Discussing Critically Religious and Secular Ethical Arguments About Environmental Issues
In his book, 'The End Of Nature', Bill McKibben highlights the fact that we are destroying the natural environment at an increasing rate, for our own short-term gain. Since the day that man created agriculture, and industrialisation to follow, the imbalance between man and nature has been growing[1/2]. This has been accompanied by a massive population increase, tripling in the twentieth century alone[3]. Human pressure on nature has never been so great. Such pressure has resulted in 'environmental issues', ranging from global warming and eutrophication, to the depletion of natural resources and an increase in
…show more content…
These are things such as the right to life, freedom of speech, and equality[4]. This tends to be where the unanimity of opinion ends, some may then consider animal rights, and more extremely, the 'rights' of non-sentient beings like plants, or even inanimate entities, such as rocks.
Views towards ecology on the basis of rights can be separated into 'deep ecology' and 'shallow ecology', distinguished by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess[5]. Quite broadly, shallow ecology dictates that only human beings have rights, other organisms and the environment itself do not. Deep ecology believes that this is not so, and that animals and the natural world do have rights. Shallow ecology is anthropocentric, maintaining that the environment should be handled in whichever way is most beneficial to humankind. No value is placed in the existence of non-human animals, other organisms, and the environment, further than their instrumental use to us.
Shallow ecologists would argue strongly against the idea of inanimate entities such as mountains and other ecosystems having 'rights' or 'interests'. However, regardless of whether the mountain itself is able to be 'interested' in its own continued existence, it sustains a great number
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments”, Thomas Hill explores the idea that those who would destroy natural environments may lack necessary human virtues. He lays out this idea through these claims:
William Cronan argues that Bill McKibben's view of nature and wilderness are flawed. In The End of Nature, Bill McKibben writes about the environmental problems plaguing the Earth today. In his view, humans today are controlling the atmosphere around them more than ever before. Our ancestors used to live in an environment which they could easily predict. Seasons came at the right time, winters were cold and summers were hot. Now, because of global warming, that predictability has all but disappeared. The climate has become erratic and violent. It is this point that Bill McKibben tries to get across; the idea that the nature we perceive in our minds will be gone forever. Nowhere does McKibben imply that humans should be considered to be separate from nature. In fact, most of the time, McKibben's arguments seem similar to that of William Cronan's. They both agree, for example, that we are currently changing the earth more than ever before and that we are losing the tenuous understanding that we had of the earth. They agree that we must take action, for the Earth
In a chilling recollection of mankind’s current misdeeds towards the environment in “The End of Nature,” McKibben’s call for action is one paramount to the survival of the human race. In essence, McKibben argues that the futures of both nature and ourselves are delicately yet undeniably interconnected. Furthermore, he urges that “we” (ALL humans) are the deciding chip in said bond. By doing so, McKibben implies that action must be situated if we are to expect any change in such bleak a situation. This argument can clearly be found when McKibben speaks out on a myriad of environmental issues in the past, present, and future. McKibben begins to accustom readers to a pattern in which human ignorance juts out from past environmental experiences.
Another problem that we may stumble upon would be relying on other people to be ecologically responsible instead of ourselves. We often believe that there are other people out there in the world who are making a difference and so we passively sit back and do nothing. However, we are all accountable for our own actions. Palmer (2015) is a man who worked around the world with people from every major religion from Daoism to Zoroastrianism. He has witnessed many religious environmental movements emerge and grow. He states that the basis of the environmental
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.
Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise,” said by none other, Aldo Leopold. In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold, an American environmentalist, brought a new idea to the environmentalist’s table: “land ethic.” His idea of a land ethic is a moral responsibility of humans to the natural Earth. Leopold’s idea has been discussed since the publication by a wide variety of people, from the public to scholars. Since
Is global warming a moral dilemma? Is it the public policy problem from hell? In "The Environmental Issue from Hell," Bill McKibben uses many of such phrases en route to arguing for a new approach to global warming. By discussing hell and morals, the reader’s mind is already equating it with two heavily debated issues. Therefore, we begin to question their existence and how we should deal with the subjects. McKibben wisely chooses these disputes to represent his main concerns: the ways in which consumerism affects the global ecosystem, and the impact of humans on the environment. McKibben presents a solution on how to handle each of these environmental issues, utilizing both the people and the government.
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.
Val Plumwood in her essay “Paths Beyond Human-Centeredness,” illustrates the impact that humans have on nature and non-animals when it comes to preserving environments. Understanding that nature has it’s living properties that let it thrive among its resources allows for people to grasp the complexities that come about when construction companies destroy the environment in which they work. Plumwood uses the term dualism to refer to the sharp distinction between two classes of individuals. There is the high class, which is considered as the “One.” In contrast, the other side of the division consists of individuals that are classified as lower and are subordinates to the “One” as “Others.” This account on dualism allows the reader to understand how humans can significantly alter the environment because of the way they perceive its resources and inhabitants. Plumwood defines five characteristics that illustrate the oppressive actions that change the connection between human relations and the relationship between humans and nature.
Christian voice is correcting them or proclaiming the biblical model of man’s relationship to nature which: is unique and superior to the dominant free-market and environmentalist models. . According to Gardner and Stern (1996), in that place are exclusive approaches that have power to be implemented in companionships search to defend the environment. One like approach may take a closer look at holy and regarding duties beliefs and the effects of these beliefs on the environment. The idea to create values and beliefs in environmental issues are important components of having a safer and enjoyable world for its people and the world they live in. Christian and non-Christian, at hand, must see the environment and the shortcoming of business by reason of a proper conversion to an act or purpose of and preservation of the wealth the planet has to support life. Christians as the Bible originate directing the eye to what has to be published by word force in reference to human natures dependence and bounden duty to the nature and its resources. As Christians we should do what ever it takes to make sure this earth glorify God. If we are careless about science and economics — not caring about how they work and what they describe, creation’s economy will suffer (Christians Research Institute).
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)
White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being
The connection between humans and nature is very weak. Due to future advancement we are basically losing our grip on reality, which brings up the point of destruction to nature that we are not aware of. At one point in time nature was the most beautiful thing you could ever witness. Now people exploit it for money. They are selling land, resources, even water for a profit. They don’t think twice or blink an eye at the damage they cause. The disconnect is so huge the debate of protecting the earth is treated as a forbidden topic. “Second, environmental injustices critics challenge the mainstream environmental idea of what environmental problems are in the first place. They say its focused on the beautiful outdoors, it has anti-urban bias, it isn’t engaged enough with artificial human environments like neighborhoods and workplaces” (Purdy 4) That just baffles me how you can turn the place we call home and the wellness of it to a political debate when all we should want to do is preserve it.
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