Religious and secular ethics offer complementary strategies to achieve environmental sustainability

Fabio Zagonari

doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00802-0

Abstract

By applying a single dataset (i.e., panel data at a national level) and a single analytical framework (i.e., a dynamic mathematical model), I compared religious (REL) and secular (SEC) ethics in two ways: as feasible strategies (i.e., with realistic parameter values such that a strategy can achieve its goal) and as reliable strategies (i.e., with a tight statistical relationship between a strategy and its goal). In both cases, the goal is to achieve environmental sustainability, but with different precepts and principles applied within different perspectives: global vs. local sustainability, individual feelings vs. social pressures as determinants of pro-environmental behavior, and long-run vs. short-run sustainability. Analytical results (feasibility) showed that REL are overall more feasible than SEC and, specifically, REL are more likely to affect the many pro-environmental behaviors required to achieve global sustainability, whereas SEC to affect some pro-environmental behaviors required to achieve local sustainability; REL are more likely to affect pro-environmental behaviors based on individual feelings and social pressures from small communities, whereas SEC to affect pro-environmental behaviors based on social pressures from large communities; REL are more likely to solve collective-action problems to achieve short-run sustainability, whereas SEC to solve collective-action problems to achieve long-run sustainability. Statistical results (reliability) based on 32 random- and between-effects regressions support these results and, particularly, REL and SEC were complementary in time (e.g., for REL, short-run sustainability is more reliable than long-run sustainability; for SEC, long-run sustainability is more reliable than short-run sustainability), in space (e.g., for SEC, local sustainability is more reliable than global sustainability), and in society (e.g., for REL, individual feelings are more reliable than social pressures).

Highlights

Zagonari (2020a) showed that sustainability is an ethical issue
In the first sub-section of Methods, I combined the main determinants of pro-environmental behaviors at the household level (i.e., individual feelings (IND) and social pressures (SOC)) in a dynamic model by presenting three main insights about the expected impacts of religious ethics (REL) and secular ethics (SEC)
I will use betweeneffects regressions for majority religions to evaluate the social pressures from large communities and random-effect regressions for minority religions to evaluate the social pressures from small communities, where the random-effect estimations for SEC emphasize individual over the social determinants of behaviors

Summary

Introduction

Zagonari (2020a) showed that sustainability is an ethical issue. The literature has recently begun to emphasize the role of ethics in achieving environmental sustainability (e.g., Menning, 2016; Lenzi, 2017; Spahn, 2018; Whiting and Konstantakos, 2019; Batavia et al, 2020). Two main groups of environmental ethics can be identified: secular ethics (SEC) and religious ethics (REL) (Zagonari, 2019a). Secular ethics (e.g., Snyder, 2017; Knauss, 2018; Lowe, 2019) focus on our responsibility to nature, responsibility to future generations, perceptions of the rights of human and non-humans, and beliefs in inter- and intra-generational equity (Zagonari, 2019b). Religious ethics (e.g., Imanaka, 2018; Schmidt, 2019; Christie et al, 2020) have a different focus in each religion. Buddhism focuses on maintaining equilibrium, Christianity on love of neighbors, Hinduism on equal dignity of humans and nonhumans, Islam on trusteeship and parsimony, and Judaism on stewardship (Zagonari, 2020b)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion