Perceptions Regarding Prevailing Environmental Ethics - Literature review Example

Assignment Cover Sheet College of xxx School of xxxxxx Student name: Student number: Unit name and number: Tutorial group: Tutorial day and time: Lecturer/Tutor: Title of assignment: Length: Date due: Date submitted: Campus enrolment: Declaration:  I hold a copy of this assignment if the original is lost or damaged.  I hereby certify that no part of this assignment or product has been copied from any other student’s work or from any other source except where due acknowledgement is made in the assignment.  No part of the assignment/product has been written/produced for me by any other person except where collaboration has been authorised by the subject lecturer/tutor concerned  I am aware that this work may be reproduced and submitted to plagiarism detection software programs for the purpose of detecting possible plagiarism (which may retain a copy on its database for future plagiarism checking) Signature:______________________________________ Introduction When the Self-Other- System (SOS) model is considered, one gets the impression that environmental ethics should provide a sketch of how humans should act or live. For example, one would expect that environmental ethics would have the answers to what kind of systems people should be setting for purposes of environmental decision-making; in what state should the current generation leave the world in for later generations; and what values should people balance and reasons why balancing such values is necessary. Unfortunately, environmental ethics does not always have all the right answers. This is especially the case because unlike scientific concepts that have specific formulas to problem solving, environmental ethics is largely a theoretical concept whose answers to some of the above identified questions are debatable. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part will explore the link between nature of worldviews and environmental ethics and how they impact on decision making. The second part of the other hand will explore the environmental worldviews and ethics as they manifest themselves for the writer and his/her community in the context of sustainable urban development. The third and final part will identify how the writer needs to change his worldviews or ethics in order to facilitate change in others. Worldviews, environmental ethics and their impact decision making /current approaches development concept The self as represented in the SOS model is best reflected in world views, which “consists of an individual’s basic values, general ideas about human beings, nature and the universe, entwined with a basic mood such as optimism or pessimism” (International Atomic Agency, 2002, p. 4). Environmental ethics on the other hand are the scholarly reflections of norms and values that should be followed by a community or the society at large (ibid.). An individual’s decision-making regarding specific environmental issues can thus be said to be formed by their awareness, understanding of the natural world and their experience in the same. Additionally, their perceptions regarding prevailing environmental ethics also shapes how they chose to engage in environment related decision-making. Usually, the decisions are based on whether the self is convinced that an issue has moral standing or not. As indicated by Mendenhall (2009, p. 35), the success of a specific system of environmental ethics depends on whether it is “both internally consistent and widely acceptable”. This view by Mendenhall brings to the fore the second aspects of the SOS model, i.e. others. By stating that an ethics systems need to be internally consistent, Mendenhall (2009, p. 35) is indirectly referring to the idea that the system needs to make sense to the self. Additionally, the author’s view that the system needs to be widely acceptable is an acknowledgement that most systems need the acceptance and support of communities and the larger society in order to succeed. It is worth noting that environmental ethics is largely a development occasioned by people’s need to establish what has moral standing in their respective communities or societies. As International Atomic Agency (2002, p. 4) notes however, even the seemingly outright question of identifying what has moral standing does not always have specific answers. For example, the divergent positions held by people regarding environmental ethics have generated two differing concepts namely “anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism” (ibid.). Anthropocentrisms is founded on the belief that environmental protection is necessary only to the extent to which it affects people. In other words, those who subscribe to the anthropocentrism thought believe that environmental protection is necessary and justified for purposes of protecting human interests. The non-anthropocentrism advocates on the other hand hold the view that environmental protection should not just be justified on human-based interest only; rather, they believe that environmental ethics should be life-centred, hence including all species, landscapes and ecosystems on earth (International Atomic Agency, 2002, p. 5). According to Mendenhall (2009, p. 37), the weak-link in the latter thought is that it does not enjoy public appeal. In other words, most humans base their environment-related decisions based on what generates value for them. While the non-anthropocentric approach may appear like the best choice in paper, many people feel that it is “too radical and