A Summary of Environmental Pragmatism
Plural values, public reasons, practical outcomes.
Environmental pragmatism is a branch of environmental philosophy—rooted in classical American pragmatism—that prioritizes democratic problem-solving over winning abstract debates. Consolidated in the 1996 volume edited by Andrew Light and Eric Katz, it embraces moral pluralism, policy “experimentalism,” and Bryan Norton’s convergence idea to keep action moving while disagreements about ultimate values continue. [See footnotes.]
What is environmental pragmatism?
Environmental pragmatism reframes environmental ethics as a practice of inquiry and improvement. Instead of stalling on questions like whether nature’s value is intrinsic or instrumental, it asks: what policies can diverse citizens publicly justify and iteratively improve? [1][2][3]
Where the idea coalesced (1996)
The anthology Environmental Pragmatism (1996) gathered philosophers arguing that decades of foundational disputes were hindering coalition-building and policy progress. The editors foregrounded moral pluralism: multiple reasons can legitimately support the same protective policy. [1]
Intellectual roots: Peirce, James, and Dewey
Drawing from classical pragmatism, environmental pragmatists treat policies as hypotheses to be tested in experience (Deweyan “experimentalism”), emphasize public reasons and democratic deliberation, and measure success by practical consequences—not metaphysical finality. [2]
The problem it set out to solve
By the 1990s, environmental ethics often polarized around anthropocentrism vs. non-anthropocentrism and intrinsic vs. instrumental value. Pragmatists argued that these debates, while philosophically rich, should not be preconditions for acting on widely shareable aims like health, resilience, and intergenerational stewardship. [3]
Core commitments (high-level)
Anti-foundationalism: Don’t wait for one ultimate theory before acting.
Moral pluralism: Allow many justifications to support the same policy; seek overlapping consensus.
Experimentalism: Pilot, measure, revise—treat institutions and rules as improvable.
Democratic practice: Prefer solutions that can be justified to affected publics, not just to experts. [1][2][3]
Norton’s “convergence” hypothesis
Bryan Norton argues that once long-term, broadly human values and ecological knowledge are taken seriously, different ethical outlooks tend to converge on similar protective policies. Convergence reduces the need to resolve ultimate value disputes to make progress, while remaining testable against real-world cases. [4]
Influential voices around the project
Beyond Light and Katz, pragmatist themes appear in Anthony Weston’s practice-first essays and Daniel A. Farber’s Eco-Pragmatism, which adapts the approach to environmental law and decision-making under uncertainty (e.g., discounting, risk, and long time horizons). [5][6]
Critiques and live debates
Critics worry pluralism can blur moral guidance or drift toward soft anthropocentrism; others challenge whether convergence reliably holds across hard conflicts. These debates keep the view accountable and refine where, and how, pragmatism best guides policy. [7][4]
Why it still matters
In pluralistic democracies, agreement on ultimate values is rare—yet the need for coherent environmental action is urgent. Environmental pragmatism offers a method: build broad, revisable coalitions around publicly justifiable goals; learn from results; adapt—without pretending disagreements must disappear first. [1][2][6]
FAQs
What is environmental pragmatism in one sentence?
A pluralist, Deweyan approach to environmental ethics that prioritizes democratic problem-solving and iterative policy improvement over settling ultimate value theories. [2][1]
Does it reject intrinsic value?
No. It brackets foundational disputes when necessary to advance workable policies supported by diverse reasons. [1][3]
What’s “convergence”?
Norton’s claim that diverse ethical views often endorse similar policies once long-term human interests and ecological facts are fully considered. [4]
Is this just “whatever works”?
No. Pragmatism demands public justification, evidence, and fallible, revisable policies—more than mere expediency. [2][6]
Footnotes
[1] Andrew Light & Eric Katz (eds.), Environmental Pragmatism (Routledge, 1996) — book overview and framing of moral pluralism and anti-foundational strategy. routledge.com+1
[2] “Pragmatism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — classical pragmatism background (Peirce, James, Dewey) relevant to environmental pragmatism’s method. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[3] “Environmental Ethics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — maps the intrinsic/instrumental and anthropocentrism debates that pragmatists sought to move beyond. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
[4] Bryan Norton on the convergence hypothesis — conversational exposition and scholarly summary. Center for Humans & Nature+1
[5] Anthony Weston, “Beyond Intrinsic Value: Pragmatism in Environmental Ethics” (1985) — early pragmatic turn emphasizing practice over intrinsic-value stalemates. PDCnet
[6] Daniel A. Farber, Eco-Pragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decisions in an Uncertain World (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1999) — pragmatic tools for law and policy under uncertainty. University of Chicago Press+1
[7] Critical discussion of convergence and its limits (e.g., Rolston’s responses and contextual critiques). Mountain Scholar
[8] Additional reference: Environmental Pragmatism catalog entries (PhilPapers, Google Books) for bibliographic verification. PhilPapers+1
