Intrinsic Value in the Non-Human Natural World
When it comes to the question of non-human rights and the value of
nature, there are adamant advocates, those who completely disagree
with particular values and rights for the ecosystem, and those could
care less. For myself, I believe I have fallen somewhat in between
these extremes and have honestly never really considered the idea of
intrinsic value and certain rights for the non-human natural world.
Singer, Baxter, Steinbock and Callicott (with the words and ideas of
Leopold) each have very different ideas about animal rights and the
concept of the non-human natural world having a value by itself,
regardless of human interests. I will briefly go over the ideas of
Baxter and Callicott and add my own views to their ideas and my
thoughts on their respective points of view.
Baxter's focus and main idea in the essay "People or Penguins" is to
say that the only value the natural world has lies in regard to how it
benefits human interests. He says that only human interests should
determine our obligations to the environment. The human interests he
specifies include freedom, avoiding waste (not for the sake of the
environment, but for human's sake), regarding others as ends rather
than means, and the each person should have the opportunity and
incentive to improve his/her life. Baxter defends his views by saying
that people truly think in these terms; it's within human interests to
preserve the environment and what's good for us is good for them; only
humans can participate in collective policy decisions and it would be
nearly impossibly to appoint someone to represent animal interests and
...
... middle of paper ...
... is good for
them. It seems that despite entirely different focuses and ideas about
the rights and value of the biotic community, Baxter and Callicott
perhaps have a bit more in common than it may seem at first glance.
As far as my own personal opinion, I seem to fall somewhere in between
the views of Baxter and Callicott. Although I do believe that the
non-human natural world does have value aside from human interests, I
also think that it is nearly impossible to measure because it's
difficult to assess what would happen to the biotic community without
humans in it. Although it is pretty safe to assume that it would
probably go on in its normal manner, because humans have been proven
to destroy it, it is impossible to ever really know for sure. Perhaps
humans serve some function that has yet to have been identified.
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.
Thesis statement: Nature is not only for the human race, but it provides habitat to millions of organisms and human race is just one of the organisms,
In order words, Nature is beautiful in the more simple way, but at the same time if nature starts to recognize danger or the feeling of dying, she will defend herself. Humanity need the use of ethics and humility at the same time in order to have a good ecological environment. During “Thinking Like A Mountain” Leopold describes the intricate of a mountain’s biomes and the consequences of disturbing their ecological balances, describe specifically with a wolf and a deer. Leopold use the wolf and the deer as an example of how human treats nature. Referring to the wolf way of think, “he has not learned to think like a mountain” like humanity has not learned to think in the way that Mother Nature want us to think (140). Leopold describes how “a land, ethic, reflects the existence of an ecological conscience, and… Reflects a conviction of individual responsibility for the health of the land” giving an exact example by having a group A and a group B (258). Group A describes what one needs when on the other hand, group B “worries about a whole series of biotic side-issues” (259). By having this two groups being described, humanity today is like the group A, when one really need to change their way of mind and start to be like the group B. Society needs to use the ethics with humility in order to conserve the health of the natural
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.
I believe that nature and its natural resources are here for us to use, but the management of these resources should very careful and make sure that will have these resources forever. I also believe that people are not a separate part of the community. Leopold ideas sound better to me for example, we are part of the community, global issues (from his observation over the years), etc.
... our way when we are trying to do something such as deforestations. We should respect living creatures in our world because they have a life they should enjoy. People never want to see the dark side of an industry which is why society doesn’t seem to care or be informed. What this reminds me of personally is the show Scooby Doo which is about monsters and teenagers investigating them, trying to figure out what it is and at the end of every show it’s always a human which gives a powerful message because at the end of the day humans are the monsters, are we the monsters today? We need to open our eyes before it's too late. Life is valuable and we need to cherish every moment.
As the article says, Regan’s theory requires us to divide all living things into two categories. Firstly, those that have inherent value have the same basic rights that humans have and secondly those do not have inherent value have no moral right. Personally, I disagree quite strongly with this notion, I feel that all animals, including humans have a combination of inherent value and instrumental value and that this combination is largely dependent on where the animals lies on the food chain. I say food chain because I strongly disagree with using animals for other reasons such as for fur and carpets as I feel it is immoral to gain utility from animals for decorative purposes. For example, a human would have close to 100% inherent value and
Science has played a significant role in the development of society. Other world views, such as Hum...
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.
In environmental science, there are a set of terms that represent different ways one views his/her relationship with the environment. These terms, called value systems, describe a spectrum ranging from ecocentric, or highly valuing the environment, to technocentric, or valuing technological innovation over the natural environment. In the middle of the spectrum, is another perspective known as anthropocentrism, which describes one’s valuing of humans over the environment. As human civilization became the dominant species on earth, the environment became insignificant compared to the needs of civilization. The natural world became nothing more than a means to provide humans
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 natural conservancy is an organization that is out to conserve the lands and waters on which life depends on. In this paper, I will argue that the natural conservancy organization mission statement captures the true essence of environmentalism. The mission statement of the Nature Conservancy represents the true essence of environmentalism since it recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings while prioritizing the importance of protecting nature for future generations.