contrary to commonsense” (Mendenhall, 2009, p. 38). In Australia, and as has been noted by Harding (2005, p. 164), anthropocentric thought is dominant , and is reflected in the emphasis placed on high consumption rates, and high output of energy and other raw materials attained from natural resources. In other words, the decision-making in Australia is predominantly human-centred and has little or no emphasis on the prudent stewardship of natural systems or the earth itself. Notably, the current approach to the concept of development in Australia is reflection of what individuals (i.e. the self), the society (i.e. others) and the system (i.e. the prevailing political and environmental systems) consider important for the social and economic well-being of the country (Harding, 2005). For example, it is generally accepted that coal mining, despite its negative effects on the environment is key revenue–generation avenue for the country. To ensure that human-interests are protected and any possible risks evaluated, Harding observes that the Australian government with other key stakeholders now require a formal process whereby environmental impact assessment (EIA) is carried out, and the precautionary principle incorporated in matters pertaining to environmental decision-making. Overall, even the EIA and the application of the precautionary principle all seem to indicate that the decision-making in Australia regarding past and present development concepts is informed by humans need to serve their interests in the short-term, and in the not-so-long a future. As Mendenhall (2009, p. 39) observes, “It is probably impossible to escape a human-centred ethic to guide our decision-making”. In other words, human beings whether individually, or as part of a larger social entity, have a human-centred ethic that is subjective, which affects their perceptions and directs or shapes their actions. The human decision-making is thus guided by the self-preservation instincts that make people to value themselves above anything else in the world. Through attaching value to self, human beings (individually and collectively) are increasingly making decisions that touch on environmental ethics especially because they realise that the combined evils of global warming and climate change have taken or are taking the world’s environment to a point-of-no-return. In other words, decision-making is to a great extent informed by the notion that if individuals, societies and/or governments do not act now, the chance to reverse or even slow environmental degradation will be lost forever. Essentially, this would mean that humankind would have failed miserably at protecting its own interests. Environmental worldviews and ethics as they manifest urban development in my city (***) This part will start by acknowledging that people generally believe that specific human behaviours cause or have the potential to cause damage to the environment. Additionally, the writer will assume that there is some sort of agreement among communities about the type of behaviours that are harmful or have potential harm for the environment. For example, it is generally accepted that logging will damage the environment in multiple ways which include encouraging soil erosion and displacing ecosystems among other negative effects. In the same light, and especially in the context of urban development, this writer assumes that that people living in urban areas would generally decry careless disposal of waste, the wanton destruction of forests as the government and other development partners create room for human habitation, and water and air pollution among other negative environmental practices. While exploring the issue of environmental ethics and worldviews, Norton (1984, p. 328) found the concept of what defines human interests useful. Specifically, Norton (1984, p. 328) observes that human beings respond to either felt preferences (i.e. “any desire or need of a human individual that can be sated by some specifiable experience of that individual” or a considered preference (i.e. “any desire or need that a human individual would express after careful deliberation...”. The latter involves careful deliberation, and an individual may need to consider factors within his knowledge, e.g. scientific theories or moral principles. Additionally, the considered preference involves the desire by the individual to be consistent with prevailing worldviews, hence the reasons why people refer to existing knowledge resources before making decisions. According to Norton (1984, p. 328) interests constructed from felt preference are usually protected from criticism and/or objection. In relation to sustainable development of cities for example, felt preferences would indicate that people need more accommodation in urban areas. This is informed by a basic human need to have shelter. If the government would base its judgement on whether to expand residential estates in and around existing cities by relying on the felt preferences of individuals, there is little doubt that the need for further development would be the case. Like everywhere in the world, millions of Australians live in towns and cities; furthermore, it is almost obvious that this will be a continuous trend in the foreseeable future. This then indicates that urban development will most likely continue and no radical ethical calls can change the situation. As Gunn (1998, p. 342) notes, “Call to abandon modern technology and to return to a simpler lifestyle will fall mostly on deaf years”. In other words, urban living