When faced with the issue of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we ought to use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston opposes this position and asserts his view that there are times when we ought to choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue in favor of Rolston’s argument and against those such as Singer, who strongly opposes the notion that preserving nature and allowing people to unnecessarily die is morally wrong. In reality there are many ways in which we can address the issue of global poverty without resorting to destroying natural ecosystems that we are dependent on.
In “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston asserts his belief that in some cases the issues of feeding people and saving nature are in direct conflict with each other, and a win-win outcome may not be possible. In these cases we must decide whether we ought to feed people by using the land and natural resources, or instead opt to save nature, allowing the poor to suffer. This argument is often framed in a manner such as “You wouldn’t let the Ethiopians starve to save some butterfly, would you?” (Pg. 504), Rolston criticizes this for being too simple of an analogy that does not fairly represent his argument. He emphasizes societies reliance on a healthy environment as it is essential to agriculture, and that the availability of clean water is essential, and tries to justify when and why the interests of nature should be paramount to those of feeding people, when a win-win outcome is not possible.
To support his moral argument for not helping the poor before nature he references a biblical quote in whi...
... middle of paper ...
...to be met while protecting the environment from severe degradation such as those that have ravaged the ecosystems and environment of Madagascar. Along with these as a society we must attempt to reduce our consumption of resources if we are going to be capable of sustain the growing population
Global poverty is an issue that must be dealt with in our world, and there are many contradicting views how we should solve the problem. Rolston argues that in theory some times we ought to put saving nature instead of feeding the hungry, however in looking at these issues in a practical setting, clearly the need to save nature and feeding people are not always directly in conflict with each other. By using methods of sustainable development, and other methods such as reducing our consumption we may in fact be able to feed people and save nature at the same time.
Peter Singer a philosopher and professor at Princeton University who wrote the essay titled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”, where he argues that wealthy people have a moral obligation to help provide to developing nation’s resources that would increase their standard of living and decrease death due to starvation, exposure, and preventable sicknesses. John Arthur’s essay argues that Singer says that all affluent people have a moral obligation to give their money to poor people to the extent that the wealthy person would be on the same level as the poor person, poor people have no positive right to our assistance, and wealthy people have a negative right to their property, which weighs against their obligation.
The first premise of his argument (P1) states Most people would agree with this premise, regardless of their specific reasoning. Connecting suffering and death to a lack of basic needs seems clear and its characterization as bad seems to be in alignment with our common sense. However, some might still object for reasons that would be challenging or impossible to refute. In spite of any such objections, the premise can be accepted and those who disagree should step away at this point.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
In his 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Poverty”, Peter Singer tackles what seems on the surface to be a fairly simple debacle. He opens his essay by discussing the lack of food, shelter, and medical care in East Bengal. It is a given that every human deserves, in the very least, food, a place to sleep, and basic medical care. Singer claims that the problems involving poverty around the world is not an inevitable problem. He alleges that if we all pitched in what we can, these problems could be abolished. But unfortunately many people do not want to give up what they have for the sake of others. For these people, Singer put forth his seemingly obvious argument. It goes as follows:
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 his 1968 essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, Garret Hardin addresses the problem with overpopulation and it’s eventual toll on our planet’s resources in a scenario where the individual interest clashes with the collective interest. Self-interest only serves the good of an individual while collective interest is meant to serve the good of everyone in the society. In his essay, he describes overpopulation as a tragedy of the commons because as population grows exponentially, resources only grow statically, and this will result in the depletion of our resources. When a resourc...
Owens, James (nd). Is Limiting the Population Growth a key Factor in Protecting the Global Environment.
Famine, Affluence, and Morality; Singer suggested, “we should prevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we had to sacrifice something morally significant” (C&M, 827). However, different philosophers and writers have criticized his view and the general idea to help the poor.
