chidiebereol_3327145_PHIL375_Assignment_2_Five_Journal_Entries_Name_Chidiebere_Emmanuel_Oleh

.docx

School

Athabasca University, Athabasca *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

375

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by oleh1man

Name: Chidiebere Emmanuel Oleh School: Athabasca University Tutor: Wolfgang Blaine Assignment: Two Course: PHIL 375

Journal 1: In the Article, Peter Singer argued that non-human animals have the same right not to suffer as humans. In the article, he stated that to deny equal moral consideration to non-human animals is a form of prejudice which he said is Speciesism. He argues that the capacity to suffer is the key to determining our moral concern. The critical argument rests on ideas regarding non- discrimination, equality, and scope of interest. He argues that it is unjust that we exclude non- human animals from moral communities based on their species. He also presented that the desire to avoid suffering and experience pleasure is not limited to humans but non-human animals. Singer illustrated how the defenders of humans think prejudicially when selecting who should be chosen in the moral community. The capacity for suffering and pleasure in non-human animals, when recognized that, should be considered as human. He highlights the concept of interest, which includes the desire to avoid suffering and stay alive, as the basis for moral consideration. He further argues that the capacity for suffering is not unique to humans but also to non-human animals. Singer contends that this arbitrary exclusion of non-human animals from moral consideration is unjust and inconsistent with equal respect for interests. By failing to extend similar ethical care to non-human animals, we perpetuate a system where their interests are disregarded, and their suffering goes unrecognized. This exclusion is not based on any inherent characteristic or trait distinguishing humans from animals but on a biased and discriminatory belief system. Journal 3: Briefly characterize the dispute between White and Moncrief. What precisely is at issue? How different are their ideas in fact? Begin to sketch your own views on the extent to which Christianity is a root of the ecological crisis we face. The dispute between White and Moncrief was around the role of religion in how Christianity has contributed to and mitigated the ecological crisis. White argues that Christian doctrine emphasizes that human is over nature and that they have a negative effect on the environment. At the same time, Moncrief has a different view from White and argues that Christianity can provide a bright and positive aspect or view on environmental supervision. Moncrief recognized that they had been a situation where Christianity has been linked with environmental exploitation and argued that this is not inherited from the Christian teachings. "Stated that technology, urbanization, increasing individual wealth, and aggressive attitude towards nature seem to be related to the environmental crisis, which Christianity tradition has influenced the character of each of these forces. However, to isolate religious tradition as the historical root of our ecological crisis" is a bold affirmation for which there is little historical

proof or support" (Moncrief,2002, p.511). In the Article, Moncrief advised that Christianity tradition can be seen to promote ecological care. From my own view, Christianity can be seen in a separate way by non-Christians, or Chrisitan teaches itself. Looking at both arguments, I do understand their views and where they come from with their perspective. Whites' argument showed that Christianity teachings could be used as the basis for the exploitation of nature. Then this depends on how the person interprets the readings by stating that the argument does not mean at all Christianity as a whole is responsible for the ecological crisis. Like Moncrief stated that Soley blaming Christianity for the responsibility of the ecosystem could not be proven, some interpretations of the scriptures or theology can highlight that humans are more important than nature, which can be broken down as not caring for the ecosystem. In the same theology, Christianity can be interpreted as a protector of our ecosystem. Both scholars have different views on how Christianity has changed how humans treat the ecosystem, while White attributes the ecological crisis to Christianity's emphasis on human dominion over nature. "Stated that our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox Christian arrogance towards nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from them alone and the root of our problem is Soley on religion" (White,2002, p.1207). Moncrief argues that Christian teaches have affected the environment indirectly, which can be categorized from Christian tradition to Capitalism followed by Increased population to Environmental desertion, and there is no proof that religion is only directly affecting our ecosystem. In conclusion, while Christianity has been critiqued for its role in human exploitation of nature and the ecological crisis, there are varying interpretations and applications of Christianity that can either promote or inhibit ecological care and responsibility. Reference: W hite, Lynn, Jr. 2002. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. In Environmental ethics: Moncrief, Lewis W. 2002. The cultural basis of our environmental crisis. In Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Journal 4: How do you interpret Hughes' explanation of the more fundamental cause of the environmental crisis? What is his solution? It is not straightforward, so be careful to formulate his solution with some subtlety. Hughes explains more about the fundamental causes of the environmental crisis. He believes that a human community's relationship with the natural environment influences their knowledge and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help