Anekāntāvada and Biocentric Pluralism

moral standing of trees and the ecosystem should not be same to those mentioned above. This is why, environmental moral pluralist’s advice to facilitate moral principles prudently so that a person should determine which of the ethical principles would be compatible with a particular situation. On the other hand, biocentric pluralism claims that all the living components of the environment have are worth of living. So, they deserve respect. Each of the living beings is individual in its feature.

And, the individuality of microbes is not similar to that the great apes or human beings.

Now, let us explain the term anekāntaveda (non-absolutism). Anekāntavāda has got different meanings to different exponents. L.C. Jain defines the term as a method in which “Jainism gives its adherents a unique orientation for recognizing and respecting differences.”²⁷⁴The notion of anekāntaveda encourages us to receive multiple approaches to any problem. It teaches us many things along with the main teaching of “religious toleration and co-existence.”²⁷⁵ Bimal Krishna Matilal²⁷⁶ also takes the term in the sense of “many-sidedness or manifolds of reality.”He thinks that anekāntaveda is “characterized by toleration, understanding, and respect for the views of others.”²⁷⁷ We get the same kind of definition given in the Jain declaration on Nature:

“The concept of universal interdependence underpins the Jain theory of knowledge, known as anekāntavada or the doctrine of manifold aspects.

Anekāntavada describes the world as a multifaceted, ever-changing reality with infinity of viewpoints depending on the time, place, nature and state of the one who is the viewers and that which is viewed.”²⁷⁸

According to the Singhvi, anekāntavada presents the world as a container of many things. It is also indicated that the world is not an illusion. It is the manifestation of life. It does not consider the world as an anthropocentric or

274 Jain, L.C., 2004. “Getting to Know Jainism in the Context of a Warning 21^st Century”, Westmorland an General Meeting, Available at www.preparingfor peace.org, accessed , July, 2012.)

275 Jain, L.C., 2004., “This is Jainism” , p.6.

276Matilal, Bimal Krishna, 1981. The Central Philosophy of Jainism (Anekānta-Vada), Ahmedabad, L.D. Institute of Indology, pp.24-26.

277 Matilal, 1981, p.6.

278 Singhvi, 2010.

egocentric perspective. Here, the perspective is relational. It indicates that there are relationship between different species, living beings including animals and vegetables. Anekāntavada further suggests stating that nature has got multiple modes of manifestations and is characterized by multidimensional aspects.

Sometimes, the term anekāntavada is used in Jaina philosophy as syādvād (from some perspective). The word syādvād suggests that truth is approximate and all answers are contextual. When we confirm that this is correct, we reach nearer the truth. When we speak about anything, in fact, we refer to the context. The concept of syādvād represents also that saptabhangi or seven foldedness. Saptabhangi indicates the idea that there should have seven possibilities of an answer. These are: (i) it is, (ii) it is not; (iii) it is and yet it is not, it is inexpressible (or, indeterminable), (iv) its existence is indeterminable, (v) its non-existence is indeterminable, (vi) its existence as well as (vii) non-existence is indeterminable.

Now, we need to have a clear idea of what are the exact teachings of Jain anekāntavāda? Ảcārya Mahāprajna²⁷⁹, an exponent of the Jain philosophy, states that anekānta is a “manual for a good life”.²⁸⁰ Such thinking helps us to keep our mind open and discourage not to adopt an absolutist thinking. Besides, it helps us also to overcome ones’ egoistic thoughts. It spawns “tolerance, equanimity, fraternity, love and compassion – all essential for a nonviolent world order.”²⁸¹In this statement, it has been claimed that anekāntavada is the precondition of ahimsā. If we can apply properly the philosophy of anekānta to the social and ecological sphere, it is possible to advance towards a harmonious, peaceful, and non-violent world. Such a view would help the human beings decrease their enmity towards others and would encourage us to increase the amity among all living beings.

From the explanation given above about anekāntavāda, it is clear that this idea is compatible with pluralistic viewpoints and proposals which are acceptable within an argument. The biocentric pluralists such as Sterba and others confirm that the pluralistic approach to environment can help us decrease environmental problems.

279Mahāprajna, Ậcārya, 2001 (rpt). Anekānta : Reflections and Clarifications, Ladnnun : JVBI, p.9.

280 Mahāprajna, Ậcārya, 2001 (rpt). Anekānta : The Third Eye.

281 Sethia, Tara, (ed.) 2002. The Lessons of Ahimsā and Anekānta For Contemporary Life, Conference Proceedings, Pomona: California State Polytechnic University, p.61.

For example, in this living earth there are many things which survive with the help from other living beings. It implies that other things beyond us are also important.

Others cannot be ignored. Everything in this living world has got a specialty of its own. The trees have got their own distinct feature.

Let us now think about deforestation. It causes draught, climate complication, and negative impact upon the living beings condition of health. But, by simply following the Jain’s anekāntavāda we can solve this problem. Regarding the trees, it can be said that somebody may claim that trees have got the capacity to produce oxygen as well as the ability of carbon sinking. Some others may claim that the trees are alive;

so the value of trees lies here. Some people may argue that trees are the means of natural balance and beautification of this earth. The Jain anekāntavāda suggests that each of the comments is significant in its own context. So, each of the different interpretation presents both a unique quality and significance of the trees.

