Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

? Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Josh Mills SUNY Empire College Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics Introduction The environmental ethics vs. Animal rights ethics debate is a historical concern, which is historically traceable – thus, the need to identify the basic ideas surrounding the historical context, so as to distance the credibility of the arguments for either side. The conflict is evident – where there is a perceived significance to defend the environment/ecosystem, from the harmful effects of individual species or animals. For instance, there is the holistic viewpoint, that it is agreeable to allow harm on animals like kangaroos or other animal species, provided that the action will preserve the reliability of the ecosystem. There are two model approaches, through which the environmental ethics conception of wild animals is viewed. Both approaches place attention on the problems facing the endangered species, though they advocate for different rationales, in the area of giving animals preference, as opposed to the protection of the ecosystem at their detriment. First: is the anthropocentric view to wild animals, which seeks to guard endangered species from the destructive activities of humans. The second approach is the eco-centric model, which places attention upon the existence and the effects of wild animals, within the intrinsically valuable ecosystem (Des Jardins, 1993, p. 4-6). Discussion The key problem with adopting a perspective, which is informed, primarily, by intrinsic environmental ethics is that, such an approach, fails to fully consider the sentience of the wild animals benefitting from the ecosystem. The concept of consciousness or sentience is based on the fact that their interests should be felt and perceived. Through failing to adequately recognize the sentience of these creatures, for instance, the kangaroos, the policy and laws in operation pay insufficient regard to the ethical needs of kangaroos as conscious beings. However, the notion that there is a conflict between animal rights and environmental ethics chiefly relies on a number of misconceptions about these animals and their effects on the ecosystem. For instance, in the case of the kangaroos, the misconceptions are evident, in the conception of their impacts in the areas of total grazing demands, populations, and sheep replacement. As evidence, Fisher Et al (2003, p. 1801-1808) argues that the effect of Kangaroos is immense on rangelands environs, where pressure on grazing land is evident. This is a misconception, mainly because the pressure on grazing land is not caused by kangaroos alone, but other animals like sheep as well (Des Jardins, 1993, p. 19-21). The moral status of animals is one major question in this debate, mainly because; the question of the distinctiveness of humans, which earns them moral status is raised – and not that of the non-human entities in question. Answering this question is of great importance, among philosophers and the defenders of the rights of animals. In part, answering this question will aid humans to better understand the nature of human beings and the rightful scope of the moral obligations of humans. Some proponents of the debate argue that answering this question will help distinguish the value of humans as opposed to that of other parties of the natural world. However, this approach is considerably aimed at propagating the rightfulness of certain human activities towards the non-human creatures – especially, those that cause discomfort, suffering, pain and death to these entities. The other group – on the other hand – is of the opinion that answering the question will help humans justify granting moral consideration to these nonhuman entities, namely animals and plant life. This is based on the philosophical consideration that despite the differences between humans and nonhuman animals; these differences do not justify denying these nonhuman entities moral consideration. However, the basis of moral consideration and what amounts from it has been an area of debate, and a cause for disagreement (Des Jardins, 1993, p. 5-7). These areas of debate include the moral considerable nature of animals, which is based on their lack of personhood and normativity. However, there is the aspect of the duties of humans to animals, these including remaining kind and considerate, as per the provisions of animal ethics models. The moral considerable nature of animals can also be drawn from viewing the animal, and not the rational nature of humans, under which, there is for instance, the inherent need to avoid pain and suffering, which are also inherent in the nonhuman beings. Conclusively, the encounters of an animal in pain, makes human beings feel a claim on them, thus, showing that they are beings who can suffer. Therefore, this entitles them to moral consideration (Keller, 2010, p. 150). Animal liberation and environmental ethics is a field which is enlarging day after day, to accommodate more animal rights and animal species, in the pursuit to offer animals the recognition they deserve. Peter Singer, one of the proponents, takes a stronger perspective in the debate. Some of the core areas in his campaign – include that there are arguments for the ability of animals in experiencing pain, which places a moral obligation on humans. This is the case, as they are obligated to offer protection to these animals, without making any reference to their rights or the general rights doctrine. Secondly, Des Jardins (1993, p. 5) argues that, only a being with subjective experiences – such as the experiences of pain or pleasure can have full rights to the essentiality of the concept. This, according to him, is the case, as an