The notion of “neighbor-love” presented by Cynthia Moe-Lobeda entails that humans must reconceptualize our own perception of our identity as well as our position in nature. She contends that as creatures of Earth that are dependent on and biologically connected to every part of nature, we are responsible for extending our love to the environment and other non-human creatures. In addition to revising the concept of neighborly love, she provides a framework for a moral economy that is congruent with the responsibility of expressing neighborly love towards nature. This model of moral economy is comprised of four main components, which are ecologic sustainability, environmental equity, economic equity, and economic democracy. The most persuasive …show more content…
This is the most persuasive component of the moral economy model because it encourages every individual to change their own lifestyles so that environmental preservation can be reflected through all parts of society. By contrast, the other principles attempt to enact social change at the governmental and corporate level, which cannot be accomplished without the first principle of individual change. The second principle, Environmental equity, mainly intends to urge wealthier governments to rectify the injustice they have committed to other less wealthy countries for depleting their resources and emitting far more greenhouse gases than them (Moe-Lobeda, 210). This principle directly targets governments for their unjust actions, which is a less feasible approach because of the corruption that permeates political systems and institutions. The third principle, economic equity, seeks to delegitimize the legal status of corporations that allows them to maximize profit at the expense of individuals and the environment (Moe-Lobeda, 216). Consequently, this principle reaffirms the corruption within political systems that supports corporate greed, which indicates that combating the legal status of corporations is an even less feasible approach. The final principle of Moe-Lobedaʻs moral economy is economic democracy, which strives to remove the oppressive hierarchy of the economy that permits a small part of society to gain excess wealth by exploiting others and the environment (Moe-Lobeda, 227). Establishing a democratic democracy that would benefit everyone and every part of nature is crucial, yet unrealistic because of the abusive power that the greedy elites may not be willing to relinquish. In comparison to the
Kohak, Erazim V. "Part II." The Green Halo: a Bird's-eye View of Ecological Ethics. Chicago,
J. Baird Callicott is probably most famously known as an advocate for Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic (1949.) The Land Ethic is an environmental ethic which Callicot strongly posits is a holistic and non-anthropocentric ethical theory. In other words, The Land Ethic should, if Callicotts position is correct, be an ethical theory that places collectives, as opposed to just individual living things, as having intrinsic value. It should also be an ethical theory that does not focus on, or allow, Homo sapiens to be considered the only “things” as having moral significance. The Land Ethic, originally sketched out by Leopold is a very concise, yet intricate, piece of literature and Callicott has written many pieces of literature which attempt to explain, unfold, apply and defend Leopold's Land Ethic. The purpose of this essay is to, as clearly and precisely as possible, provide an explanation as to what The Land Ethic consists of, with both references to Leopold and several of Callicot's literatures. Following this an identification of any problems that can be extracted from the theory will then be juxtaposed with Callicott's attempt to defend The Land Ethic and remedy these issues. Finally, after the presentation and analysis of The Land Ethic a decision will be made as to whether The Land Ethic is, what Callicott claims, truly an adequate non-anthropocentric environmental ethic.
Throughout the article “Pave the Planet or Wear Shoes” the author discusses the issue of the relationship between the current capitalist economy and the values that it promotes on society. While discussing that relationship the author incorporates certain Buddhist principles that relate to the overall problems that result from the current economic system. The main problem that arises with the current capitalist economy is that it brings a “staggering ecological impact” and an “unequal distribution of new wealth” (88). The values of greed and delusion that this economic system promotes does not fully support the entire global economy, and this is why the author uses the metaphor “Pave the Planet or Wear Shoes” as a solution to the problem. The metaphor is broken up into two parts giving two scenarios or solutions that the global economy will take in order to fix the economic problems of unequal distribution of wealth and the ecological impact.
