Ethics on Earth©

Or Flourishing Within Ecological Limits…

The ancient Greek concept of eudaimonia is often translated as “flourishing” or “the good life.” It has long guided ethical thought about the nature of human well-being. Eudaimonia is rooted in the philosophical traditions of Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics. It represents a state of living according to virtue and reason. Yet, as we navigate the unprecedented challenges of the Anthropocene, we face a new geological epoch. This epoch is characterized by significant human impact on the Earth system. This classical ideal demands radical re-evaluation. What does it mean to flourish when flourishing itself contributes to planetary degradation? Can a concept born in an era of perceived natural abundance still speak to an age of ecological limits?

1. Eudaimonia in Classical Thought

In Aristotelian ethics, eudaimonia is achieved through cultivating virtues. These virtues align human life with its rational and social nature. Aristotle positions eudaimonia as the highest human good, attainable through a life of virtuous activity in accordance with reason. (Nicomachean Ethics, I.7)

This entails the development of character through habituation. It aims at a balanced life governed by the “golden mean.” This is a principle of moderation between excess and deficiency. (Nicomachean Ethics, II.6) The core virtues like courage, temperance, justice, and practical wisdom (phronēsis) are central to this ethical life.

The classical Greek tradition also links flourishing to civic participation. For Aristotle, the polis as the city-state is the proper context for ethical life. The good life is one lived in harmony with others. It contributes to a just society. (Politics, I.2) In this sense, flourishing is not merely a private pursuit but a communal effort.

However, these classical formulations rest on anthropocentric assumptions. Nature is viewed largely as a backdrop or instrument for human ends. Aristotle acknowledges the value of natural order. He places humans at the apex of a teleological hierarchy. In this hierarchy, non-human entities exist to serve human flourishing. (Politics, I.8). Stoic cosmopolitanism, as more inclusive in some respects, still privileges rationality as the defining feature of moral consideration. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VI.44)

The classical concept of eudaimonia offers enduring insights into virtue, moderation, and communal life. However, it must be critically revisited. This is necessary to respond to the ecological realities and ethical complexities of the Anthropocene.

2. The Anthropocene Challenge

The Anthropocene disrupts the foundational assumptions of classical ethics by introducing a world where human agency extends to planetary scales. Anthropogenic climate change, biodiversity loss, and widespread ecological degradation are no longer incidental but systemic outcomes of modern life. (Steffen et al., 2011) These crises expose the limits of ethical systems premised on human centrality and nature’s in-exhaustibility.

The dominant global economic model predicated on perpetual growth, consumption, and resource extraction has directly contributed to breaching planetary boundaries. (Rockström et al., 2009) This model assumes that well-being can be measured by material affluence, marginalizing nonhuman life and future generations. Therefore, the pursuit of eudaimonia, if framed within this context, risks legitimizing an unsustainable status quo.

A revised ethical framework for the Anthropocene must confront the consequences of overstepping Earth’s carrying capacity. It must also reckon with the inter-connectedness and vulnerability of all life. Scholars like Clive Hamilton and Bruno Latour argue that the Anthropocene requires a new philosophical orientation. This new orientation abandons the illusion of human separateness and control. Hamilton (2017) critiques the Enlightenment legacy of mastery over nature. He calls for a form of ethics that recognizes human embeddedness within the Earth system. Similarly, Latour (2018) emphasizes the need for a “terrestrial politics.” This politics is grounded not in domination but in situated attachment to specific places and ecologies. Both thinkers argue for a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize human agency. It should not be seen as autonomous and sovereign. Instead, it should be understood as entangled, responsive, and accountable within a shared planetary condition.

3. Flourishing Within Limits

Re-imagining eudaimonia for the Anthropocene requires reframing flourishing not as maximization but as sufficiency. Flourishing within limits means recognizing that the Earth’s ecological boundaries are not obstacles to freedom. Instead, they are conditions for the ongoing possibility of life. This perspective agrees with Kate Raworth’s idea in Doughnut Economics. It proposes a “safe and just space for humanity” (Raworth, 2017).

Here, Aristotelian virtue ethics remains a valuable resource, especially through its emphasis on moderation and practical wisdom. The virtues of temperance involve restraint in consumption. Humility involves recognition of human existence finitude. Care involves adjustments to others’ needs. These virtues can guide the ethical reorientation required for sustainable living (Sandler, 2007). Rather than pursuing competitive, individualistic success, flourishing becomes a collective and interdependent process.

