Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics

Drawing on animal rights claims, the questionable moral status of animals and the land ethic, this essay seeks to argue that zoos; a place in which wild animal’s are held in captivity, are inherently unethical, because they violate the ethical and moral standard in which animals have a claim to. Citing experts in the animal ethics field, this essay will be supported by firstly establishing that animals do in fact have “animal rights” and similarly, that they have a claim to a moral status relative to that of humans. Following this, this essay will show that the animal rights, which zoo animals are privy to, allows us to set an ethical standard on which humans have a duty to treat animals, especially when held in captivity. Analyzing this ethical standard with which me must treat zoo animals, we can deduce that zoos are in fact not ethical in nature and in practice.

In “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”, William F Baxter argues the idea that we should take care of the environment only when doing so is in the best interest of mankind. Baxter argues this from an anthropocentric prosperity perspective. Baxter supports his claim by beginning his essay with four reasons for his anthropocentric preference, but his reasons only serve to influence solutions to issues that pertain to human organization. The goals work to benefit humans and completely leave out the ideas that animals have a right to live or that other parts of nature should remain undisturbed. William F Baxter tell us, “I reject the idea that there is a ‘right’ or ‘morally correct’ state of nature to which we should return” and that “The word ‘nature” has no normative connation” (Baxter, 1974, 383).

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

To keep our environment healthy, all these element need to work together. There are no global laws protecting the environment and that is why everyone should practice good ethics when it comes to the environment. Environmental ethics is the part of environment philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from only including hum and to non-humans. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. Humans are been considered of rational agents because they have clear preference, models uncertainty via expected values, and always to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome of itself. The action of the rational agent performs depends on the

William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the

While environmental questions are frequently channeled through practical and economic prisms, it is also appropriate to consider our econolgy as a function of morality. The ethical dilemmas which contribute to our policies and our behaviors regarding the use of fossil fuels and our attention to global climate change are frequently overshadowed by more immediate concerns of survival or mere comfort.

In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.

Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy.

The evolution of the universe and our behaviour throughout history. I will set out to consider Laura Moriarty: Plateau (2011) and Mary Mattingly: Pull detail, (2013) in relation to “Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene,” Joanna Zylinska, (2014). I will consider our human responsibility for the world and show the changes and composition of life through human relations and ethic towards the universe. And can we re-evaluate our minimal ethics, while there’s still time for changes.

Humans have always had a complicated relationship with non-human animals. This relationship has always benefitted the needs of humans, with little consideration for animals’ needs. Some animals are tortured for entertainment, some are butchered for food and others are taken from their habitat and family, and forced to be pets for humans. These are all examples of the ways humans have exploited animals for their own satisfaction. Hal Herzog’s essay “Animals Like Us” describes the complicated relationship that humans and animals have, and how difficult it is to determine what is ethical when dealing with animals. Jonathan Safran Foer makes a similar observation in his essay “The Fruits of Family Trees” of the ethical issues in the

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)

DesJardins, J. R. (2013). Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical