,
D: Samarendra. Vyavaharik
Nitividya, Book
Sindicatepvt. Ltd, 2009, p. 194.
7.
Singer, Peter. Practical
Ethics. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1993, p. 267.
8.
mpetruzzello.
“Anthropocentrism | Saving Earth | Encyclopedia Britannica.” Saving
Earth | Encyclopedia Britannica, Britannica, 2 May 2020, https://explore.britannica.com/explore/savingearth/anthropocentrism. Accessed 19 Dec. 2025.
9.
Sustainability Directory. “Anthropocentric Worldview → Term.” Pollution
→ Sustainability Directory, 22 Nov. 2025, https://pollution.sustainability-directory.com/term/anthropocentric-worldview/. Accessed 19 Dec.
2025.
10.
Khanam, Rasida
Aktar. ParibeshNitibidya (Environmental Ethics). Jatiya Sahitya
Prakash, Jan. 2016, p. 21.
11.
Khanam, ParibeshNitibidya, p.17.
12.
Nanda,
Bimal S. "Paribesh o Manabadhikar-
BharatiyaPrekkhiteEktiAlochona." Manab Adhikar : Nana Dik, edited by Yasin Khan, Progressive
Publishers, 2019, p. 518
13.
Nanda, “Paribesh o Manabadhikar,”, p.
518.
14.
Nanda, “Paribesh o Manabadhikar,”, p. 519.
15.
Contributors to
Wikimedia projects. “Brundtland Commission.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia
Foundation, 6 Apr. 2004, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brundtland_Commission. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021.
16.
Khanam, Rasida
Aktar. ParibeshNitibidya (Environmental Ethics). Jatiya Sahitya
Prakash, Jan. 2016, p. 18.