Environmental Ethics - Research Paper Example

? Environmental Ethics s Today, human beings are at the very zenith of technology and we are stretching our limits every single day. There is no doubt that such vast invention, usage and abuse of technology used for progression of the human race is adversely affecting the environment. The affect is not limited to the environment alone and is in fact affecting us indirectly too. Numerous environmental problems have their roots embedded in human activities. Ethical issues arise since humans have had a negative impact on the surrounding environment which had in turn influenced the quality of life of all living beings on earth. “Ethics has something meaningful to do with the environment. It questions humanity's relationship to the environment, its understanding of and responsibility to nature, and its obligations to leave some of nature's resources to prosperity” (Pojman, 1997). These ethical questions are dealt as environmental ethics, a sub-discipline of philosophical science.” Environmental ethics is concerned with the moral relations that hold between humans and the natural world” (Taylor, 2011) and the ethical principles lays down the principles which direct human activities, responsibilities and other obligations to the natural around. Should we destroy invasive species? Should we destroy forest lands to build roads and medical centers? Should we exterminate wild plants to grow food for humans? These questions give us a good understanding as to what ethics are. To answer each of them appropriately it is essential to have knowledge about ethical theories. Traditionally, most ethical perspectives were anthropocentric in nature i.e. the value of human beings were of great importance while the role of other living things as well as nonliving ones were purely instrumental in nature, this makes up the Value theory. However, with the emergence and popularity of environmental ethics, the traditionally anthropocentric perspective has been met with criticism. Questions have been raised about the purpose of the assumed supremacy of the human race over all other living beings. The sole purpose of environmental ethics, “is to provide moral grounds for social policies aimed at protecting the earth’s environment and remedying environmental degradation” (Brennan & Lo, 2008). In spite of being a philosophy sub-discipline, environmental ethics is multi-disciplinary in nature and requires specific knowledge in biology, physics, law, psychology and philosophy. In the 21st century, environmental ethics has new perspective that is not human-centric at all and is known as Ecologism. Axiology of Environmental Ethics The Axiology approach is also known as the Value theory. Philosophers and environmentalists have long argued on the values to be assigned to the components of the biosphere. The axiological perspective comprises of three kinds – Anthropocentrism, Sentientism and Ecologism. The issue faced in the 21st century is the confusion whether or not to assign equal intrinsic values to humans, nonhuman living things and non-living things. The Anthropocentrism perspective puts humans’ above all living things as well as non-living things. If there is a pollution problem today, then according to this approach, the problem of pollution will only be identified as an ethical issue if it affects humans in any way. Sentientism approach is based on the measurement of pleasure and pain, but the perspective lacks in the sense that it is obviously not possible to judge the extent of either of the feelings in non-human living things. According to Ecologism, all living creatures as well as non-living entities such as mountains, rivers, seas etc should be assigned intrinsic value. Thus, the entire biosphere has high intrinsic value. Thus, any action for example destruction of forests is considered an ethical issue because even if the forests are destroyed for human advancement, it affects the habitats of wildlife. The intrinsic values of both humans and wildlife being at par, makes forest destruction an environmental ethical issue. The theory of environmental ethics is primarily based on three things- respect of natural entities, biocentric perspective and ethical norms. Firstly, the purpose code of environmental ethics in the 21st century calls for adoption of a respectful attitude for the natural surrounding world. Respecting nature sets the ground disposition for further ethical actions. Respecting nature means identifying the importance of each and every component of the biosphere and refraining from any activity which would harm these components.” To have the attitude of respect for nature is to regard the wild plants and animals of the Earth’s natural ecosystems as possessing inherent worth”(Taylor, 2011) Secondly, understanding the biocentric outlook means understanding the importance of nature and the relation between humans and all other components of the biosphere. Lastly, the ethical norms guide the actions pertaining to environmental issues. These norms are a list of do’s and don’ts that shape the entire ethical theory. Utilitarian Ethics as Environmental Ethics The traditional ethical view revolved around anthropocentrism. However new age utilitarian like Peter Singer base their argument on the fact that anthropocentrism is highly unjustified and that human actions should be planned keeping in mind all sentient beings including animals. The approach is also known as sentientism. The main focus of utilitarian ethics is based on creating a balance between pleasure and pain in all sentient beings; however