is made even more appealing by technological advancement, most which are absent in rural areas. As such, the lure of urban living will continue drawing people to cities and towns and no amount of environmental ethics can dissuade people from migrating to the urban areas. Considered preference on the other hand would consider several accepted worldview before determining that indeed additional houses were needed in and around urban areas. For example, theories about the effect that urban development is having on natural environments would be considered. Additionally, the government would consider the different options urban development would be accomplished without necessarily negatively affecting the natural environments. Notably, and as indicated by Norton (1984, p. 328), considered preferences are more objective since they go beyond the self, and into worldviews that have rational support. The issue: urban development Personally, and like writers such as McHarg (1964), I perceive towns and cities as an indicator of human progress. The case of preindustrial urban development is like McHarg (1964, p. 177) observes, based on the premise that towns and cities, and especially the latter “could the best conjunction of social and physical environment be achieved”. Certainly, urban development, often evident in cities, represents great the capacity of humans to transform, what were previously natural environments into man-made ecosystems made up of buildings, transport systems and an intricate web of water supply and drainage systems among other things. As Marcus and Detwyler (1972, p. 3) aptly puts it, “cities are nodes of man’s greatest impact on nature, the places where he has most altered the essential resources of land, air, organisms and waters”. Going through literature (Keller (2010); Nash, 1989; and Taylor (1986)), the writer gets the impression that environmental ethics related to urban development mainly addresses issues of pollution, development, resource use, social equity, population and other issues that address issues about how humans ought to live in environments that is continually being transformed by human activity. In most cases, the ethical thought seems to disagree with the notion of urban development on the basis that it displaces other species from their natural ecosystems; perpetuates inequity in the society by sidelining the poor to the city outskirts while the rich stay in more affluent residences within the cities; enhances pollution and environmental degradation through high carbon emissions, waste generation, excessive water usage and excessive consumption habits among other things (Norton, 1984). Clearly, environmental ethics is anti-urban development. In other words, if it were left to radical ethical proponents, urban development in Australia and elsewhere in the world would seize. As indicated by Rolston III (2003, p. 518), “human need to include nature in their ethics”, and this could arguably mean stopping activities that disrupt the natural habitats of humans themselves and the millions of other species that inhabit earth. Notably, environmental ethics does not entirely dismiss the plight of humans; rather, the ethics perceives humans as being entitled to equal chances in nature. This though is elaborated by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987, p. 9), stating that “all human beings have the fundamental right to an environment adequate for their health and well-being”. Effectively, this could be translated to mean that humans have a fundamental right to natural environments which include water (probably rain water, or water drawn straight from the river), air (fresh and unpolluted), soil, functioning natural ecosystems (squirrels and all), and hydrological cycles among other things. Environmental ethics therefore seeks to make explicit those rights and defend them against people who through their actions (in this case urban development) might deprive them of nature (Rolston III, 2003, p. 520). In my city (***), it is widely accepted that pollution, effective water management, and congestion are issues that needs addressing. However, it is highly unlikely that most people would agree that city residents need to have access to more soil, hydrological cycles and functioning natural ecosystems that Rolston III( 2003, p. 520) makes reference to. My thoughts are every city dweller accepts that living in the city has a price too. Often times, that comes in the way of sacrificing some of the natural experiences one would have to encounter in a rural setup where natural ecosystems are still intact. The perceptions shared among city dwellers that the city should is better when we have less rodents criss-crossing our alleys and probably transmitting diseases, less mosquitoes and hence a lower malaria incidence, and probably less bare pavements that become muddy whenever it rains. In my city, urban bio-diversity is encouraged only to the extent that it enhances the urban living experience. For example, trees are planted for their aesthetic value, and the fact that they attract birds, which serve to form a semi-natural environment. In addition, the parks are maintained for their calming, and relaxing value. If people keep pets such as dogs, cats and parrots, it is mainly because they like the companionship. In other words, urban dwellers in my city experience with nature, though limited to some extent by the system (i.e. the urban living environment) is often dictated by individual and collective decisions. For example, choosing to keep a pet is a person