Man Has No Responsibility to the Environment
Since the 1960s, questions concerning environmental ethics have loomed large in the public awareness. At the heart of all of these questions is one single issue that has caused confusion among many people involved in this controversy. There has been much debate on this issue, but little has been fruitful, and this can in part be blamed on the fact that the debate is of a particularly low quality. Much of it has been of the name-calling, conclusion-with-no-justification-spewing variety. The central problem with the environmental debate is that the debaters engaged in attempting to provide solutions to these issues do not agree on the humanity's place in the natural order. Rather than dealing with this core issue, however, the debaters debate only on incidental issues which proceed directly from the central problem.
This central question is "How shall we relate to, or deal with, the environment?" Environmentalists frequently answer that we should, in some sense, live in harmony with nature, or respect the rights of natural beings, such as trees, birds, mountains, and rivers. In this essay, I present an opposing viewpoint: I propose that there are no moral obligations which direct how "humans" should deal with the environment, because the concept "human" is an arbitrary class with no real meaning.
The problem with this environmentalist viewpoint is that the presupposition that there is some radical difference between humans and other animals is inherent in the position. Environmentalists suppose that there is something that puts us in a privileged position compared to the rest of nature. In fact, there is not. Humans have the same drives as other animals. In this respect, a...
... middle of paper ...
...definition of "humanity" have to do with how "humanity" should relate to the environment?
The answer is that there is no particular set of rules that "humanity" should follow in relating to the environment. Certainly, there are some things that would be "good" for "humanity," and other things that would be "bad," depending upon how you define these concepts of "good," "bad," and "humanity." And certainly, some things would be better for the ecosystem than others, depending upon how you define the "good of the ecosystem." But it is impossible to argue that "humanity" should be responsible for shepherding the ecosystem, or for staying in a certain place in the ecosystem, because there is no natural and proper place for "humanity" -- "humanity" is an illusion, an arbitrary group of "animals." There are no moral considerations that apply to "humanity" as a whole.
Kohak, Erazim V. "Part II." The Green Halo: a Bird's-eye View of Ecological Ethics. Chicago,
J. Baird Callicott is probably most famously known as an advocate for Aldo Leopold's The Land Ethic (1949.) The Land Ethic is an environmental ethic which Callicot strongly posits is a holistic and non-anthropocentric ethical theory. In other words, The Land Ethic should, if Callicotts position is correct, be an ethical theory that places collectives, as opposed to just individual living things, as having intrinsic value. It should also be an ethical theory that does not focus on, or allow, Homo sapiens to be considered the only “things” as having moral significance. The Land Ethic, originally sketched out by Leopold is a very concise, yet intricate, piece of literature and Callicott has written many pieces of literature which attempt to explain, unfold, apply and defend Leopold's Land Ethic. The purpose of this essay is to, as clearly and precisely as possible, provide an explanation as to what The Land Ethic consists of, with both references to Leopold and several of Callicot's literatures. Following this an identification of any problems that can be extracted from the theory will then be juxtaposed with Callicott's attempt to defend The Land Ethic and remedy these issues. Finally, after the presentation and analysis of The Land Ethic a decision will be made as to whether The Land Ethic is, what Callicott claims, truly an adequate non-anthropocentric environmental ethic.
at the end of the 19th century. In addition of that there was only an
the end of the Second World War. The play is set in 1912, just before
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
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.
I have decided to stage a section of the play from where Eric says "He
The environment in America today is far from Eden, but there is a valiant battle being fought by many to return the earth to a more "natural" state. Green and clean is the preferred vision of the future1. This trend towards environmental awareness, or environmentalism, is a prominent theme in today’s American society. Politics, industry, marketing, and media all use the environment as a means to sell themselves. With such a high profile, it seems almost unbelievable that there was a time when the word environment was little known or not used. However, the period was not so long ago. Even before World War II nature was referred to as wilderness and wilderness existed to serve humans2. The shift from nature existing to serve humans to humans protecting the environment was not a very complex project, but rather one of many small influences and their resulting effects. Hence, the rise of environmentalism in American society is the result of gradual social changes, which created a shift in social values.
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
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.
One pivotal point regarding the debate on environmental ethics and the course humans should take is regarding future generations. How do the actions we take today impact those who inherit this planet after us? Some people argue that we do not inherit this world from our parents, but rather borrow it from our future children. Regarding the text Sustainability and Responsibility to the Future, several different viewpoints are offered regarding both sides of the ethics of environmentalism.
When we think of environmental justice, we often focus on the ecosystem in which we as humans live, and the natural resources and non-human animals that live there. We tend to think about ethical uses of natural resources, and the effects it has on the non-human animals, such as animal rights, endangerment and extinction, loss of habitat, deforestation, erosion, and pollution. Environmental justice is another factor that is concerned with environmental protection and social justice, including humans into the mix of the complex ecosystem. Environmental justice considers the fair and equal distribution of cost and benefits between humans and the natural world. (1) Environmental justice is also defined as the fair treatment of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income and no particular group should have to bear more than their fair share of the burden of negative environmental consequences from industrial pollution or
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.
... 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.
One explanation for the cause of the Second World War, was the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty weakened Germany so much that eventually, the outbreak of war became inevitable. The Treaty of Versailles enforced conditions upon the German people. “The Versailles proposal called for Germany to admit guilt, give up territory, and disarm its military. Germany’s Saar and Rhineland districts were to be placed under Allied occupation for fifteen years … All of Germany’s overseas possessions were to be occupied by the Allies and organized as “mandates,” under the supervision and control of a newly-formed League of Nations. … The German army was limited to 100, 000 men … Germany was prohibited from uniting with Austria … No German air force would be permitted. … The Germans would also have to pay for the damages caused by the war” [2]. France becam...