We usually care about benefiting our society, and developing it without considering the circumstances of what we are about to do with our nation. We, financially and economically care more for our community, which is great. But rather, we should consider the environmental needs and the needs of the other species, such as, animals, and plants. We are morally obligated to benefit our community in the long-run, because we want to build a better environment to our generations, even if we have been asked or threatened, too, by someone in a position of power, like the Forester in the short story was threatened with losing his job from his boss. We are morally obligated to help the environment, not to destroy it by our own hands. If we destroy the …show more content…
Exhaustion of trees would create additional problems such as drought that shall prevent agricultural activities from being carried out in the area hence residents of the town will begin to feel the impact of cutting down of trees. As an individual who respects the rights of natural creatures, it would be morally right not to issue license that will promote logging of trees. Standards of having good forests in Ontario would be violated by the continued cutting down of trees. It is important for the forester to stand his ground and ensure that all the natural resources such as trees, animals, fish, etc are protected from destruction. With good forests, the residents will be able to engage in other economic activities such as agricultural activities and trade in order to improve their day to day lives. Therefore, even without the existence of sawmill, the members of the town will be able to benefit from other forms of livelihood that would ensure that their standards of living improve substantially. In conclusion, the forester would be morally obligated to refuse to issue the logging license in order to protect the forests and other natural resources in Ontario and
Everybody knows that to have a good social life one needs to have good ethics, but what about using those ethics in the natural environment. Many people tend to say that they are well-educated, with a high use of ethics, but it seems useless in the real world. Society needs to start to worry about the environment and not only about what one wants or need. Aldo Leopold describe how ethics in an ecological and philosophical view today needs to changed to have a good use of them. Leopold was one of the founders of the Wilderness society. At the same time, he initiated the first Forest Wilderness Area in the United States. This two are just some of the societies and jobs in which he was involved that have to do with the natural environment. During
Once forests began to be viewed as beneficial, it opened up a whole new lifestyle. The forests and nature might have been an evil and scary place, but it was a place filled with resources and opportunity. Settlers began using trees and wood in a plethora of ways. Not only was it used for families own use, many began logging forests as a business; a very profitable business at that. Once wood started being used for beneficial purposes, a snowball effect occurred by the settlers to cut down every tree in sight and turn it into a profit.
In 1989, seventy five percent of Americans identified themselves as environmentalists, and the number has continued to grow since then (Walls 1). Environmentalism is now the most popular social movement in the United States, with over five million American families donating regularly to environmental organizations (Walls 1). Environmentalists today focus on what kind of world they hope to see in the future, and largely deal with limiting pollution and changing consumption rates (Kent 1 and 9). Modern environmentalists also have much different issues than those Carson’s America faced. With climate change becoming more threatening each year, protection of the natural world is needed more than ever. Pollution has caused the warmest decade in history, the deterioration of the ozone layer, and species extinction in extreme numbers (Hunter 2). It not only threatens nature, but also human populations, who already suffer from lack of clean water and poisoning from toxic chemicals (Hunter 16). Unlike environmental actions in the 1960’s, which were mostly focused on protection, a massive increase in pollution has caused efforts to be focused on environmental restoration (Hunter 16). Like in the time of Silent Spring, environmentalists are not only concerned with one country. Protecting the environment remains a global issue, and every nation is threatened by the
He gives an example of a college student that found a red spider. This student, ironically, passes the Endangered Species Act and becomes powerful. This student rose from the bottom because of his “conservationists” beliefs. The example allows the writer to move into a mocking conclusion. He states that these power hungry men and women do not actually know best for the environment as much as property owners do. Just because they state that they are “ all for the environment”, it doesn’t mean that they know
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
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.
...o enforce programs that used recycling, the need for disposable products would be diminished. When I started this argument project my feeling were leaning more toward the side of non deforestation. But after doing lots of research on the topic of deforestation and forest thinning, I have found that my opinion has changed. I still don’t feel strongly about trees being cut down. But there is logical reasoning behind almost every issue. Weather it is cutting down damaged trees or trimming them because of fire danger, the reasons will help the human economy in the end. But I think that the government should be more aware of the areas that they are clearing. So that tribes are not lost, and communities are not affected. I also think that they should only cut down the amount of lumber that is desperately needed. Therefore, eliminating how many forests are destroyed.
With enlightened anthropocentrism, we owe the environment things that are based on what we owe to other humans. In simpler terms, humans take into consideration nature, however humans’ needs still preside over the needs of nature. In cynical anthropocentrism, since we tend to be very anthropocentric due to higher reason, we should not be anthropocentric (the hippie mentality). We as humans, are indeed anthropocentric because in our minds, the humans are at the center and over time, we adapt by eventually developing a relationship with nature and the ecosystem around us. This can be observed through history that nature has an intrinsic value to us.
Such ploys seek to undermine any legitimate eco-consciousness in the audience, replacing it with rhetoric that is ultimately ambivalent toward the health of ecosystems, but definitively pro-business. These tactics assume a rigidly anthropocentric point of view, shutting out any consideration for the well-being of non-human existence; they seem to suggest that nature lies subordinate to our base desires. In addition to upholding the subordination of nature to business and leisure activities, this view establishes nature as something privately owned and partitioned (243), rather than something intrinsic to the world. Our relationship with nature becomes one of narcissism.
Commitment to community is a requirement for contemporary Americans and vital to its survival. “Love thy neighbor as thyself” is the unselfish act of sharing: from a cup of sugar to a wealth of information to the guardianship of all children involved and the protection of every individual in that said community. Whether that community consists of the “Classic Neighborhood, those with a common set of goals, or those who share a common identity” the thread that holds this matrix together is always woven into the shared identity as well as responsibility of all involved. (Redmond, 2010). A community cannot continue to exist through the will of withdrawn individuals who arms only embrace themselves and have no involvement whatsoever with neighbors one door away.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
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).
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.
The population of poor shanty towns are being encouraged by the government to move to the forested area. This once again means the felling of trees. You can work out that only 1 of
On the whole, I think that it is our moral obligation to protect the environment and its inhabitants. We must all contribute in protecting the nature. No matter how small or insignificant our actions may seem, they matter. It only takes 1 person to start a movement that could possibly lead to a major environmental breakthrough. Are you going to be that person?