choice that may allow some form of human interaction with other species (i.e. the pet). Notably, this is not entirely an urban phenomenon; even rural area dweller can choose what to interact with. For example, they may elect fences to keep wild animals away among other things. In conclusion, it is worth noting that environmental worldviews often have dominance of environmental ethics. Often, the latter is perceived as proposing measures that are too radical. In my opinion, why environmental worldviews impact decision-making either by individuals or by policy makers who regulate urban development is related to risks and uncertainty. As indicated by Harding (2005, p. 165), ecologically sustainable development is a principle developed in response to uncertainty surrounding environmental issues. Notably, human beings, either on an individual level or collectively as communities engages in activities that protect their interests. The failure by environment ethics proponents to affect decision-making is probably pegged on the fact that they have not proven that urban development will for sure jeopardise human interests. With all the adaptive capacity, human beings probably believe that consequence son the environment caused by urban development will not be above what they can handle or adopt. An indication that most want to stop or slow the negative effects occasioned in the environment is however evident in the support that sustainable urban development has received both from the government, private developers. Facilitating change in others (a personal perspective) This writer acknowledges that environmental issues are real and that they need to be addressed; however, the writer also prefers to be realist and acknowledge that cities are here to stay and that urban development will persist especially if the perception discussed earlier about cities being the conjunction of physical and social infrastructure will persist. As such, this writer recommends the development of an ethic system that will work in the current urban development situation without causing further harm to the environment. In other words, the proposed ethic should at best stop any further environmental degradation as urban areas develop, and at worst, it should slow down the level of environmental degradation in line with the sustainable development thought. The pure environmental ethics thought is too radical and cannot therefore have acceptance among city dwellers and governments alike especially considering that urban development not only has social consequences, but political, economic and cultural meanings too. In reality, this writer would not need to change his worldviews a great deal in order to facilitate change in others. For all practical reasons, it is natural for humans to love self before others. As such, given a chance to choose between their survival and that of 100 elephants, most human beings irrespective of how nature living or caring they are for the beasts will chose to survive. Similarly, if urban development as a means of human survival and development was to be considered against the need to uphold natural diversity, the former would no doubt take precedence. This does not however mean that environmental diversity needs to be dismissed; on the contrary, and as has been indicated by Gunn (1998, p. 134) urban development can go hand in hand with increasing natural diversity. At the time of his writing, Gunn (1998) used London as an exemplar of a city, which despite having to handle the challenges of urban development, was able to enhance natural diversity through establishing gardens, squares, and parks where the different natural species such as birds, fish and different forms of life can flourish. Basically, the London example is what strict environmental ethics proponents and those who subscribe to the non-anthropocentric concept need to understand. If human beings were to become extinct based on their need to conserve nature, none of the bio-diversity rhetoric would be meaningful to them anymore, because after all, they would be extinct. Conclusion As reflected herein, the SOS model reflects the interconnectedness between the self, others and the system in decision-making. On the self aspect, the writer has proven that though a believer in the need to address environmental matters in order to avoid or slow down environmental degradation, he upholds the notion that human interests supersede everything else in the environment. After all, and as indicated in this essay, environmental matters would be inconsequential if human beings stopped existing. In other words, the environment is valuable to human kind for as long human existence if guaranteed. In a world where divergent interests are working towards environmental degradation, personal opinions, do not always count for anything unless they make sense and are hence accepted by others. The relevance of others in decision-making is hence attached to their role in accepting or shaping ideas or values of self, and of the large collective society. Additionally, they must have the potential to work within the existing system, hence the third aspect of the SOS model. It is the interplay between the three aspects that would make a radical proposal to wipe out cities just for purposes of upholding the environmental integrity of surrounding environment unacceptable, based on social, economic, political and even cultural reasons. References Gunn, A.S 1998 ‘Rethinking communities: environmental ethics in an urbanised world’, Environmental Ethics, vol. 20, pp. 