The Influence of Green Groups on the Policy of the United States
Abstract: This research examines the relationship between environmental groups and the policies of the United States. The United States political system has been historically anthropocen-tric, or human centered. Environmental groups have been attempting to change this to a biocentric or ecocentric viewpoint, which includes the rights of animals and the environment. These views are nature centered instead of human centered. This study will answer the question of whether these groups have been effective at altering United States policies.
This will be done through the study of views offered by both sides. Also, a survey will be used to determine whether congressmen views are consistent with environmentalist views. It will also present whether policy change has taken place, and if these changes have remained intact through the study of past congressional decisions.
Research Problem
1. Research Question
Have environmental groups' strategies been successful at altering the policies of the United States?
2. Rational for the Research
This research will help environmental groups to identify the effectiveness of their strategies. This is necessary for these groups to effectively alter the policies of the United States, which is one of the largest polluters in the world. If their strategies are ineffective then it will be necessary for them to reassess their methods. Without the use productive methods these groups will not be able to protect the environment. Animals, plants and the entire ecosystem must have the same protection as humans have. An ecocentric viewpoint establishes the right of the environment to have legal standing. This gives people the ability to defend the right of an animal to exist with the same rights as humans. Without this protection, people will be just as negatively affected as the environment. The earth must be thought of as a living organism, if one part is hurt then the whole planet will feel the effects. Unfortunately, business and governments take the stance that the earth is more like a machine.
That is, at times if a part is hurt it can be repaired, without it effecting the whole system.
Literature Review
The literature on environmental groups and their influence and activities is vast. Several themes concerning the groups' influence in changing United
States policy exist. The American Psychological Association has done studies on ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes (Thomas, 1994). Ecocentric values have arisen recently as environmental problems have come to the public's attention.
Anthropocentric values have existed much longer. They have become institutionalized into our political and economic system.
The movement toward environmental awareness arose in the political activism in the 60's. Although these values have recently been declining according to
Kysilko, David. “The Handwriting Debate." NASBE. National Association of State Boards of Education, Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Dec. 2013.
Wyckoff, Jason, and M.A Bertz. "The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? - By Gary L. Francione & Robert Garner." Journal of Applied Philosophy 28.4 (2011): 414-16. Print.
Feinberg, Joel. Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy "The Rights of Animals and Unborn Generations," Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980, 159-84. Essay.
The United States has earned the reputation of a rebellious country since its birth in the revolution against Britain. Over the course of history, Americans have repeatedly confronted oppression, both foreign and national, through various wars and rights movements. Unfortunately, when it comes to environmental issues the average American has grown increasingly complacent. With a renewed urgency, government is working to combat global warming, but lacks the necessary social backing. This social support could be supplied through a new environmental movement that differs from past efforts. Throughout American history there have been three categories of environmental movements: preservation, conservation, and modern reform, all of which have failed to bring a ubiquitous social change and substantial impact on the overall environmental health.
Animal rights are the privileges for all animals to live freely from any harm. There were
The animal rights movement is trying to get people to see exactly how animals have been treated. Most people see animal cruelty as “…unspeakable acts perpetrated by warped individuals mostly against dogs, cats, birds, and sometimes horses” (Munro, 512). Once seeing how countless animals have been treated, numerous people across the world are joining the cause to help these poor “nonhuman animals”. One reason that supports that animals deserve rights is that “non-human mammals over a year of age have mental capacities for memory, a sense of future, emotion, and self-awareness to a certain extent” (Dog˘an, 474). With this reasoning, animals have enough mental capacity to be considered subjects of life, and therefore deserve rights to support this thesis. Another reason states that “rights are defined in terms of capability of having interests” (Dog˘an, 481). Animals show an interest in living. As stated, “[a]nimals have a natural motive to live…[e]very day, they practice caution and care necessary to protect themselves. Their bodies are likewise structured for survival” (Dog˘an,
A right is a particular way of protecting interests, to say that an interest is protected by a right, is to say that interest is protected against being ignored or violated simple because this will benefit someone else. So what are animal rights? Animal rights is the idea that animals have the same rights as humans, to live free of suffrage, just as important as living individuals, and with the same moral status as humans. According to Doris Lin, an animal rights attorney and the Vice President of Legal Affairs for the Bear Education and Resource Group, “They have a right to be free of oppression, confinement, use and abuse by humans.” However, rights are not absolute in the sense that their protection has no exception. David DeGrazia, the author of many scholarly animal rights books dealing ethical and philosophical issues, explained that animal rights might be unfamiliar to most people because of the daily abuses and killing toward animals that are viewed as socially acceptable, and unconsciously ignored due to normal day-to-day activities and even festivals with animal killings for fun. (12) Animal abuses can be ranged from animal experimentations and testings...
These abilities allowed our forefathers to create the Constitution for the welfare of human beings then and future generations. And in recent years, human conscience has, also, established animal protection laws for their welfare. The only rights for humans from the Constitution of the United States that possibility apply and compare with animals would be: (1) personal security, not to be killed, injured or abused and (2) moving freely
Williams, Joy. “Do Creatures Have The Same Rights That We Do?” Harper’s Magazine. 1997. 6 May 2002.
“The modern form of the word environment comes from an older word that we hardly use anymore: environ, to surround, to form a ring around, to encircle” (Stoll 3). The meaning of the word environment did not become a major factor in the lives of humanity until 1945. The tragic events that led to the end of World War II sparked a chief movement in history: American Environmentalism. Global decision-making changed as well as human unity due to the mere purpose that fate of all people and the environment became intertwined (Stoll 1). I will further discuss the dramatic attempts made by some Americans to bring the importance of preserving our environment to the surface to show if and how we have evolved.
The rights of Animals argument by John Feinberg is a very interesting argument as is pertains to the idea of if animals have rights or do not have rights. Feinberg argues his ultimate message which is that animals do have interests and we can’t prevent all harm, but we can take their interests into account and prevent willfully inflicted harm. He also asserts that principles of an enlightened conscience determine moral rights.
“Animals with rights must be treated as ends in themselves, they should not be treated by others as means to achieve their ends.” (Francione) An idea opposing to Immanuel Kant’s beliefs. Animals are apart of the moral community, their intrinsic worth justifies this, and causes for certain rights to be established to uphold their worth within the community. To not respect the welfare of nonhuman animals, and to provide special treatment for humans, goes against Peter Singer’s ideas for a harmonious community, and instead showcases speciesism. The established thought that has been shown through the ages that certain races are more superb than others is the continuous downfall of nations and inhibits progression.
... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.
Animals will have rights when they have the means to enforce them. They don't have the ability to reason as humans do. The human race has such a vast understanding of the necessities for all of the different species of animals to exist. Humans are far superior to any other animal because they are so advanced in technology. One advantage of advanced technology is, humans can store information as reference material. With all of this reference material humans can look back at previous mistakes so they don't do the same thing again. With this knowledge, humans can see and predict outcomes before a choice is made. Humans have the knowledge to enforce their rights, something no other animal has.
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.