Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The relationship between humans and wild animals
The Importance of Christian Ethics
The Importance of Christian Ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The relationship between humans and wild animals
In “Laudato Si” and “Deep Ecology” both Pope Francis and Devall and Sessions discuss what our duties to nature and the environment should be. Pope Francis’ views on throwaway culture, the relationship between humans and animals, and the common good helped me cultivate my view that while humans are higher than other creatures in the environment, these creatures must be respected for their own value. Furthermore, Devall and Sessions discussion of self-realization, biocentric equality, and the world’s intrinsic value further my prospective on the role nature should play in our society. I believe that our society is not environmentally just since we over utilize societies resources and do not fairly allocate them. Pope Francis argues that …show more content…
They take our relationship with the environment a step further than Pope Francis does as they want us to recognize that we are part of an organic whole. They assert, “For deep ecology, the study of our place in the Earth household includes the study of ourselves as part of the organic whole” (Devall and Sessions 118). This means that we must recognize that we are just one part of a greater whole. To do this we must unite both the human and the non-human …show more content…
This extends to systems as small as ponds, rivers, valleys, etc. Again I agree with the principal of the point that we should not alter ecosystems but I think they go too far in their claim. I believe that it is okay to remove smaller systems if it is for the betterment of mankind. The article I found on CNN talks about how lion fish have swarmed the east coast and are wiping out entire species. The article questions whether or not we should reduce these fish by eating them. This poses an interesting question to both our authors of whether or not we should sacrifice this fish to benefit the environment as a whole. I think that Pope Francis would promote limiting the population of lion fish and would be a strong proponent of using them as food. The lion fish is presenting a threat to human life as it already causing serious problems to fisherman in Florida. The article states; “In Florida, where lionfishes have massively disrupted the industry” (Monks 5). Due to this disturbance the pope would be okay with limiting their existence but I still do not think that he would promote their extinction since he says that God is the only being that can make that decision. Furthermore, these fish limit all other species access to integral ecology and the common good. This would provide additional reasoning for the Pope to agree with eating these lion
In the journal of Environmentalism as Religion, Paul H. Rubin discuss about how environmental is similar to religion. Rubin want everyone to know that the environment and religion are somehow similar in a way, which they both have belief system, creation stories and original sin.
Pope Francis, the 266th pope, spreads his kindness throughout the world through his humility and approachability. He travels the world, supporting the poor and unfortunate. Pope Francis has served as both archbishop and cardinal for more than 12 years. This definitely shows his dedication to follow God's teachings and spread it everywhere he can.
John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold all have moderately different views and ideas about the environment in terms of its worth, purpose, use and protection. At one extensively non-anthropocentric extreme, Muir’s views and ideas placed emphasis on protecting environmental areas as a moral obligation. That is to say, Muir believed that wilderness environments should be used for divine transcendence, spiritual contemplation, as a place for repenting sins and obtaining devotional healing, rather than being used for exploitative materialistic greed and destructive consumption, such as industrialism, mining, and lumbering. At the other extreme, anthropocentric, Pinchot views nature simply as natural resources. In other words, nature is explicitly
Pope Francis who's full name is Jorge Mario Bergoglio is currently the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church. Bergoglio was born on December 17, 1936 to Mario Jose Bergoglio and Regina Maria Sivori. Francis was the first Pope that has ever been from the Americas, since his birthplace was Buenos Aires, Argentina, so this makes him the first non-European Pope in over one thousand years. In this Pope’s childhood he overcame a serious and almost fatal problem. Francis had to have a lung removed at a young age caused by serious infection. After completing and graduating from high-school, Bergoglio enrolled in the University of Buenos Aires, where in time he had received a masters degree in chemistry and worked briefly as a chemical technician and nightclub bouncer before deciding to go to seminary. Bergoglio began his training at the Jesuit seminary of Villa Devoto and entered the society of Jesus in March 1958. He went on after studying at the seminary to attend the Philosophical and Theological Faculty of San Miguel, where he earned himself a degree in philosophy and a doctrine in th...
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
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.
For example, if the larger fish are removed than its prey begins to overpopulate, due to the lack of population control. The balance in the oceans is an urgent problem, with around 90% of predatory fish stocks depleted. The ripples can extend even further to land creatures like seagulls.
The Pope addresses the science of climate change. What does the scientific consensus tell us about climate change, its causes and consequences?
The lions habitat has been destroyed over the years because of humans destroying their land for farming and livestock. So their habitat is destroyed for our needs, but we need to remember that they were here before us and think were to grow our crops and livestock. When the lions hunt they use their habitat to hide in the high grass to kill their prey and since we are destroying it they can’t kill their prey so they are dying and now some can’t kill their prey they are dying and now there might be some increase of other animals dying because of disease. If we proceed to destroy their habitat they won’t have anymore of their land.
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.
Even though the Catholic social teaching ideology does not specially speak to environmental responsibility I think their view can be pertained to how we treat and care for the earth. For example, one who practices Catholic social teaching believe that an understanding of justice requires persons to be responsible for one another and to work together for common objectives (Class notes, 14). Pope John Paul II, a follower of Catholic social teaching, believed that this dedication to social justice not only helps the individual but also the common good (Class notes, 14). I consider that this belief relates to our obligation for being environmentally responsible because it benefits not only us as individuals but society as a whole and future generations to come. Taking care of the earth we live in sis doing what is best for the common
Unless the current situation improves, stocks of all organisms that are currently fished for food are predicted to collapse drastically by 2048 (WWF 2.) Briggs emphasizes that over-fishing “has induced population collapses in many species. So instead of having less than a hundred species at risk, as was the case some 30-40 years ago, there are now a thousand or more
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.