entity like a tree may have the interest to be watered – so it can fair properly, in growth. This is the same case, as it is, with the need for oil in an engine, so it may function properly. According to him, trees, lakes, rocks, and mountains are not included in the moral community. The basic argument here is that animals do not necessarily have rights, but they do have utilities which should be treated on an equal scale to those of humans. According to Keller (2010, p. 169-175), the natural world deserves to be preserved and protected, as its favorability satisfies and promotes the welfare of individuals and other living things. In discussing human utilities, Des Jardins (1993, p. 20) argues that two are core, these being – physical security and basic subsistence. On the basis of these utilities; the role they play within the ecosystem, in maintaining the balance of the natural world and animals – these animals should also be allowed their entitlement to security and basic provision. However, the protection of collections, communities and systems – entitles other areas as much rights as those of humans, in protecting the stability, the integrity and the beauty of the biotic environment. However, the moral obligation to preserve species is not an obligation to any individual creatures. Also, an appreciation of the wellbeing of animals is not helpful in creating an understanding of the valid foundations for environmental conservation (Keller, 2010, p. 169). Whether or not, Regan or Singer fall victim to the challenges of defining the entitlements of animals, as opposed to the environmentalist perspective of regarding the balance existent in the ecosystem, important pointers are established. These include, that environmental ethics necessitate the coverage of more than an abstract interest for individual animal or animal groups, or the consideration of the animals from a certain species. At the minimum consideration, one area of consideration should be the co-existence of the moral status of diverse animal and plant life. Other central concern areas include the stability of the ecological communities within the environment, and the role of the entities within the communities play, these including humans and nonhumans alike. However, a shift from such a holistic, fully non-anthropocentric ethics base will require the application of a radical break technique, from the tradition perspective. According to Peter Singer, an end to animal liberation will require that philosophy questions the basic assumptions – constructed over the ages, surrounding the value and the moral entitlement of the different parties in the ecosystem. Additionally, little as may be expected, Singer, just like Tom Regan are fully guilty of the same failure – where the basic assumptions constructed over the ages are not questioned, but, rather stratified (Keller, 2010, p. 158). Evidently, this is a case of overlapping concerns, where, from a practical perspective – it would be more rational to take a common cause against a common enemy like global warming, instead of squabbling among one another. The cases of overlapping interests, in this case, include those of environmentalists and that of animal rights groups. This is the case, as environmental ethics and animal liberation can be united under a common theoretical. From unified working the two disciplines would work on how to preserve the environment, while, still ensuring that the needs and nature of animals are represented and observed. An example, would involve the dedication of certain environments for the animal groups that are viewed as harmful, then restricting their negative effects on their immediate surroundings. However, just like any other socio-ethical conception, environmental and animal ethics may conflict one another at times. Further, on the basis that animal and environmental ethics may be reflected under a common theoretical umbrella, the integration would create a platform – on the basis of which – principles, priorities, and relative significance may be established – towards resolving the conflicts in a systematic manner (Keller, 2010, p. 10-172). Conclusion The environmental ethics vs. Animal rights ethics debate is a historical concern, whose origin may be traced to the perceived defense of the environment, against the harmful effects of certain animal groups or species. An example is the case of Kangaroos – which are exposed to harm, so as to protect the ecosystem. The two models of approach include the protection of endangered animal and plant species from the acts of humans, and the protection of the ecosystem from the destructive nature of wild animals. However, an aspect which is greatly disregarded is the sentience of the animals which are subjected to harm. Also, the perceived conflict is often, based on misconceptions, like the impacts of these animals in the areas of total feeding demands, populations, and replacement of other species. The moral entitlement of animals may be comprehended from focusing on the animal aspects of humans, to avoid pain and suffering, which should also be the case, with animals, though they are not rational beings. Also, the rivalry between these two fields can be overcome, to blend the common interests in fighting other threats – towards the general wellbeing of the ecosystem. References Des Jardins, J. (1993). Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. California: Wadsworth Pub Co. Fisher, D. Et al. (2003). "Extrinsic versus intrinsic factors in the decline and extinction of Australian marsupials." Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 270: 1801-1808. Keller, D. (2010). Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (Philosophy: The Big Questions) (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell. Read More