As the twenty-first century continues to move forward, humanity finds itself in a predicament unlike any other. Cities are overcrowded, impoverished peoples go hungry regularly, natural resources are depleting from overuse, and the degradation of the environment are daily occurrences on this planet. With so much taking place, how do we reach the point where our planet flourishes and prospers efficiently? Seemingly so, we have reached a point of no return. Yet according to Jeffrey D. Sachs, we can still maintain a flourishing, prosperous planet and the ideas that lie within this document review the main conclusions in the book Common Wealth by Jeffrey D. Sachs.
Wright Mills and Thich Nhat Hanh provide two paths to a better society. While C. Wright Mills doesn’t talk specifically about environmental issues, his principles can be used to address many environmental justice issues. Often those in power and the wealthy are responsible for the exposure to environmental harms that those who have no power or money experience. Likewise, Thich Nhat Hanh doesn’t acknowledge directly the complexities of social systems. However, perhaps making the connection to yourself and the environment, considering them as one, would bring all classes of people to be kinder to both each other and the
Normative ethics is a central part of the philosophical exploration of ethical theories and is the study of what is right and wrong (Encyclopedia Britannica). Its study is a powerful tool in determining the basis and course of moral actions as it explores moral choices rather than the language or origins of morality; for this reason it falls under the category of applied ethics. While normative ethics is a broad term that encompasses many schools of thought, it is generally thought to be broken down into three categories: the school of virtue ethics, deontology and teleology (or consequentialism). Virtue ethics is exemplified by Aristotle’s view of ethics and can be briefly summarized as pointing to moral character and virtuous living as the right thing to do. This delineates it from the deontological schools (e.g.; Kant’s Categorical Imperative) which emphasize certain rules or obligations which are necessarily moral for reasons separated from people and consequences. Consequentialism focuses on the consequences of the actions to judge moral value; utilitarianism is an example of this school and states that the right thing to do is what maximizes overall utility (Hursthouse, Rosalind, Stanford Encylopedia). These different branches are often philosophically challenged in discourse and also in real life examples of moral dilemmas. Their distinct approaches to judging morality in our world make them mutually exclusive theories. However, in application, our world presents us with moral situations that are often so convoluted that strictly adhering to one of these theories can create serious moral dilemmas. An important case is how humans should approach the problem of global climate change. Evidence points to the majority ...
The idea of morals and values are one of the most debated topics in the world of critical thinking. Life times can be spent philosophizing about the morality of our human race and the shared “innate” values. Hence forth this excerpt which talks directly (as well as indirectly) about the genealogy of values and morals in a society of humans comparatively to that of nature.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
Onora O’Neill in her text “Environmental values, Anthropocentrism and Speciesism” discusses first different views that give humans an ethic through two utilitarian thinkers (Bentham and Mill), and then in her turn tries to come up with an ethic that protects the animals and the environment by also protecting humans.
Our planet is a thing of beauty. It is known as the only planet that sustains an abundance of life. This is due to the perfect balance of natural resources that provides life giving sustenance. My mother always tells me “if you take, you need to give.” I always thought that she meant that I should appreciate what I have and always give of my time and resources to those who are less fortunate than me. However, my mother’s saying now rings true for me as I am now able to apply this saying not only to myself as a human being but to the natural world and environment around me that maintains life.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Cayden and Connor Long story has not only touch our souls but granted us a whole new perspective on the world. We tend to allow society to brain wash us. Society changes our pure hearts and mind into judgmental hypocrites. The Long’s brothers story shows the strength of the human spirit. We’re all different, but what is normal? We all have life challenges, but what differentiate us? Society tries to categorize us but we can’t allow them to. We all need someone; together we can defeat life challenges.
When the problem became serious two main views formed: the “narrow” view and the “broader” view, based on different ideas. The “narrow” view is based on the proposition that corporations have no social responsibility and they have only one main purpose, to make a profit (Friedman, 1970). So corporations should remain socially independent and all conflicts must be solved through the individual responsibility concept. On the contrary the “broader” view states that corporations have social obligations as all existing participants of market, persons and entities are tied together and are mutually dependent. So corporations cannot ignore some serious events or problems, which take place, and must help society, as profit is not their single purpose.
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.