EKOFEMINIZAM I ETIKA
Authors: Miloševic Danica 
Published: June 2021

Inclined towards consumerism, modern patriarchal society suffers from
denaturalisation which reflects itself through the processes of natural oppression and
animal exploitation. Logic of domination upon which patriarchy acts and by which
it imposes a superior attitude over nature and nonhuman species, destroys internal
values that animals and nature possess, which are not recognized at the capitalist
stage where value is regarded through the prism of instrumentalism. This paper aims
to disclose the opposite practice which employs the ethics of care and partnership
with nature and its elements, through the postulates of ecofeminism oriented towards
the life-affirming principle, not the destructive force that patriarchy is prone to. By
analysing different ecofeminist approaches, this paper reveals the importance of
nature and animals as a unique potential and subjectivity, with a right to freedom
and existence. In view of maintaining biodiversity, the animal is redefined from
the absent referent, that is, inferior and subdued phenomenon endangered by the
masculine hegemony, into a siginificant constituent of human reality by introducing
the language of empathy and moral responsibility with the capacity to build a close
relationship with the environment from the angle of ecofeminism. It is important
to develop ecological consciousness, and accept the time flow needed for renewal
of nature, by understanding the importance of the natural surroundings in which
man is only a small particle. In such a language, the culture of meat eating has an
alternative in the form of vegeterianism, whereas animal and nature become part of
moral community, so that hunting, and laboratory exploitation of animals, as well
as the use of natural resources are reduced to necessity, not the indispensable. Meat
consumption is an attack on animals and an act of support to consumer culture,
whereas the refusal of meat is an act of defiance to patriarchal power in the contex
of ethics towards nature and its living beings.
A conclusion is reached through argumentation that ecofeminism sees the practice of
animal killing as justified only in special/extreme cases, that is, in situations when it
is necessary to save human lives, or when the terrain does not offer other options for human diet. On the other hand, the exclusion of animals from laboratory practices
is considered desirable for two reasons: firstly, because animals can feel pain due
to their neural structures in the brain, and secondly, because there is no guarantee
that a good effect of research on animals will give good results in humans. Following
Ynestra King who claims that there is no hierarchy in nature, and that man is not
imposed as a superior being over other species by any laws of nature, a conclusion
is reached that man has no right as a rational and conscious being with a highly de-
veloped system of communication to use that position as an argument or an excuse
for demonstrating his agression towards animals which have an equal right to live
and be free. The system of nature is declared a sacred space in the value system of
ecofeminism in which the life of each individual being is invaluable. Man as a spe-
cies has the greatest impact on nature, environment and diversity and, at the same
time, he is the only one who can assist nature in the act of renewal, by limiting his
appetites so as to sustain the world of nature, including animals as valuable species
in it. Protection of animals is; therefore, needed in all segments – they should not be
regarded as guinea pigs, meat or trophies, but looked upon as specific beings with
their needs and instincts.