Anthropocentric Accounts of Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

Anthropocentric accounts of environmental ethics – preservation, conservation

Anthropocentric accounts of environmental ethics offer the justification on why human beings have a duty to protect the environment. The constant growth of human populations around the world has heightened the clamor for resources. Additionally, human activities continue to disrupt the workings of nature in maintaining a balance in the environment. Today, human activities such as urbanization due to industrialization have led to an influx in the number of people living in cities. On the other hand, rural and remote areas continue to record lower population counts. In the context of the imbalance, human impact on the environment has remained minimal. In the cities, the strain on the available natural resources and waste from factories continue to destroy the environment.

Social governments, such as the US Federal government and international bodies, have reported concerns on the long term impact of human activities on the environment. To remedy the damage already done, and set the pace for environmental protection, governments have vigorously legislated against environmental destruction activities. Additionally, government policy on environmental protection has supported measures to curb the destruction of the environment (Lombardo). The question on the ethics of environmental protection originates from egalitarian ethics where there is a mutuality of benefit in the protection of the environment. This paper posits that anthropocentric accounts of environmental ethics such as conservation and preservation are insufficient to protect environments and animals from human-caused harm.

An explanation of anthropocentric accounts of environmental ethics requires that men protect the environment for their welfare. According to Boyian (116), environmental protection or conservation measures are purely prudential. Boylan (116) argues that humans would not want to destroy the nature they depend on for a livelihood. In a purely practical context, humans form part of an ecosystem with plants and animals. As such, it is only prudent that environmental ethics provide for what serves human interests best. The author adds by stating that human activities can only proceed to the limits where the ecosystem can sustain themselves or survive.

A contrary argument to the utilitarian approach posits that humans are obligated to protect the environment stems from the duty to safeguard future generations. The argument is valid at the foresight. However, a more in-depth analysis of the argument still follows the utilitarian need to survive and benefit from the environment (Boyd 118). Every individual has the basic instinct to survive in the natural environment and to procreate. The legal obligation to protect and conserve the environment stems out of humans to protect themselves. Having raised the argument on the need for the protection of the environment, the question remains, are human efforts enough to protect the animals and the environment?

Human anthropocentric accounts are not enough to protect the environment and animals around the globe. The first folly of man regards his perspective on the workings of the environment. Looking at the anthropocentric arguments, environmental protection is only seen in the eyes of human conditions. Humans continue to decide how best to protect the environment in complete disregard for the essential workings of nature. Onora O’Neill takes the position that all human reasoning is anthropocentric (Boyd 116). As such, all environmental protection laws made shall reflect the best benefits and value to human agents.

On the contrary, other scholars argue that Onora's view is flawed in favor of humans. They argue for plants, that although they do not feel pain, they form part of the global ecosystem needed for human survival. To counter-argue, Onora's philosophy is to stay clear of the baggage that surrounds the metaphysical connections in the environment. Environmental protection should be seen as a moral responsibility where every individual takes it upon themselves to see the value in what they receive from the environment and reciprocate in return.

Monsanto's ability to claim seeds (and their products) as Intellectual Property

Monsanto's ability to claim seeds and their products as its intellectual Property is morally unacceptable for numerous reasons. First, the ability to control seeds and their ability is seen as unnatural. Throughout human history, people have controlled the planting of trees and other plants in their original manifestations. With the growth of bioengineering, corporations have sprung up and developed new technologies and strains for different plant species. Today, the Canadian agribusiness giant Monsanto has registered patents to over 27 percent of genetically modified species. Additionally, three corporations today control 53 percent of organic food species that have been developed from previously existing strains. The ethical conviction of this reality is immoral and goes against the traditional practices by people over millennia.

Secondly, the ability to claim seeds and their products as its intellectual Property is immoral based on demand-supply concerns. Traditionally, human relationships with nature have been beneficial to both. Allowing a corporation to usurp the right of control to plants steers the natural development and evolution of plants and their genotypes (Dogan 27). For instance, Monsanto sued 75-year old Vernon Hugh Bowman for planting soy seeds that Monsanto had patented. In a countersuit to the US Supreme Court, Bowman argues that the natural right to plant seeds should not be limited to the control of a few members of the society. To support the argument, the country's legal foundations are based on liberty and freedom to live freely without unnecessary limitations. Allowing one corporation beats the objective set in the Declaration of Independence, where all Americans were allowed to engage in beneficial activities raised to the many.

Moving on, the law in as set out in the American Constitution allows every individual to live freely and practice whatever business in their capacity to ensure they survive. Enshrined as the right to work, this right must be extended to the moral obligation to provide a safe environment for working. The danger of allowing a corporation to control millions of global citizens' livelihoods is immoral (Cole, Horton, & Vacca 313). For instance, the advances in technology run the risk of mass poisoning for ulterior motives. The government must regulate the food industry with the appropriate measures given to any individual with the will to advance any genetic species. Monsanto's control of soy seeds is dangerous because nature loses the original classification of what the seed used to be. The new genetic types may fail to survive since they have been engineered through human models. However, leaving them in their natural setting will have increased their chances of natural evolution and growth.

The argument against Monsanto's control of soy seeds can be countered on various levels. First, individual rights must be measured on the premise of fairness and equality. In the US, every corporation, just like every individual, has an identity and, as such, reserves the right to own Property and develop things that protect the environment. The argument that corporations should not own intellectual property rights to plants must be measured against the improvements made in artificial intelligence (Lim 559). For instance, Monsanto must be allowed to develop and patent their seeds, just like software companies are allowed to develop different AI technologies that seek to change the natural course of things. Additionally, there is no superiority in applying rights given to individuals and corporations. Big business, just like individuals, deserves protection in their interests.

The moral conviction in the counterarguments posited for Monsanto's case must align with the beneficence of the natural course of events. Human and ecological survival is anchored on the natural interconnections that plants have with other natural elements. Plants take out oxygen, which is necessary for human breathing while taking in carbon dioxide released by man. In so doing, the natural balance is maintained. The natural benefit of plants and animals must not be left to the control of one corporation. Such control can only be limited to the government, for protection and conservation purposes (Winston 445).

Further development and patenting amounts to usurping human control and makes them gullible to control by the said corporation. The solution to corporate control lies in distributing control to government and research centers. Research centers must not be private to ensure that there is continuance in the natural selection of organisms.