Duties of Environmental Preservation - Essay Example

School: Topic: EXPLAINING DUTIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION IN TERMS OF INTERGENERATIONAL JUSTICE Lecturer: Introduction The environmental threat faced by the world in terms of depletion of natural resources is not a new issue. However, the quest to collectively dealing with the problem in a pragmatic manner has become more critical due to the extent of threat that current status of environmental degradation poses. Today, environmental preservation has become very necessary due to the fear that issues of climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, deforestation, greenhouse gas effect, and other forms of resource degradation put future generations at risk of not having a sustainable environment to support them (Page, 2003). It is with this rationale that the current paper is written to identify the best modalities, theories and approaches that can be put in place to ensure generational responsiveness environmental preservation. The issue of generational responsiveness is considered necessary because generations of all types including the past generation, present generation, and future generation have different roles to play in environmental preservation (Hayward, 1998). In the light of this, the paper seeks to explain how the duties of environmental preservation can be undertaken in terms of intergenerational justice. The concept of environmental preservation Gosseries (2008) lamented that despite the high level of technological progress, we continue to depend highly on the environment and its resources in running industries and economies. Regrettably, this situation has made the threat of environmental destruction a perpetual one. Happy enough, major global stakeholders including both governmental and nongovernmental agencies continue to appreciate the need for curbing the threat of environmental degradation and depletion (Hardin, 1968). It is against this premise that environmental preservation has become one of the most discussed public topics in global discourse. Holistically, environmental preservation can be said to be the process of protecting the environment against destruction and depletion so that future generations can have substantial quantum of natural resources from the environment to support them (Shrader-Frechette, 2009). The scale and nature of efforts made towards environmental preservation has evolved over the years. The evolution accounts for different terms and concepts used to stand for environmental preservation including such ideas as sustainable development, ecological debt, de-growth, and ecological footprint (Gosseries, 2008). On the whole, environmental preservation have included practices aimed at ensuring the judicious and prudent use of natural resources so that the environment around us will not be destroyed to such levels that sustainability for future generations cannot be guaranteed. Theoretical justifications for environmental preservation There are very important theories that support the long years of fight for the preservation of the environment. Three such theories or concepts which are zoocentrism, biocentrism, and atomistic eco-centrism are discussed below. Biocentrism Biocentrism theorists argue that all creatures have a capacity to flourish and that these creatures can access goods that have intrinsic value (Rolston, 1995). Because of the dependence of all creatures on goods that have intrinsic value, biocentrism teaches that all creatures that have intrinsic values ought to be protected (Taylor, 1996). This argument for the protection of creatures with intrinsic value marks one of the most fundamental and important justifications for environmental preservation to be pursued. The reason for this assertion is that all creatures rest, depend on, or can be found within the larger environment. In actual fact, Jamieson (2003) defined the environment as anything around us. By implication, it cannot be possible to destroy the environment and think that creatures that are intrinsically valuable will not be affected. Biocentrism therefore helps in making the claim for the preservation of the environment a valid and justifiable one. Another aspect of biocentrism that helps to justify the preservation of the environment is the claim that all creatures have the capacity to flourish. Because of this capacity to flourish, preservation of the environment and thus the creatures in it is important as it ensures that the flourishing capabilities are not cut short. Atomistic eco-centrism Even though atomistic eco-centrism was used by Elliot (1995) to response to the weaknesses of biocentrism, the former also makes points that draw a conclusion that natural objects, whether they are organic or inorganic ought to be protected. One of the major arguments made by atomistic eco-centrism is that all things with natural origins possess some intrinsic value. This means that atomistic eco-centrism confirms the justification of environmental preservation even deeper. This is because from the perspective of atomistic eco-centrism, selection of environmental composition for preservation is even not an issue. The reason this is said is that as far as a thing can be said to have a natural origin; and indeed due to the fact that all things have natural origins (Neumayer, 2000), preservation of the environment cannot be done on a selective basis. The validity of this claim is that it is only when the environment is preserved that all things with intrinsic value can be protected. For example in the absence of environmental protection, the approach of humankind towards water bodies is going to be bizarre. The reason this is said is that people will be engaged in such practices as sand winning near water bodies. Meanwhile such practice cannot guarantee the protection of the water bodies, which according to atomistic eco-centrism has intrinsic value. Zoocentrism Zoocentrism seems to limit the argument on the value of creatures to animals but still have a lot of lessons to offers as to why the preservation of the larger environment is validated. In the first place, zoocentrism argues that animals experience both suffering and enjoyment (Elliot, 1990). When animals experience suffering, they are said to be going through negative welfare and when they are experiencing enjoyment, they are said to be going through positive welfare. The most central lesson however is, there is a form of welfare that animals derive from either positive or negative interest. This is so as the welfare explained the capacity for suffering or enjoyment (Singer, 1975). In the light of the ability of animals to have welfare, environmental preservation becomes a justifiable concept. This is because through