Abstract

The land ethic, established by Aldo Leopold and systematically theorised by J. B. Callicott, has deeply influenced modern environmentalism. Despite its influence, Callicottian land ethic has been criticised for having fascist implications, a concern that Callicott has attempted to address. However, there is insufficient philosophical scrutiny of whether it can indeed avoid undesirable implications when applied to the interhuman realm. In this paper, I argue that Callicottian land ethic entails moral conservatism when evaluating socio-political reforms by overestimating the negative impacts of such changes. It also exhibits insufficient concern for human rights due to its strongly collectivist assumption. Though these aspects are not overtly fascist, they do pose significant ethical concerns. To address these issues, I examine Roberta Millstein’s interpretation of Leopold’s work, which provides a promising alternative theorisation of the land ethic by recognising the moral significance of individuals alongside collectives. Nevertheless, further theoretical refinement to Millsteinian land ethic is still needed to fully circumvent the conservative implications, and I propose potential strategies to do so. Such strategies will help ensure that the land ethic aligns with contemporary ethical standards while preserving its pioneering ecocentric perspective.