Epistemological Probabilism and the Ethics of Equilibrium:  Rethinking Environmental Policy in a Complex World

Samuel Aloysius Ekanem; Mary Julius Egbai; Julius Michael Egbai

doi:10.21697/seb.5847

Published: 2025-03-15

Epistemological Probabilism and the Ethics of Equilibrium: Rethinking Environmental Policy in a Complex World

Samuel Aloysius Ekanem

, Mary Julius Egbai

, Julius Michael Egbai

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5847

Abstract

The relationship between human epistemology and environmental ethics has long influenced formulation of policies aimed at mitigating ecological crises. Among these, epistemological probabilism, an approach that acknowledges the uncertainty and variability inherent in predicting environmental outcomes, has profoundly shaped debates on environmental policy. This paper argues that probabilistic interpretations of ecological data, often characterized by opposing claims and speculative forecasts, contribute to policy indecision and hinder the adoption of coherent and effective environmental strategies. These divergences can result in either overly cautious or insufficiently responsive measures, both of which have adverse effects on global ecological health. To address these challenges, the paper proposes an ethics of equilibrium, a dynamic and context-sensitive ethical framework designed to navigate the uncertainties inherent in environmental decision-making. By emphasizing balance, adaptability, and context-specificity, this framework advocates for policies that align with the immediate and long-term ecological realities of particular societies while fostering global sustainability. The ethics of equilibrium rejects one-size-fits-all solutions and instead encourages a pragmatic yet ethically grounded approach to environmental governance. Through a critical examination of probabilistic reasoning in environmental epistemology, this paper highlights the need for an integrated ethical and policy model that transcends binary or static paradigms. By embedding flexibility and equilibrium within environmental policies, societies can better address the complexity and unpredictability of ecological challenges while remaining committed to ethical stewardship of the planet.

Keywords:

epistemological probabilism, environmental ethics, environmental policy, ethics of equilibrium, sustainability, philosophy of sustainable development

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

Ekanem, S. A., Egbai, M. J., & Egbai, J. M. (2025). Epistemological Probabilism and the Ethics of Equilibrium: Rethinking Environmental Policy in a Complex World. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5847

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Alisdair, Rogers, Noel Castree, and Rob Kitchin. 2013. Oxford Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Attfield, Robin. 2014. Environmental Ethics: An Overview of the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, U.K: Polity Press.
Google Scholar

Attfield, Robin. 2018. Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Enyimba, Maduka. 2019a. “A Critical Exposition of Madukakism as a Theory of Being Human in Contemporary Africa.” Sociology and Anthropology 7(3): 126-131. https://doi.org/10.13189/sa.2019.070302.
Google Scholar

Enyimba, Maduka. 2019b. “Environmental Sustainability and Development in Africa: An ‘Egbe bere Ugo bere’ Approach.” International Journal of Environmental Pollution and Environmental Modelling 2(1): 153-159.
Google Scholar

Ephraim, Ahamefula Ikegbu, and Maduka Enyimba. 2020. “Implications of Some Selected Ethical Theories for Environmental Sustainability and Development in Nigeria.” European Journal of Sustainable Development 9(1): 150-160. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n1p150.
Google Scholar

Hugh, Chisholm. 1911. “Probabilism.” Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, edited by Chisholm Hugh. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Jacques, Peter J. 2009. Environmental Skepticism: Ecology, Power and Public Life. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Google Scholar

Lomborg, Bjørn. 2001. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the State of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Lu, Jiaqi, Kathryn Bayne, and Jianfei Wang. 2013. “Current Status of Animal Welfare and Animal Rights in China.” Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 41(5): 351–357.
Google Scholar

Mehta, Lyla, Shilpi Srivastava, Hans Nicolai Adam, Alankar Alankar, Shibaji Bose, Upsona Ghosh, and Vijay V. Kumar. 2019. “Climate Change and Uncertainty from ‘Above’ and ‘Below’: Perspectives from India.” Regional Environmental Change 19: 1533-1547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01479-7.
Google Scholar

Moran, Jan. 2012. “Three Challenges of Environmental Philosophy.” Philosophy Now 88: 12-15.
Google Scholar

Northcott, Michael S. 2001. The Environment and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Google Scholar

Regan, Tom. 1983. “Animal rights, human wrongs.” In Ethics and animals, edited by Tom Regan, 19-43. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press.
Google Scholar

Sarkar, Pankoj Kanti. 2017. Environmental Ethics and Future Generations: A Critical Study. PhD diss., University of North Bengal. Raja Rammohunpur, India: University of North Bengal.
Google Scholar

Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. New York: Random House.
Google Scholar

Smith, Kimberly K. 2018. Exploring Environmental Ethics: An Introduction. New York: Springer Verlag.
Google Scholar

Taylor, Paul. 2011. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Google Scholar

Tfreeman.net. 2021. “Environment Ethics Introduction.” Accessed December 28, 2024. https://tfreeman.net/resources/Phil-329/Introduction.pdf.
Google Scholar

Yang, Tongjin. 2006. “Towards an Egalitarian Global Environmental Ethics.” In Environmental ethics and international policy, edited by Henk Have, 23-45. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Google Scholar