environmental preservation, animals and other creatures within the environment enjoy security for the maximisation of their expected welfare, which in this case is positive welfare. For example through environmental preservation, there are game reserves around the world. As part of game reserve practices, animals which otherwise would have been hunted and used for game are protected and made to experience positive welfare (Low & Gleeson, 1998). Overview of intergenerational justice In modern discussion about environmental preservation, the concept of intergenerational justice is one that remains very popular. Meyer (2008) explained that intergenerational justice is a sociological concept that pushes for fairness or justice in relationships between people of all generations, including children, youth, adults, and the aged. Intergenerational justice has had an environmentalism usage where it has been explained to represent the level of conscious effort made by the current generation to preserve the environment for use by future generations. For the future generation also, they see themselves as having a responsibility of rendering justice to the past generation by preserving the environment they inherit from them (Jamieson, 2008). Once the future generation preserve the environment, they do so to avoid accusation from past generation that they did not become good caretakers of what they were left with. However, this same responsibility goes a long way to ensure that the future generation ahead of the most immediate generation are also guaranteed of a preserved environment to depend on. From an environmental perspective therefore, intergenerational justice can be explained to be a cyclical responsibility that generations owe to those before and after them in ensuring that the environment is well protected to leave them with something to live on. Theories that explain extent of environmental preservation duties with intergenerational justice While giving the overview of intergenerational justice, it was noted that there is an environmentalism usage which justifies the fact that duties of environmental preservation can explained in terms of intergenerational justice. As much as this preamble may not be argued, the real question of the extent to which duties of environmental preservation can be explained in terms of intergenerational justice remains debated. This is because different environmentalists have given different scopes of measure that explain the extent of using intergenerational justice for the purpose of environmental preservation. In this section, three important theories which seek to explain the real extent to which environmental preservation can be performed through intergenerational justice are discussed. Theory of Indirect reciprocity Barry (1989) used the theory of indirect reciprocity to explain that as long as people are able to do so, they are obliged to return to others what they themselves have received from them. Through this theory, reciprocity is actually seen as a form of justice where a real just person is expected to give to others what they received from them. Indirect reciprocity can well be explained to be a theory of intergenerational by using two maxims. The first maxim explains why the current generation is obligated to the next generation by preserving the environment. This first maxim is called justification maxim and states that the current generation owes something to the next generation because the current generation received something from the previous one (Jamieson, 2001). In the second maxim, the content of the obligation of the current generation is highlighted in what is known as substantive maxim. The substantive maxim states that the current generation must pass on to the next generation, a capital at least equivalent to the one it inherited from the previous generation (Meadows, 1972). By combining the ideas of the first and second maxims of indirect reciprocity, it is possible to have a vivid understanding about the extent to which duties of environmental preservation can be explained with intergenerational justice. This is because the two maxims advocate the extent of environmental preservation to be equivalent to the one that the previous generation pursued. Analysing the theory of indirect reciprocity, Dworkin (2000) posited that the theory has an ideal potency because it helps to establish the most fundamental extent or measure of environmental preservation that is expected of the current generation. Meanwhile, as part of the philosophy of intergenerational justice, it would be understood that the future never actually comes. This is so as each moment is the current generation, having a responsibility to give to the future generation, a capital that is at least equivalent to what it inherited from the previous one (Vallentyne & Steiner, 2000). What this means is that through the indirect reciprocity theory of intergenerational justice, the idea that environmental preservation must always exist can be guaranteed. There is however a different school of thought that fails to accept the maxims of indirect reciprocity as being enough in perpetuating environmental preservation to an extent or measure that can be considered desirable. According to this group of environmentalists, there is actually something called the future generation and that the needs of future generations are always more than the needs of the current generation (Gardiner, 2004). In the light of this second school of thought posits that indirect reciprocity must not measure the capital for future inheritance as an equivalent of what was inherited from past generation but with an additional interest (Page, 2012). Theory of Mutual advantage This is another theory that has been used to both explain the applicability of environmental preservation with the use of intergenerational justice and the extent of justice that must be offered in preserving the environment. This is said as the theory of mutual advantage, a rational agent will serve his best interest by engaging in a cooperative venture and submitting to certain social rules (Gosseries, 2008). In this context, a rational agent is the one acting exclusively out of self-interest (Diamond, 2005). From an intergenerational justice context, mutual advantage is best explained by focussing on the issue of engaging in cooperative venture and submitting to certain social rules, where it is expected that people will not act on their own efforts and will in preserving the environment but in association with others (Sagoff, 1988). According to LaFollette (1997), the issue of environmental preservation is so complex and complicated that when approached from a subjective and individualistic perspective, chances that the right