In this paper I will discuss the philosopher Onara O’Neill’s argument in “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems” and the philosopher Peter Singer’s argument in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Specifically, I will discuss O’Neill’s and Singer’s views on the hot topic of global famine. While Singer as a Utilitarian believes that we have an obligation to minimize suffering and pain around the world, O’Neill believes that famine relief must not be done out of duty in order to avoid using others as means and not as ends in themselves. In this paper I will argue that Peter Singer is correct and that it is our duty as fellow human beings to reduce pain and suffering wherever possible, regardless of intent. First I will present Peter Singer’s view that
In 1968, Garrett Hardin published his essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” in Science, in which he elaborated his theories for curtailing the overpopulation problem. The article is perhaps best known for Hardin’s definition of the “commons” as a shared, limited resource under limited (if any) regulation. In his essay, Hardin considered the right to breed as a commons and confronted the resulting problem of global overpopulation. Hardin believed in the inevitable exploitation of any commons, and therein lies the tragedy of commons: a commodity which is universally free and accessible will inexorably result in overutilization precisely beca...
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.
Hunger and Poverty During the course of this particular essay, I will prove to you many points. Maybe not to the extreme that it will change one’s thought processes on the subject of hunger and world poverty, but enough to form a distinction between moral obligation and moral capacity. What I will not mention is the fact that Peter Singer’s outdated material (1971), though thorough in the sense of supporting his view on hunger and world poverty as well as examining this school of thought, is unconvincing to say the least. As our recent past has shown us, using Somalia and Rwanda as models, no amount of money or time on earth can come between a civil war. Terrible things happen, innocent people are slain in the names of either freedom or captivity, and land is destroyed, burned by the flames of either righteousness or wrath. But placing the burden of attempting to heal these wounds on the “well off” is not only immoral in itself, it is crazy. To consider an act a moral obligation, it must have an end that fits within the realm of reason. If someone is obligated to do something, then the purpose of that action holds meaning, therefore making the act a meaningful act. A characteristic of a meaningful act is a justifiably important end, that is, an end that which holds a higher purpose than the action against the obligated act. One can argue, using history as an example, that ending world poverty and hunger is not a reasonable goal. Singer uses the term “mora...
One of the most complex issues in the world today concerns human population. The number of people living off the earth’s resources and stressing its ecosystem has doubled in just forty years. In 1960 there were 3 billion of us; today there are 6 billion. We have no idea what maximum number of people the earth will support. Therefore, the very first question that comes into people’s mind is that are there enough food for all of us in the future? There is no answer for that. Food shortage has become a serious problem among many countries around the world. There are many different reasons why people are starving all over the world. The lack of economic justice and water shortages are just merely two examples out of them all.
Ecologists formulate their scientific theories influenced by ethical values, and in turn, environmental ethicists value nature based on scientific theories. Darwinian evolutionary theory provides clear examples of these complex links, illustrating how these reciprocal relationships do not constitute a closed system, but are undetermined and open to the influences of two broader worlds: the sociocultural and the natural environment. On the one hand, the Darwinian conception of a common evolutionary origin and ecological connectedness has promoted a respect for all forms of life. On the other hand, the metaphors of struggle for existence and natural selection appear as problematic because they foist onto nature the Hobbesian model of a liberal state, a Malthusian model of the economy, and the productive practice of artificial selection, all of which reaffirm modern individualism and the profit motive that are at the roots of our current environmental crisis. These metaphors were included in the original definitions of ecology and environmental ethics by Haeckel and Leopold respectively, and are still pervasive among both ecologists and ethicists. To suppose that these Darwinian notions, derived from a modern-liberal worldview, are a fact of nature constitutes a misleading interpretation. Such supposition represents a serious impediment to our aim of transforming our relationship with the natural world in order to overcome the environmental crisis. To achieve a radical transformation in environmental ethics, we need a new vision of nature.
section, I will consider Paul Taylor’s, respect for nature argument to defend the natural conservancy organization mission statement. The argument goes as follows; Paul Taylor argues that all living organisms have inherent value, a good of their own. He says “I argue that, it is the good (well-being, welfare) of individual organisms, considered as entities having inherent worth, that determines our moral relations with the Earth’s wild communities of life.” (Taylor, 102) In these quotations, Taylor asserts the possibilities of a life-centered system through the working of two ideals. The first concept being that “good, well-being of individual organisms.” This ideal involves doing necessary actions for the well being of nature. This does not require one to take the action to make the nature feel good but the action that could be done to ensure the existence of it for today and for many years to come. An example of this would be to find and catch animals that are endangered in order to foster them in a well-ensured environment. Even though these animals that are kept in captivity will be miserable, it will ensure the existence of their spices as well as keeping the echo system in balance. Another example of this would be to saving a part of...