341-360. Harding, R 2005, Environmental decision-making: the roles of scientists, engineers, and the public, The Federation Press, Annandale, NSW. International Atomic Energy 2002, ‘Ethical considerations in protecting the environment from the effects of ionizing radiation’, A report for discussion, pp. 1-29, Vienna Austria. Keller, D. R 2010, Environmental ethics: the big questions, Blackwell Publishing, West Sussex, UK. Marcus, M.G. & Detwyler, T. R 1972, Urbanization and environment: the physical geography of the city, Duxbury publishers, Belmont, California. McHarg, I 1964, ‘The place of nature in the city of man’, Annals of the American academy of political science, vol. 352, no.1, pp. 1-12; reprinted in Barbour, Western man, pp. 171-183. Mendenhall, B 2009, ‘The environmental crises: why we need anthropocentrism’, Stance, vol. 2, pp. 35-41. Nash, R 1989, The rights of nature: a history of environmental ethics, The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Norton, B 1984, ‘Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism’, Environmental Ethics, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 326-338. Rolston III, H 2003, ‘Environmental ethics’, in Bunnin, N and Tsui-James, E. P (eds), The Blackwell companion to philosophy, 2nd ed., Blackwell publishing, Oxford. Tayor, P.W 1986, Respect for nature: a theory of environmental ethics, Princeton University Press, Chichester, West Sussex. Read More

For example, the divergent positions held by people regarding environmental ethics have generated two differing concepts namely “anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism” (ibid.). Anthropocentrisms is founded on the belief that environmental protection is necessary only to the extent to which it affects people. In other words, those who subscribe to the anthropocentrism thought believe that environmental protection is necessary and justified for purposes of protecting human interests. The non-anthropocentrism advocates on the other hand hold the view that environmental protection should not just be justified on human-based interest only; rather, they believe that environmental ethics should be life-centred, hence including all species, landscapes and ecosystems on earth (International Atomic Agency, 2002, p. 5). According to Mendenhall (2009, p. 37), the weak-link in the latter thought is that it does not enjoy public appeal.

In other words, most humans base their environment-related decisions based on what generates value for them. While the non-anthropocentric approach may appear like the best choice in paper, many people feel that it is “too radical and contrary to commonsense” (Mendenhall, 2009, p. 38). In Australia, and as has been noted by Harding (2005, p. 164), anthropocentric thought is dominant , and is reflected in the emphasis placed on high consumption rates, and high output of energy and other raw materials attained from natural resources.

In other words, the decision-making in Australia is predominantly human-centred and has little or no emphasis on the prudent stewardship of natural systems or the earth itself. Notably, the current approach to the concept of development in Australia is reflection of what individuals (i.e. the self), the society (i.e. others) and the system (i.e. the prevailing political and environmental systems) consider important for the social and economic well-being of the country (Harding, 2005). For example, it is generally accepted that coal mining, despite its negative effects on the environment is key revenue–generation avenue for the country.

To ensure that human-interests are protected and any possible risks evaluated, Harding observes that the Australian government with other key stakeholders now require a formal process whereby environmental impact assessment (EIA) is carried out, and the precautionary principle incorporated in matters pertaining to environmental decision-making. Overall, even the EIA and the application of the precautionary principle all seem to indicate that the decision-making in Australia regarding past and present development concepts is informed by humans need to serve their interests in the short-term, and in the not-so-long a future.

As Mendenhall (2009, p. 39) observes, “It is probably impossible to escape a human-centred ethic to guide our decision-making”. In other words, human beings whether individually, or as part of a larger social entity, have a human-centred ethic that is subjective, which affects their perceptions and directs or shapes their actions. The human decision-making is thus guided by the self-preservation instincts that make people to value themselves above anything else in the world. Through attaching value to self, human beings (individually and collectively) are increasingly making decisions that touch on environmental ethics especially because they realise that the combined evils of global warming and climate change have taken or are taking the world’s environment to a point-of-no-return.

In other words, decision-making is to a great extent informed by the notion that if individuals, societies and/or governments do not act now, the chance to reverse or even slow environmental degradation will be lost forever. Essentially, this would mean that humankind would have failed miserably at protecting its own interests. Environmental worldviews and ethics as they manifest urban development in my city (***) This part will start by acknowledging that people generally believe that specific human behaviours cause or have the potential to cause damage to the environment.

Read More