Roger Scruton 's View On The Environment Essay

“Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future.”

Speaking for human others can often lead to misunderstanding and harmful results. This can happen even when one believes that they are justified in doing so or believe their intentions are noble. The same harms can occur when speaking for a speechless being or inanimate object such as nature. In Jeffry L. Ramsey’s paper Speaking for Nature?, the author extends the argument of speaking for others as proposed by Linda Alcoff in her work titled The Problem of Speaking for Others to include nature. In this essay, I will reconstruct and explain the problems with two arguments that Ramsey voices concerns about and in doing so demonstrate how these concerns contribute to the ongoing debates about the future of the environment. Also, I will argue and show that ultimately Ramsey’s advice is impractical and does not solve the problem of speaking for others because the problem lies not in how one goes about speaking for nature, but in the very act of speaking for nature.

“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 relationship between humans and their environment is a topic that engenders much debate. Humans are intellectual. They can think, reason, feel and make deductions or hypothesis and seek to solve or prove their deductions or theories. The environment on the other hand is inanimate and exists by means of natural laws and principles that govern the universe. It cannot prevent man’s exploitations; it cannot take up arms and fight. However, in its own way, by natural laws, it makes efforts to purge and renew itself from the effects of man’s endeavors. Mangor (2002) argues that like the ocean that

Have you ever tried to help a friend out with a homework assignment without actually giving them the answer? Sometimes the answer is so black and white that is it written out explicitly on the page but, your friend can’t seem to understand. In the essay Our Unhealthy Future Under Environmentalism, John Berlau debates that conserving and preserving our environment is unnecessary and environmentalist should inexplicitly, take a chill pill. Berlau fails to see the negative impact on the environment that humans are the cause of. We are animals, however, as the only intellectual species with reasoning skills on the planet, we should have an added responsibility of preserving this earth for our future generations. Berlau’s essay provides a solid

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.

The article by Bambury echoes the scientists warning that human beings should stop destroying the environment citing that it will adversely affect their survival. The article states that humans are stewards of the planet Earth and if they destroy it, they will bring misery to themselves. Besides, the study criticizes humans terming them as a species that may phase out other forms of life out of the planet Earth.

The ethics of sustainability has become increasingly relevant as more and more countries acknowledge global climate change and the subsequent environmental crisis. Recent evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of environmental crises, including climate change, are caused and perpetuated by humans. Perhaps the silver lining to the fact that environmental crises are anthropogenic is that we, as a species, have the opportunity to control the problem by changing our behaviors. This paper explores different analyses and applications of Immanuel Kant and Aldo Leopold’s ethics regarding sustainability and personal obligation, and seeks to answer the question: what is the best way to foster a sense of environmental ethics and awareness in humans? I have concluded that perhaps the best way to protect the environment is for each person to take minute steps towards living a sustainable lifestyle. These steps, such as reducing trash or modifying our diets, are not time consuming or expensive and can be undertaken by anyone. Although these lifestyle changes may seem insignificant, if everyone reduced their trash output or ate less meat, there would be huge changes in our collective output. In order for this method to work, however, each person must first feel a moral responsibility to play his or her part in protecting the environment. In fact, a sense of personal responsibility may be the single most important factor in creating and implementing more sustainable practices.

In his article “The Big Lie: Human Restoration of Nature”, Katz argues ethical restoration is another example of anthropocentricism and is a wrong stance to take on environmental ethics. Katz makes two important claims; he declares that humans dominate nature, and he concludes that humans’ actions are artificial, so their

“We have been taught to measure, manage, exploit the environment, to make money off of it on the back ' s of others near and far. We 've been encouraged to ignore it, to stay out of its messy dirty places. To ignore it is to ignore ourselves, our bodies, our forces and our relationships"

As Theodore Roosevelt once said, “Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children’s children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.” This quote about protecting the environment is just as important now as it was when it was said, over a century ago. The quote also can be connected to the theme stories teach us about life, presented by Lisa Cron, in her novel Wired for Story: The Writer’s Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers from the Very First Sentence. In Carl Hiaasen novel, Scat, he uses characters to teach us about antagonists and protagonists,

We know that humans are dependent on nature and the environment. Human activities, such as conservation and resource management are influenced by the individual’s relationship with their environment. Human and environmental interactions are based on the individual’s environment and whether they view the environment as inherent or intrinsic. Tim Ingold describes this as “Thus the distinction between ourselves as beings within a world and as beings without it” (Ingold 20).

From the 18th century, when industrial revolution occurred and manipulation of nature in order to find resources for feeding industries and factories, as well as, production of pollutants and wastes, were increased, the issue of environment, as a result of this revolution, has gotten much attention. An enormous number of people are concerned about human’s operation on the environment and would like to do a task in favor of it. However, a question which comes to mind here is that, if individuals are able to control this issue themselves. In what follows, I am going to elaborate on my point of view regarding the fact that, the complication of environmental problems is at such a level that people could not manage them, solely.

Alongside of leaving us with his legacy of finding a cure for Polio, Jonas Salk has also left us with the introspective thought; “Our greatest responsibility is to be good ancestors.” Being a good ancestor goes beyond the passing down of knowledge and the securing of wealth for the financial future of our children. Their birthright must also include a viable and sustainable planet to coexist in. Moreover, the beauty of nature is a priceless facet of life which we cannot deny them. Despite being faced with a magnitude of environment warnings, many people are perfectly comfortable denying prevailing evidence and continue to place the well-being of our environment on the back burner even though we may very well be living on borrowed time.

Pollution is a growing concern for some people, but for others it is of no importance. The way humans treat the environment is such a controversial topic that people began to examine the topic from a moral standpoint, so much so that three approaches were developed. The Anthropocentric Approach, the Sentientist Approach, and the Biocentric Approach are the main theories people get examine when debating about environmental ethics. People who have an anthropocentric view believe that nature is there to satisfy human interests, harming the environment is only bad if it also harms humans. For example, cutting down a tree to build a house would be a positive thing because it is valuable to humans. However, if cutting down the tree did not bring about a positive outcome the action would be negative. William Baxter is one of the most vocal ethicist that strongly believe in the anthropocentric approach.