Environment has become an important subject in the 21st century; scientists have found that human activity has a big influence on all of the ecosystems contained on Earth. Our lifestyle damages the Earth, and we know that some of the harm done is irreversible. We started questioning our lifestyle and our behavior: were we taking the proper decisions when it comes to environment or the inhabitants of Earth? Did the humans take good decisions in the past, or should they try different methods? Even though one question always brings another, this essay will focus on a specific one: Should we, humans, act with a biocentric point of view or an anthropocentric point of view when it comes to huge environmental problems? This essay will defend the point of view that we should adopt a biocentric ethical view in today’s context by arguing that we have a moral duty towards the environment and all its inhabitants, also, nature and all its inhabitants have intrinsic value, and Bender's reasoning will be discussed.
Before any argumentation, definition of the words biocentrism and anthropocentrism will be given. First, biocentrism says that all living things on Earth have the same right to reach their goals in life, so they all have equal rights, and one species cannot oppress other species for their own benefit (Singer,281). However, anthropocentrism states that the human race is superior to all other species, so humans have the moral right to take advantage of other species and exploit nature as they want (Muir 190).
To start off, humans cannot take advantage from other species because they have a moral duty towards the environment and all living things. One of the theories that defends this opinion is Leopold’s Land Ethics. Leopold’s theo...
... middle of paper ...
...to the harm done to this person because we did not help him or her (Mieth17). In this case, if we do not help sentient organisms and we take all the possible resources away from them, we should consider that we harmed them and if so, we did not respect the principle of equal treatment. Therefore, we are not morally correct. Even though some species are not sentient, humans still need to consider them to have intrinsic value otherwise they will harm other sentient organisms.
To conclude, this text proves that humans should adopt a biocentric point of view in the 21st century because they have a moral duty towards the environment, all its inhabitants and because nonhumans living organisms have intrinsic value. The next decisions concerning environment and the shift in the environmental ethics will definitely change the portrait of our society in the next few years.
Perhaps the most important question moral philosophy can ask is: who or what is entitled to moral rights? When we discuss differing moral philosophies such as utilitarianism or deontology we do so with the underlying assumption that human beings are centric to the moral code. Should we assume this? Historically speaking humans have only been present on this planet for 100,000 years. The planet itself has been around 4.6 billion years, so the environment and animal life existed long before intelligent human life emerged. Why then, is morality generally accepted to be applied solely to humans? To answer this question I intend to discuss some of the basic tenets of morality, such as the moral community. What does membership in the moral community entail? Does not being a contributing member to the moral community mean that you are not entitled to moral consideration? The way humans deal with the topics of animal rights and environmentalism hinge upon the answer to these questions.
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.
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.
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
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.
There is no hesitation when it comes to whether humans impact the global environment. However, it is questioned in whether human’s ecological footprint is either negatively or positively impacting. In clear perspective, humans share from both sides and their ecological footprint is noted towards whether it will benefit or harm the environment around them. Topics such as overpopulation, pollution, biomagnification, and deforestation are all human impacted and can harm the environment, but some include benefits into helping the world around us with solutions to their problems.
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
Do our ethical intuitions correctly reflect our global environmental concerns? To start off this paper, I will investigate the anthropocentric-consequentialist approach to environmental ethics. Anthropocentrism meaning humans as the most important life form, and consequentialism meaning the morality of actions solely based on their consequences. Anthropocentric consequentialism
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Speciesists claim that this enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a higher moral status. This argument, like many other speciesist arguments, fails when “the argument from marginal cases” is applied. The argument from marginal cases argues that if we treat beings based on traits, such as rationality, we must then treat all beings of equal rationality the same.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
Each of us has our own opinion, our own personal view of the world that gives us a sense of right and wrong behavior. Our Environmental Worldview is our collective beliefs and values that gives us a sense of how the world works, their role in the environment, and right and wrong behavior towards the environment (Gillaspy, 2004). There are several worldviews concerning the environmental management of the Earth. Some of these worldviews are the Planetary Management Worldview which states that we are apart from the rest of the nature and we can manage nature to meet our increasing needs and wants. Next is Stewardship, we have an ethical responsibility to be caring managers or stewards of the Earth and lastly the Environmental Wisdom which believes
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.
...f with the rights of the planet and species not including humans. In other words, humans are of secondary importance to that of the natural world. There are two common views in this school of thought. The first is a weaker version that revolves around the phrase primus inter pares - first among equals – and the second version is a strong view in which environmentalists believe human are the cause of destruction. (Moseley).
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.