How can we defend the concept of Jain anekāntāvada and that of moral pluralism in environmental ethics? One of the best defenses comes from Christopher D.

Stone,²⁸² which is applicable also in the context of Jain anekāntāvada. As a pluralistic notion, anekāntāvada does not allow us to depend on only a single theory or principle. On the contrary, most of the exponents of recent environmental ethics make attempts to follow a singular principle. As a discipline, environmental ethics appears as the form of monistic theory. This form of approach strongly recommends that there should be one set of values which can facilitate any possible moral problems that we may come up against. They also claim that one set of governing principles gives us as to particular answer to an ethical quandary and prescribe us how we should act in a specific situation. Normally, the approach of monistic ethical theories is:

“…single overarching principle (or coherent body of principles), such as utilitarianism’s “greatest good for the greatest number”, or Kant’s categorical imperatives, and to demonstrate how it (the one correct viewpoint) guides us through all moral dilemmas to the one right solution.”²⁸³

282 Stone, Christopher D., 1987. Earth and Other Ethics. New York: Harper and Row.

Stone, Christopher D., 1988. Should Trees Have Standing: Towards Natural Rights for Legal Objects, California: Tioga Publishing Company.In these works Stone represented his view of moral pluralism.

283 Stone, 2009, p.195.

The philosophical goals of this approach are explained by Bryan Norton thus:

“The goals of these studies is to propose and defend a set of first principles that is 1) Complete in the sense that this small set of principles can generate a correct answer for every moral quandary and 2) Jointly justifiable in the sense that, once the principles are warranted, then every particular moral directive derived from the principles must also be warranted.”²⁸⁴

The definition provided by Norton implies that by following a warranted principle a person can able to carry out of his/her proper duties and that it (the monistic principle) can help the person tell which of the actions are morally justifiable. As such, Leopold’s land ethics, Singer’s utilitarianism, and Regan’s Kantian approach are more general philosophical examples of monism.

In the analysis made above about monism some particulars burning questions may appear to us: can the monistic approach of environmental ethics perform when the situation contains multidimensional problems? Or, is the monistic theory suitable for all perspectives equally? In response to these questions, we can pay that the act of using a single principle in a particular situation is problematic. We can understand this problem by showing an example. A moral monist — if s/he is an exponent of utilitarianism — would think of solving the problem by using utilitarianism, whether the situation is either to preserve wilderness or to save the wellbeing of laboratory animals. By following the same line of argument, we can determine our moral obligations to them. For this purpose, they also suggest that the moral considerations depend on some “single salient moral property.”²⁸⁵The moral property is either typically sentience, or intelligence, or is the subject of a conscious life. This single-tracked project may be relevant in a special circumstance.

But, there are also some intuitive reasons for taking this view as a trivial one. For example, one may take a utilitarian stance while resolving a quandary theory of intrinsic rights of research or farms animals. But, to determine a possible value of a mountain or a river, the utilitarian approach of pains or feelings or life-projects would not applicable in the same manner as it is applied to the case of animals. The pain and

284Norton, B., 1996. “Integration or Reduction: Two Approaches to Environmental Values”, In A. Light & E. Katz (eds.) Environmental Pragmatism. London:

Routledge, p105.

285 Stone, 2009, p.195.

suffering of an animal can be measured in terms of behavioral stimulation, which is not possible in case of a river or a mountain. So, a single principle cannot give us any successful output in all respects at the same time or simultaneously.

To overcome this stance of using a principle, we can examine different norms simultaneously in a specific instance. For example, in the case of biodiversity we can follow utilitarian principle for sentient beings; and, values for life can be useful for the members of flora. Even, we need to give priority to the principle of interdependency of all the components of the ecosystem in respect of their sizes and shapes. This claim was seriously adopted in the Jaina anekāntāvada long before similar idea emerged (approximately in 700 BCE). They understood the consideration of using multiple principles in a situation or considerations of different options or opinions at the same time for getting a viable solution of the problems.

Unlike monism, anekāntāvada does not give us only way or reason for performing an action. Rather, the way, and reason, should be many. On this basis, Jainism can be characterized as a morally pluralistic approach to nature as well as to the society.

However, this approach is not beyond criticism. Recently, J Baird Callicott, in his various works,²⁸⁶ indicates that moral pluralism is affected by many problems.

Callicott’s criticism of pluralism goes against Christopher Stone as well as Jaina anekāntavada.

Callicott observes that Stone’s arguments for monism cannot incorporate the multi-dimension of values requirements that are desired in a situation. Even those cannot cope with the good number of conflicting ethical theories. Callicott does not agree with accepting this limitation of ethical theories. This is why, he criticizes pluralism as “a poor direction” and offers an alternative — a kind of middle way—

bringing a tie between the conflicting theories and unified monistic theory.