unlike the philosophies put forward by environmentalists, plants and non-livings things plays an instrumental role. However, the utilitarian calculation of pleasure and pain is not good enough to comply with the environmental ethics. For example, if an elephant is killed for ivory, it produces pain for the elephant but pleasure for the humans which actually justifies the killing to an extent. Thus, utilitarian ethics cannot be called complete environmental ethics of the 21st century. Global warming as an Ethical Issue Global warming is one of the main concerns of the 21st century and is undoubtedly an ethical issue. It has been named a “moral storm.” This ”storm is absolute, comprehensive, inclusive, ultimate; there is an unprecedented convergence of complexities, natural and technological uncertainties, global and local interactions, difficult choices scientifically, ethically, politically and socially” (Rolston, 2007). Global warming has initiated a rapid climatic change throughout the world. The climatic change has not only affected the lives of humans and animals but has also affected almost everything ranging from rocks, soil and water to agriculture, forestry etc. Human actions have a lot of negative reactions like releasing carbon dioxide into the air thereby contributing to global warming. The developed countries are responsible for maximum emission of green house gases into the atmosphere but all countries are suffering equally owing to the climatic change. Thus, from an Ecologism point of view, global warming affects almost all things in Nature and hence is an environmental ethical problem. Deontological Approach The deontological approach is an extension of the environmental approach. It is based on the belief that actions must be judged as being either good or bad, without considering the outcome or the final result. Thus even if a bad action has a good outcome, the action become ethically incorrect, but a good action is ethically correct even if the outcome it brings is bad. This approach does not support issues like animal experimentation or hunting because the animals have an “intrinsic value” and humans are morally obliged to provide harmless treatment to these animals. However, experimentation and hunting-like events interferes with the rights of animals of being treated well and is therefore morally incorrect even if the outcomes of such experimentation could prove to be fruitful for humankind. Animal and Plant Rights One of the most important steps towards environmental ethics is conferring legal rights to animals and plant species. This point has been criticized and mocked by people who feel that rights should be given to people who understand the meaning of rights and can accurately exercise them. However, when we consider rights of children or the rights of the mentally challenged the aim of conferring rights to flora and fauna become clearer. These rights will help safe guard plants and animals against human actions because the legitimacy of the rights can be assessed and the detrimental actions maybe contained. For example the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 confers legal protection to those plants and animals which have been identified as being under threat or endangered. Thus, people wanting to harm these species would be legally obligated to refrain from inflicting any damage to the entities. In the same manner, laws against hunting or fishing do exist in particular areas aiming to safeguard a particular ecosystem from any damage. Dilemma over Ethics Environmental ethics provides an insight into the need of protecting fellow humans and other components of the biosphere against harmful human actions. However, in certain situations the conflict between human race and Nature cannot be completely ignored. For example if a forest patch is cut down to build a medical center, the action cannot be accurately tagged as either ethical or unethical. From the “respect for nature” approach, the wild plants and animals should have been left alone which portrays the action as unethical, but the same action becomes ethical when we consider the fulfillment of moral obligations towards fellow humans. Sustainable Model It is an aim of the present generation to create models such that the future generations have enough resources for survival. Overlooking the economic progress and prioritizing the environment, it becomes mandatory to create a “sustainable biosphere”. The quality of air, water, land and soil and the diversity among animal and plants species need to be conserved. “Achieving a sustainable biosphere is the single most important task facing humankind today” (Risser, Lubchenco,Levin, 1991). CONCLUSION In the 21st century, the multifaceted subject of environmental ethics is being characterized by the awareness and knowledge about the subject. It is important to first identify the challenges that we are facing today and compare them to ideal situations. Applying the various ethical theories and acknowledging the natural components as individual entities we will get a better understanding of the practicality of environmental ethics. REFERENCES Brennan, A., & Lo, Y. (2008). Environmental ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Pojman, L. P. (2001). Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Risser, Lubchenco, J., & Levin, S. (1991). Biological Research Priorities — A Sustainable Biosphere. BioScience, 47, 625-627. Rolston, H. (2007). The future of Environmental ethics. Teaching ethics, 1-27. Taylor, P. W. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Read More