Abstract

This study investigates “dark ecology” – an ecological theory formulated by Timothy Morton, based on an object-oriented ontology and claimed to offer a new perspective on how humans can and should coexist with other “objects” in the world in a better, less hostile way. Dark ecology is a critique of both an anthropocentric and a biocentric worldview, aiming to erase the dichotomy between human/nature and subject/object. This essay performs an internal critique of dark ecology, analyzing and interpreting Morton’s books Dark Ecology (2016) and Being Ecological (2018) through the lens of two central concepts – “responsibility” and “agency” in order to extract the premises of importance to the theory. These premises are then presented in Aristotelian syllogisms, based on which the validity of dark ecology is evaluated. The aim of the essay is to find an answer to the question as to whether dark ecology is logically coherent and consistent – and thus can really be seen as a fruitful perspective on how humankind should act in relation to the environment or not. The result from this investigation is that dark ecology is an invalid theory since it suffers from both incoherence and inconsistency. Based on this, it is concluded that dark ecology fails to achieve what it is presented to do. The answer to the research question of this essay, “Is dark ecology a theory that, if applied, leads to a change in humans’ relationship with the biosphere for the better?” is therefore “no”.