Moral pluralism, according to Callicott, implies “metaphysical musical chairs.”²⁸⁷ In the game of musical chairs, a group of people join together for fun and entertainment. The number of chair is always less than that of the participant. While music starts, participants in a circle move around the chairs. When music stops,

286Callicott, Baird, 2003. “The Case against Moral Pluralism”, in Light, Andrew and Katz, Eric, 2003. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Light, Andrew, 2003. “The Case for a Practical Pluralism”, in Light and Andrew (2003).

287 Callicott, Baird, 2003, p.211.

suddenly, everyone tries to sit down on any of the chairs. Finally, the player who missed the chair is eliminated from the group. Thus, the game continues repeatedly until one chair is left in the circle. The last person who can sit down in the last chair is the winner of the game. As such, moral pluralism can also change the theory or proclaiming principles until it reaches its final decision.

In this process of using multiple theories, a theorist can change his position. S/he has got the opportunity to jump from one theory to another. Callciott notices some dangerous aspects in moral pluralism. He is of the opinion that moral pluralism provokes one “adopt one theory to steer a course in our relationships with friends and neighbors, another to define our obligations to fellow citizens, a third to clarify our duties to more distantly related people…”²⁸⁸ Callicott intends to argue that moral pluralism sees a fact or situation from partial aspects and that it does not accept the entire framework and its foundation values. For example, in the case of a vegetarian life- style, the pluralist assumes that if any one says that he is a vegetarian, it implies that s/he does not include any meat in his/her meal-menu.²⁸⁹ However, the following day, s/he is seen taking chicken during his/her meal. So, on that day, s/he is not an actual vegetarian.

To a pluralist, value may change in a situation. For example, in the last week a person dealt with his meal-menu according to the vegetarian norms and claimed him/her as a vegetarian. Due to some health constraints, the doctor suggested him/her to take protein. So, now the person is taking chicken juice although he claims that he is a vegetarian. In the real senses, this claim is too much contradictory what the pluralist often does. In fact, if any person wants to be a vegetarian, s/he should follow some foundational values as is required of him/her. These are: (i) s/he should not take any sort of meat in any form (whether it is fried, liquid, or in any form) in his meal-menu, (ii) s/he should not even break this rule in any situation, whether it is health situation or not.

Callicott gives another example of land ethics. Suppose a person believes in land ethics. Now, what according to moral pluralism should be the reflections of this

288Callicott, 2003, p.205.

289Here I would like to mention Jaina’s tradition strictly prescribe to lead a vegetarian life, without any exception. In that case monistic approach could not apply in its inner sense to the Jaina tradition.

belief? If any person is a supporter of land ethics and is going to justify the act of cutting down some banyan trees of a forest, the person can change his opinion in the afternoon by claiming that s/he should save an injured tiger because s/he believes in the idea of intrinsic value of animals. The following question may be raised here:

Does the banyan tree have any intrinsic worth? It may be a moral pluralist view that provides a defense in favor of him/her opinions. The act of asking us to adopt different principles in different contexts is rather the process of asking us to move from one set of beliefs to another. They evaluate an action or a situation by holding or a set of beliefs, or a set of truths. And, they quickly adopt another set of beliefs and truths. Such a kind of shift from one set to another can be compared with musical chairs. However, it is not effective in the case of the process of moral decision taking.

The same thing can be found in Chrisopher Stone’s pluralism. For this reason, Callicott criticizes Stone’s pluralistic hypothesis. He states that under this belief, in the morning Stone is a believer of utilitarianism while he is giving decision what kind of toxic waste we should manufacture. And, in the afternoon, he is giving opinion to stop a road through a forest by cutting down its trees.

By giving different references and examples, Callicott argues that moral pluralism is a form of relativism. Relativism is the view that there are no specific or objective norms or standard parameters independent of what a particulars society and its culture endorses. In this sense, moral or social values are not objectively right or wrong. Along with this line of criticism, Callicott takes pluralism as a tool for lawyers. He mentions the name of Stone’s defense of pluralism. When a lawyer argues in the court in favor of his client, he uses different sources and pieces of information as well as examples and means in order to achieve a positive result in favor of his client. It does not matter whether the client is truly convicted by any offense. Like the lawyer, a moral pluralist also changes his/her position and uses many theories and/or principles as tools to justify his stand. While doing so, the pluralist is not seriously concerned as to whether the used means or principles are right or wrong. Therefore, Callicott comes to the conclusion that the pluralist position is not justified as a morally consistent. He believes that the journey should continue until one gets the right conclusion, but, the pluralist defense is fuzzy and inconsistent.

A pluralist wants to say that until one gets the optimum result of the theories, s/he needs to constantly jump from one theory to another, one set of values to another and

one particulars framework to another. So, our real knowledge and beliefs are not the factors that matter.

On the basis of these reasons, Callicott comes to the conclusion that pluralism should not be acceptable as a theory of environmental ethics. The central tenet of pluralism is incoherent and flexible in nature which makes it impossible to keep it from contradiction as well as from the state of limitations of moral foundation.

Moreover, the limitations and contradiction of using ethical theories results in fruitless attempts. We do not get any good result by canceling the theory. This is why, Callicott argues that we have need to go back to the unified monistic approach.