ABSTRACT
Holism is a watchword for environmental ethics, but holism has multiple meanings. In one version, holism is the view that an ecosystem must not be evaluated as an instrument for the survival or flourishing of its individual, living constituents, but must be taken to have value in itself. In another version, holism enjoins us to analyze questions of environmental ethics at a species or population level, rather than in terms of individuals. The Gaia hypothesis recommends that the entire global system be interpreted as a living organism. In yet another version, holism is a form of neovitalism, insisting that biology errs when it seizes upon mechanistic explanations of life that rely exclusively on physics and chemistry. While any of these (or other) versions of holism might be interpreted in light of another, none, on the face of it, is strictly equivalent to any of the other three. To the extent that the various holisms share a common root, it is Aldo Leopold’s maxim: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (Leopold, 1949, p. 225).