This reimagining encourages lifestyle changes. These include voluntary simplicity, localism and degrowth. Such practices honor limits and prioritize long-term resilience over short-term gain. Philosophers like Timothy Morton and Joanna Macy emphasize the existential dimensions of this transition. They also highlight its spiritual aspects. This transition is both a transformation in consciousness and behavior (Morton, 2013; Macy & Brown, 2014).

4. Toward a Relational Ethics

To fully adapt eudaimonia to the Anthropocene, we must shift from an individualistic ethics of self-realization. Instead, we should embrace a relational ethics rooted in interdependence. This involves recognizing that human well-being is inseparable from the flourishing of ecosystems, communities, and future generations.

Feminist care ethics is emphasized by scholars like Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. It focuses on relationships, empathy, and contextual moral reasoning (Gilligan, 1982; Noddings, 1984). These frameworks provide an alternative to the abstract, universalist ethics that have often sidelined environmental and social concerns.

Similarly, Indigenous philosophies offer rich models of relationality and ecological stewardship. Concepts like “all my relations” in many Native American traditions describe ways of living well. The Andean principle of buen vivir also conveys ideas deeply rooted in the land. These concepts are linked to ancestors and nonhuman beings (Gudynas, 2011).

Deep ecology, championed by Arne Naess, advocates for an expanded self that includes the natural world. It supports biospheric egalitarianism and the intrinsic value of all life (Naess, 1973). These perspectives challenge anthropocentrism and affirm that eudaimonia must include the health and resilience of the more-than-human world.

5. Practical Implications

Re-conceptualizing eudaimonia in the Anthropocene has profound practical implications across domains:

• Education: Curricula should foster ecological literacy, systems thinking, and moral imagination. Initiatives like eco-pedagogy and place-based education can help students cultivate a sense of ecological identity and responsibility (Orr, 1992).
• Policy: Public policies should adopt well-being indicators that go beyond GDP. These indicators should integrate measures of ecological health, social equity, and long-term sustainability (Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). The concept of a well-being economy, supported by countries like New Zealand and Bhutan, exemplifies this shift.
• Culture: Media, literature, and the arts can play a transformative role. They reshape cultural narratives around consumption, success, and human-nature relationships. Reviving stories of restraint, reciprocity, and reverence can support a broader cultural transition.
• Urban and Economic Planning: Cities and communities can foster localized economies and green infrastructure. They can also implement regenerative practices that align human life with ecological cycles (Beatley, 2011).

Living well within limits is not a call to asceticism. It is an invitation to a richer, more grounded, and more connected form of flourishing.

Conclusion

To flourish in the Anthropocene is to live well within limits. This reimagined eudaimonia does not reject the classical ideal. Instead, it deepens the ideal by embedding it in the ecological realities of our time. It calls us to cultivate virtues suited for an era of planetary fragility. We must reweave the fabric of ethical life around principles of care, restraint, and relational flourishing. Only then can we hope to build a future where life in all its forms can truly thrive.

References

• Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
• Aristotle. Politics. Translated by C.D.C. Reeve. Hackett Publishing Company, 1998.
• Beatley, Timothy. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Island Press, 2011.
• Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Harvard University Press, 1982.
• Gudynas, Eduardo. “Buen Vivir: Today’s Tomorrow.” Development, vol. 54, no. 4, 2011, pp. 441–447.
• Hamilton, Clive. Defiant Earth: The Fate of Humans in the Anthropocene. Polity Press, 2017.
• Latour, Bruno. Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Polity Press, 2018.
• Macy, Joanna, and Chris Johnstone. Active Hope: How to Face the Mess We’re in Without Going Crazy. New World Library, 2014.
• Morton, Timothy. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology After the End of the World. University of Minnesota Press, 2013.
• Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long‐Range Ecology Movement.” Inquiry, vol. 16, no. 1–4, 1973, pp. 95–100.
• Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. University of California Press, 1984.
• Orr, David W. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. SUNY Press, 1992.
• Raworth, Kate. Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2017.
• Rockström, Johan, et al. “A Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Nature, vol. 461, no. 7263, 2009, pp. 472–475.
• Sandler, Ronald. Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics. Columbia University Press, 2007.
• Steffen, Will, et al. “The Anthropocene: From Global Change to Planetary Stewardship.” Ambio, vol. 40, no. 7, 2011, pp. 739–761.
• Stiglitz, Joseph E., Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi. Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. 2009.
• Marcus Aurelius. Meditations. Translated by Gregory Hays. Modern Library, 2002.