The Ethics For Respect For Nature

We, human beings feel distinctly unique, individual and most importantly, unmistakably superior due to our exclusive intelligence. This is why we, as a society, tend to look down on other types of life-forms, insect or animal, as they do not possess that desired intellect. Yet, Lewis Thomas, in his opinion essay “On Societies as Organisms”, argues that human society has much to learn from the communal accomplishment of other life-forms. The author effectively conveys this main idea through his use of analogy, enumeration of examples and through his level of language.

Paul Taylor also mentions about his attitude of respect for natural. He basically breaks it down into 4 components. Firstly, organisms have a relationship called interdependence; it means that organisms are mutually dependent on the relation to other organisms. For example, while animals inhale oxygen gas for aerobic respiration and exhale carbon dioxide as a metabolic waste, plants absorb carbon dioxide to form carbohydrates and release oxygen as an end product. The interdependence is very important for maintaining a healthy eco-system, since every organism has their own unique biological functions.

Growing up in Switzerland and Oregon, I learned that nature is greatly valued and it is necessary to respect the environment to prevent impending environmental collapse. Living in a society whose morals and ethics include

In a society where the concept of ‘self’ is removed and ‘selflessness’ is the moral good, the pursuit and attainment of personal happiness is evil. Individuals seeking happiness live a tortured existence; filled with persecution and guilt. “We, Equality 7-2521, were not happy in those years in the Home of the Students. It was not that the learning was too hard for us. It was that the learning was too easy. This is a great sin, to be born with a head which is too quick. It is not good to be different from our brothers, but it is evil to be superior to them. The Teachers told us so, and they frowned when they looked upon us.” (Rand 4) Equality 7-2521 struggles with the fact that he has attributes that set him aside from the rest of the collective. In a society of equals, there

Aldo Leopold laid the foundation for environmental awareness decades ahead of a “ecological conscience” (257). There have many pleas to reconnect humanity with nature since the release of Leopold’s cherished book. Intuition and reason tell us that living in harmony with our world is more than idealistic—the future of our planet depends on it. The desire for harmony is not new one. Humans have long time sought to live in peace. It is genuine feelings of love and

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

Perhaps we may say that there is an element of good even in mere living, provided that life is not excessively beset with troubles. Certainly most men, in their desire to keep alive, are prepared to face a great deal of suffering, as if finding in life itself a certain well-being and a natural sweetness. (Aristotle, Politics Book II)

Regarding one’s character traits whilst discussing ethics of nature can cause the arousal of many questions. Hill argues that people who essentially do not care for nature do not have certain traits compared to the traits of those who do care for nature. I find myself on the fence of this topic as I can see each side to this issue, however, I find myself mostly agreeing with Hill’s argument.

Why should moral agents regard wild living things in the natural world as possessing inherent worth? To answer this question we must first take into account the fact that, when rational, autonomous agents subscribe to the principles of moral consideration and intrinsic value and so conceive of wild living things as having that kind of worth, such agents are adopting a certain ultimate moral attitude toward the natural world. This is the attitude I call “respect for nature.” It parallels the attitude of respect for persons in human ethics. When we adopt the attitude of respect for persons as the proper (fitting, appropriate) attitude to take toward all persons as persons, we consider the fulfillment of the basic interests of each individual

In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor develops the following four elements of the biocentric outlook on nature:

If you asked a random person on the street “what is a good person?” or “what is the good life?” you would likely receive a different answer from everyone. These answers would be different because everyone has their own ideas and opinions of what the answers should be. For many, a good person is someone who lives a good life, is a Christian, or someone who helps other individuals. For some, a good person might be someone who puts others first and someone who is reliable. The same applies to the answers you would receive from “what is the good life?” Just like everyone had different opinions on what a good person is, they will also have different opinions on what the good life is. You might get answers ranging from spending time with one’s family to having a lot of money. These answers vary depending on the individuals values and world view. For some individuals this desire for money can cause them to act on it, driving them to steal in order to gain happiness. Bronk supports this idea by stating, “Our answers guide our actions, influence our decisions, and inspire our dreams” (2008, p.713). This paper will discuss how philosophers believe everyone should live and what kind of people we should be, what a good person is, what the good life is, and what the relationship between goodness and human reality is.

Understanding the “basic quality of life” is the key to understanding why one should sustain it. Similar to John Rawl's views in A Theory of Justice, moral persons have the right to primary goods. The goods that will be considered under this sustainability view will include but are not limited to are physical health, proper habitats, adequate water supply, and the continuity of nature. However, one critique of Rawl's view is in regards to those who are left out: children, cognitively impaired, and non-human beings. In order for Rawl's view of justice to fit within this concept of sustainability, the addition of species status will be implemented to the veil of ignorance. By adding species to the list of statuses, individuals may be more apt to favor principles regarding non-human, sentient beings. Another critique in Rawl's view is the lack of discussion of intrinsic value due to his

Anthropocentrism, a recurring theme in Stephen Jay Gould’s Nonmoral Nature essay, defines humans as the most important part of society. It is believed by many ethicists that the origin of anthropocentrism is in the story of Creation, in the book of Genesis. In the story of Creation, it is interpreted that humanity has power and importance above all other inhabitants of Earth, including nature. However, different attitudes toward anthropocentrism over time have allowed for the belief that anthropocentrism connects to facets of morality, where only humans are considered moral. If only humans are considered moral, then why do people continue to describe nature in terms of morality? This is a question that Gould attempts to answer in his essay as he expresses his concerns about how nature should not be defined and described in terms of morality, yet we continue to do so nonetheless. Gould uses rhetorical devices to argue that the self-centered aspect of humans causes anthropocentric descriptions of the occurrences in nature to justify the cruelty that transpires.

As you can imagine, there is much debate among environmental ethicists as to incorporate non-humans and environments into normative ethical considerations. Many of these debates contrast several ethical viewpoints that differ in regard to what things possess intrinsic value. In this course, an important contrast is between ethical

Ontological role: ‘all other things become useful and advantageous only by their use of’ the Form of the Good