Environmental Issues Affecting First Nations - Essay Example

Wolf and Calhoun each offers an account of how individuals who behave wrongly under oppressive circumstances may not be responsible for their behaviour. At what point do their views diverge, and which view do you believe is more convincing? Tutor: Date: Wolf and Calhoun offer accounts of how individuals behaving wrongly under oppressive circumstances are not held responsible for their actions. This paper seeks to explain the point that the views diverge and conclude with the more convincing view. The essay focuses on environmental issues affecting first nations. Environmental conservation deals with elements that the society contributes towards the elements of social welfare and the manner in which the approaches are based on issues motivating oppression concerns. According to Calhoun, the essentials of understanding distributive collective responsibility includes insight to patriarchy as a basis of common benefits and interests extended to all elements of the society. This concept renders each element partially responsible for harms of oppression. All people benefiting from the existence of oppressive character because the oppressed persons feel dependent on their seniors for protection are considered, in Wolf and Calhoun’s terms, Environmental concerns(Nadelhoffer, Nahmias & Nichols, 2010). Significantly, the environmental obligation is that the oppressing ends interact with other elements of the society and contribute towards climatic relationships that are more prevalent. According to Welch (2012), this includes participating in the practice oppressor-bonding to separates them from the action that deems them hostile. In addition, some people would become oppressors in case such opportunities arose because they share similar attitudes as oppressors about the oppressed and other social vices. According to Moore (2010), the factors evolve the consideration of the oppressors as collectively responsible for bad character and for taking part in the oppression. In other scenarios, shared responsibility as well as racist attitudes lean towards arguments applied to sexist attitudes. The bracket includes people who harbor oppressor attitudes and an atmosphere that others are likely to act based on oppressive attitudes and induces harm. According to Nadelhoffer, Nahmias, & Nichols (2010), Calhoun argues that while people share within the production of attitudinal climates, they are active participants in joint ventures that increase the possibilities of harm. The argument expands along tenets of the traditional and the individualistic responsibility while assigning some responsibility among those who do not commit oppressive acts (Mann, Derluguian & Calhoun, 2013). For this reason, people can share a responsibility for the harm and oppression that a person imposes on the direct cause. According to Oberdiek (2014), people who harbor the oppressive attitudes contribute towards environments that other attitudes act on as well as in partially developing responsibility for harmful behavior. According to Shafer-Landau (2012), Wolf connects these concerns with attempting and understanding of ending oppression. The contribution towards Environmental conservation is a multi-fold topic that emphasized on roles emotion in action while stressing on the care motive that prompts action (Oberdiek, 2014). The reasons that underlay the emotion are based on care and particular concerns about ignorance and denigration of traditional Environmental conservation theory on association to oppression. According to Welch (2012), Wolf believe that if people focused on ending oppression, it is important to incorporate philosophical theories things that are linked to the deprived groups and incorporate previously left out issues (Moore, 2012). According to Moore (2010), Wolf takes the focus of inclination further through the argument that inclination should be presented among perfectly environmental persons. According to Moore (2012), the function is the primary motive that pushes agents without aid of inclination and secondary motive to commit towards doing the right thing of telling agents about the best ways of acting on the inclination. This is based on the understanding that environmental motivation of Kantian ways is strictly based on the commitment towards environmentalist behavior other than things that held in our minds in times of action (Moore, 2010). The worry about caring about harmful issues among people involves a belief of incorporating care within Environmental conservation theory and perpetuating peoples oppression. However, critics challenge Calhoun’s internal thesis of motivation for action being present for rational agents recognizing reasons for Environmental conservation action. According to Oberdiek (2014), the attention towards oppression continues to lead the society to fields of environmental psychology while acknowledging systematic oppression roles in psychology of oppressors and victims of oppression. A significant concern relating to the deformed desires of each party includes autonomy and the common definition of self-direction or self-determination (Nadelhoffer, Nahmias & Nichols, 2010). On the surface, agents satisfying their deformed desires stand against the will of promoting autonomy and need for satisfying the reality of the system of domination benefits and privileged persons. The