Can Destroying Nature Be Wrong Without Harming Humans?

Could destroying a forest be wrong if nobody would ever use or appreciate it again? The question temporarily removes familiar and powerful reasons for protection. If no person's health, property or future life would suffer, what reasons remain?

In 1973, philosopher Richard Routley proposed the ‘last man’ thought experiment. After a global catastrophe, the sole remaining person eliminates other living things as far as possible. The scenario can even stipulate that this causes no suffering and harms no future humans, because there will be none. This is not a prediction. It tests whether an absence of human harm permits us to do whatever we like to nature.

Routley judged the destruction wrong, challenging the view that only human interests matter ultimately. Environmental ethics often distinguishes instrumental value from intrinsic value. The former concerns something's usefulness as a means to other ends; the latter means that it merits concern in its own right, not merely because it serves people.

The experiment does not end the debate. Critics can argue that our objection targets the destroyer's cruelty or malice rather than establishing nature's value independently of humans. Defenders can ask whether ecological loss would cease to matter if destruction were undertaken with supposedly good intentions. The dispute concerns the grounds of judgement: ‘I feel it is wrong too’ cannot substitute for an argument.

My judgement is that ‘No human was harmed’ cannot automatically close the ethical account. The continuation of life and ecological relationships can provide direct reasons against gratuitous destruction without first being converted into tourism income or human pleasure. Recognising those reasons does not make every organism equally valuable or give every plant the same rights as a person. It expands what requires justification rather than abolishing all trade-offs.

https://iseethics.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/routley-richard-is-there-a-need-for-a-new-an-environmental-ethic-original.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sylvan-routley/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/