The ethical argument at the core of Pope Francis’ most recent encyclical insists on the protection, preservation, and just treatment of the environment. The Pope’s argument is centred around the intrinsic worth of all life, and its implications are very relevant to our current situation and its complexity. In Laudato Si’: On care for our common home, Francis provides context, explanation, and suggested action as he discusses the social, cultural, spiritual and physical causes and symptoms of the crisis that we are facing today. Francis’ perspective on the science behind environmental issues agrees with the general consensus of the majority of modern scientists. His outline in Chapter 1 of issues such as deforestation, loss of species diversity, and water supply is concise, clear, and presented as fact. He celebrates the activists and leaders who have been stepping forward in the name of our environment. Francis not only cites Catholic bishops and leaders from around the world, but references a wide variety of spiritual and religious figures to back up his claims. Furthermore, his appeal is not only addressed to the Catholic church; it is addressed to all people, and he reiterates this throughout his writings. This suggests inclusion, acceptance, and open-mindedness on the part of the Pope, and has made …show more content…
He emphasizes social justice as relevant to the discussion, saying “the gravest effects of all attacks on the environment are suffered by the poorest”. He mentions that this is due to the fact that those in power are so far removed from those who are the “excluded” of our society. This, he elaborates, exists on an international level as well, as developing countries are exploited by more powerful countries economically and otherwise, which has also drastically contributed to the climate crisis. This mentality of separation, superiority, and dominion is manifested in countless
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.
Sorrell, Roger D. Saint Francis of Assisi and Nature: Tradition and Innovation in Western Christian Attitudes toward the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
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.
The two essays by Michael Pollan and Curtis white talk about climate change in regards to the relationship between the environment and human beings. Although the two essays share the same topic, they take the subject and engage the readers in totally different points of views. Pollan’s essay talks about global and ecological responsibility being a personal virtue while Curtis discusses the socio-economic or political issues underlying sustainability (Pollan; White). These two essays are very different in terms of voice; however these pieces of writing are both important for people all over the world to read. Climate change and environmental disasters are a real issue. Just this year, there have been more storms, cyclones, earthquakes and typhoons all over the world. One cannot look at the state of many developing counties where the majority of the population is exposed and vulnerable to the effects of climate change. This issue on developing a viable solution for the problem of anthropogenic gases and global warming is long from being found. Not only this, many people do not want to hear about this issue since they do not think it is real. Unless people have tangible proof that their cars, thermostats and aerosol cans are contributing to climate change, they are not going to give up their lifestyles. By synthesizing the two essays, one can see that there is a need for change and that it is not an issue which should be dealt with in terms of ecological factors or even personal virtue. The social, economic and political factors affecting this problem and the move towards real sustainability should also be a topic that will raise awareness.
In his lecture Living in the End Times, Slavoj Zizek analyzes a few of the major issues that our modern-day society faces. He believes in the power of radical solutions. However, beginning with setting aside profoundly political discussions about socioeconomic theories, many of the ideas he provides can be linked to a more fundamental issue: the existence of man and his relationship towards his environment. From a historical point of view, the ecological crisis affecting our world is now more severe than ever before. There is a growing concern about the increasing dissipation of earthly resources, and about the devastating effects of climate change on our atmosphere.
Environmental stewardship is often view as the sole province of left-wing secular political thought. To extend this stereotype, it is often presumed that explicit care for the environment stands in opposition to principles of Christian thought, or worse, that Christian theology is one under which the exploitation or destruction of the environment is advocated. This is dangerous thinking which diminishes the true message and potential for environmental reform Christian doctrine provides. This work will argue that Christianity offers a strong means by which faith can be exercised in the service of environmental restoration. Once this imperative has been shown, Christian environmental actions can take regarding the environment will be explored.
Hanna Monahan 10/23/14 Theology Pope Francis called the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which was held in Vatican City from October 5-19, 2014, on the topic of "Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization". Pope Paul VI established the first Synod of bishops on September 15, 1965 in an attempt to make greater use of the bishops’ assistance in providing for the good of the Universal Church. Pope Francis had many reasons for calling the Synod. There were many issues that were discussed and debated during the Synod. As with any hierarchy, there is controversy and politics involved throughout the decision making process.
According to Pope Francis, author of the well-known papal encyclical letter Laudato Si’, mankind has a tendency to think of the environment as an unlimited, ever-evolving aspect of our world that is simply to say not so. Hurricanes, droughts, the rise in sea levels, earthquakes, the rise in temperatures, melting ice caps, and thunderstorms are all currently ongoing all over the world, yet in our hierarchy of government we have barely begun to take the initiative to stop such events from happening or at least decrease the amount of damage that it causes. We as humans have failed to understand the basic needs of nature and the environment all around us. In the passages from §183 and §186, Francis talks about ways in which governments ought to handle the fast-changing patterns of the environment. First things first he says that “We need to stop thinking in terms of ‘interventions’ to save the environment in [favor] of policies developed and debated by all interested parties” (Francis, §183, §186).
Climate change is the main topic of this Encyclical. Climate change is portrayed in a way that reflects the current scientific consensus today. Hans Joachim Schellenhuber, a leading climate scientist, was a scientific adviser to the Pope while writing Laudato Si’.
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.
Saint Francis of Assisi had a simple message to all in his time and in ours; live a life of humble simplicity in service to others to the glory of God. He came from a background of wealth and privilege yet put it behind him for the privilege of serving God and all His creation. To Francis everything sang out in praise to God; every person, plant, and bird to which he compelled us to be good stewards of the earth and its resources. He conveyed the truth of God’s love for us and all of creation and led by his example of service.
These are conflict, poverty, instability, migration, unrest, collapse, capacity, and dependency. This film serves as a wakeup call to the audience because climate change is a very critical problem that people should address as soon as possible. It also explicitly shows that climate change is in fact in our midst and is not just a myth or a theory as some would say.
God has not abandoned the world. It is His will that His design and our hope for it will be realized through our co-operation in restoring its original harmony. In our own time we are witnessing a growth of an ecological awareness which needs to be encouraged, so that it will lead to practical programs and initiatives. An awareness of the relationship between God and humankind brings a fuller sense of the importance of the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, which is God's creation and which God entrusted to us to guard with wisdom and love (cf.
“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.
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.