scope of satisfying the deformed desires is not an indication of the self-determination for agent performance but the subordination of the agent to the system (Oberdiek, 2014). All actions of a person are aimed at the individual’s own good as established by the person (Moore, 2010). The contribution of rationality requires the person to act in a manner that promotes own good amounting to actions in ways that satisfy the desires of the person. Each of the rational and strongest desires of self-preservation that rationality dictates cannot be sacrificed (Shafer-Landau, 2012). According to Shafer-Landau (2012), across the aspects of ethics, environmental conservation philosophers agree with Wolf on the concerns about the agents psychology and the motivation of such agents to act. Calhoun held that self-interest is a motivator of all action including aspects of environmental action. For this reason self-interest and desire-satisfaction triggers action while both rationality and environmental dictate accorded action. The goals of bridging gaps between objective and subjective good include seeing people with adaptive preferences as victims and as full agents, and between showing respect for peoples autonomous choices while promoting flourishing. According to Welch (2012), the illustration defends perfectionist definitions for adaptive preferences. The definition offers an invocation of objective value through forms of basic flourishing while defining actual cross-cultural processes that are deliberative in nature (Mann, Derluguian & Calhoun, 2013). According to Mann, Derluguian & Calhoun (2013), while Calhoun agrees that the reason on its own cannot motivate action, the Wolf theory disagrees about the motive of prompted action is based on self-interest and the feeling of sympathy and benevolence in prompting environmental conservation action. According to Nadelhoffer, Nahmias, & Nichols (2010), reasons implication includes determining the alternative means of meeting people and not setting the ends by themselves or sentiment. Kant believes that the reason itself prompts action and it is a source of the environmental nature. Reason needs a mastery of desire instead of dictating satisfaction of desire as a way of making the agent autonomous (Moore, 2012). Wolf and Calhoun agree that adaptive preferences as elements that lack consistency with basic flourishing and are formed within conditions that are non-conducive to the basic flourishing and belief of people. According to Moore (2010), the elements are persuaded towards the transformation of the scrutiny of the exposure to conditions and the favorable aspects to flourish. The definition offers a procedural and substantive illustration of identities and preferences for adaptive accordance to conditions formed in content of preferences (Welch, 2012). According to Oberdiek (2014), in times that members of dominant groups are in a position of taking perspectives of non-privileged, the socialization and background circumstances for members of subordinate groups mitigate the responsibility and blameworthiness of environmental conservation actions that do not relate to oppression (Oberdiek, 2014). According to Mann, Derluguian & Calhoun (2013), issues in the Calhoun’s Evironmental psychology are driven by the goals of ending oppression. Even though the unifying element is the shared goals, the society differs in terms of views and the ways of accomplishing them. The topics of environmental conservation, as well as feminists, are different in terms of their views for roles of emotion within situations of oppression (Shafer-Landau, 2012). This is dependent on whether people have extensively deformed desires as well as the deformed desires that interfere with the autonomy and degree to which dominant group members are responsible for counter oppression. This paper concludes contrary to Calhoun’s perception is more compelling as it states that social insights are enriched within fields of environmental obligation and psychology while bringing the attention of philosophers to issues that are ignored and insufficiently examined. Progressive insights on environmental obligation allow for making continued efforts to the issues of eliminating oppression. Whether people have a responsibility to resist their oppression is determined by the conclusions of the differences suggesting that philosophical scholarships are divisive and useful in decision-making. The theory criticizes other immaterial inclusions for failure to effectively pursue the environmental question and social goals. References Mann, M., Derluguian, G. M., & Calhoun, C. (2013). Does Capitalism Have a Future? New York: Oxford University Press. Moore, A. D. (2010). Privacy Rights: Phychology and Legal Foundations. New York: Penn State Press. Moore, J. D. (2012). Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. New York: Rowman Altamira. Nadelhoffer, T., Nahmias, E., & Nichols, S., (2010). Phychology Psychology: Historical and Contemporary Readings. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Oberdiek, J. (2014). Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts. New York: Oxford University Press. Shafer-Landau, R. (2012). Ethical Theory: An Anthology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Welch, S. A. (2012). Theory of Freedom: Feminism and the Social Contract. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More