The Value of Nature to Humans

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.

Paul Taylor approaches “respect for nature” as a moral attitude, meaning that if an individual is unable to comprehend the “meaning and conditions of applicability” of the attitude, they are also unable to have the attitude as a part of their “moral outlook” (Taylor 103). “Respect for nature” is defined by two essential concepts, the good of a being, and the concept of inherent worth.

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

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

It will influence the future generations to why we consider environment has been important, create opportunities for generation to come, a culture that can be passed on and sense of appreciation of such an experience (Singer, 2011). This point may not so readily apply to a wider consequentialist approach, which attributes intrinsic value not only to pleasure or satisfaction, but also to various objects and processes in the natural environment (Singer, 2011).

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

The sad injustice to nature is that man has forgotten the biotic connection between the natural world and humanity. Whether protecting nature is a spiritual experience or simply a means for survival, nature is as much a part of human life as the human themselves. The separation created by modern environmentalism between human and non-human entities can only be reunited if people learn to view life as a part of nature. The scary part about that thought, however, is will that be enough now? Only time can

Martin’s (1996) continuum is a useful tool which can be used to position an individual’s perspective of nature on a scale from one, seeing nature as an object, to five, seeing nature as a subject. At the low end of the scale, Martin describes a human-nature relationship where nature purely acts as a playground or gym for humans (Martin, 1996). This relationship type can be associated with anything where humans have a vantage point (Dyer & Gunnell, 1993), and can be seen within Christianity. The second lowest relationship outlined on the continuum is where humans begin to see nature as a beautiful and natural place. This view point of nature can primarily be connected to people viewing national parks as valuable storehouses and museums (Martin, 1996). From this stage of Martin’s (1996) continuum, it becomes identifiable that from this point onward, humans gain more respect, appreciation

Similar to Cronon’s Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature, Evernden discusses the concept of nature in today’s society and the impacts of mixing meanings of the term nature. Evernden begins by elaborating on the term nature and using the concept of nature to support contrasting ideas. The author continues by philosophically analyzing two questions about nature: What does the word nature mean? What is nature? Evernden then discusses several definitions and understandings of the term nature. A few of the definitions of nature mentioned are as follows: nature meaning kind; nature as a danger; nature as an assertion of relationships. He relates these concepts to the term phusis, and then goes into detail about the Greek origins

In the piece “Selling out on nature” (McCauley, 2006), Douglas J. McCauley describes how conservation efforts are fueled by the economic advantages it possesses and are carried out solely for the purpose of benefiting our economic markets. McCauley states that ecosystem services are “economic benefits provided by natural ecosystems” (27), arguing that the only incentive for mankind to save nature depends on how profitable nature can be. He emphasizes that our attention should not be put forth in commodifying nature but rather, inculcating respect and love for it so that we can preserve it for many years to come. I oppose McCauley’s argument because it’s impractical and unachievable. Humanity will

Similar to the ideas of Evernden and Cronon that are discussed above, Hinchliffe attempts to define, or redefine, the term “nature.” The author begins by identifying and defining three possible concepts of the term: nature as an independent state; nature as a dependent colony; and as a co-production. The first idea, nature as an independent state, means nature is something that is separate and in danger. The second, nature as a dependent colony, defines nature as an idea. The final concept, nature as a co-production, describes nature and society as intertwined.

The first thing comes to mind when discussing about nature is a pure sanctuary that is untouched, remote, and wild. The general perception will agree that nature is the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of earth, as opposed to humans or human creations. However, there is misconception with the definition. Nature is not merely a wilderness life and transcendent landscape. Are we human also nature? If yes, how do we fit in the scheme of nature? This same question challenges the perception about nature in general.

The people nowadays also abuse on what nature can provide to them. People are influenced by the western Culture, Man is more powerful and can have dominion over nature and that nature as they see become merely an instrument to satisfy human needs and wants. This kind of thinking or we can say attitude towards nature is called the “Anthropocentric Attitude”. Man reduce the value of nature as it is and it’s important because nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man and that the value of non-human things in nature is merely instrumental. An opposite thinking would be the Eastern Culture, for they value nature very well and they treat nature being one with them. This thinking or attitude is known as “Ecocentric

Nature as w e know it means different things to different people. To an economist, natural is often seen as a resource to be transformed and put in readiness for human use. An alternative view is that humans are stewards who should care for natural things as well as making use of nature’s bounty. Another view is that nature of animism, which sees nature as a living thing, something to be respected and not controlled. Some native American’s view the earth as a sacred place could be called animist. Another alternative view is that the entire planet earth is a self correcting system based on a symbiotic relationship between the earth and the living beings(Peacock,

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