form of intergenerational duties to be performed will be achieved are less. By extension, the theory of mutual advantage helps to indicate the extent to which the duties of environmental preservation should be carried out or explained by intergenerational justice. The extent is simply defined by how much value the cooperative efforts of all members of society can achieve. In line with the theory of mutual advantage, Singer (2002) indicated that the duties of environmental preservation require a shared responsibility at the global and corporate levels to undertake. By shared responsibility, reference is being made to two major ideas which are a shared definition of duty and a shared performance of duty. Shared definition of duty implies that the environmental needs of the world must be defined as a collective concept (De Shalit, 1995). For example, even though there are data to suggest that certain countries are guiltier with greenhouse gas emission than others, the real need for fight climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emission must be defined as a global problem and not just a problem that concerns some countries more than others. It is only by this means that the true advantage in mutualism can be experienced. Second, shared performance of duty refers to the need to have a common front and methodology in fighting issues of environmental concern such as climate change (Leopold, 1949). Gauthier (1986) observed that the issue of intergenerational overlap is one important problem that makes the need to undertake environmental preservation from a cooperation perspective necessary. This is because within the current generation for example, there are the young, adult, and aged. Each of these people must be seen as engaged in environmental preservation so that it will not be like one group is working for the benefit of the other. Utilitarianism Also referred to as an aggregative theory, utilitarianism emphasises on the idea of members of society maximising the welfare of its people (Smart & Williams, 1973). Just with this definition, it is possible to understand that utilitarianism endorses the wise use of natural resources in a manner that maximises the welfare and needs of people of the current generation. Utilitarianism can also be explained in the context of intergenerational justice where it is not only the needs of the current generation that is worth maximising. For example Gosseries (2008) explained that to really be assured of people’s welfare in the current generation, it is important that we give up the consumption of part of our resource capital today by investing them in a manner that guarantees that we can consume as much as we want of it in the future. Meanwhile, whiles the current generation invests its resource capital through environmental preservation with the hope of utilising them in the future, they are indirectly making provisions available for the future generation and thus fulfilling the doctrine of intergenerational justice. Utilitarianism is therefore an aggregative theory that supports the notion that duties of environmental preservation can be performed with the idea of intergenerational justice. More to justifying the usability of intergenerational justice in environmental preservation, utilitarianism actually makes it possible to know the extent to which environmental preservation should be carried out. Daly (1996) explained that because the theory is concerned with the overall size of capital that can guarantee welfare, it does not actually border itself with relative size of capital. That is, utilitarianism does not ask the question of what size has been preserved but whether the preserved size is good enough to guarantee welfare. By extension, it is not about how big or small the quantum of environmental preservation should be but at the end of the day, it should be possible to agree that the level of environmental preservation being pursued can be sufficient for those that need it. It is for this reason that Smart and Williams (1973) explained that utilitarianism helps to make environmental preservation, as much as can be considered a utility. By factoring the increasing needs of the current generation, it is possible to admit and appreciate the fact that the future generation will require even more portions of natural resources than we currently use to secure their welfare or utility. With this reasoning in mind, it is true to state that utilitarianism is the most demanding theory that explains the extent to which duties of environmental preservation should be carried out with the idea of intergenerational justice. Distribution of global climate management cost among states Even though it has already been reiterated that the duties of environmental preservation must be carried out as a shared responsibility in both the definition of roles and performance of roles, the principle of distributive justice seeks to advocate that whilst all people in the world will take up roles environmental preservation, the roles must be distributed based on how much each state contributes to environmental degradation (Gardiner, 2006). This is because according the distributive justice, the fair distribution of benefits, burdens, and risks that arise within the human community must be linked with their shared use of the natural environment (Page, 2008). Even though there can be some justification in the distributive justice in stating that the distribution of global climate management cost must be done according to the wealth of the respective parties, it is also important to critique the real measure of wealth of parties. For example it may be true that countries such as United States, China, and United Kingdom are leaders in cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from 1850 to 2008 and at the same time leaders in total national wealth but the question of whether these countries enjoy the wealth or outcome of their industrialisation alone is an issue for serious analysis. Certainly, as a result of globalisation, the environmental waste and harm produced by one country indirectly benefits all others. Because of this it is important that no country will pretend not to be a culprit of climate change and thus not take up reasonable cost of global climate management. Conclusion Environmental preservation has been justified to be an important global exercise that requires collective cooperation in implementing. This is because all things with natural origins have been found to have intrinsic values which require protection. Meanwhile it is only when the larger environment in which these creature live in is preserved that the protection of the creatures can be secured. The task of environmental preservation has however been noted to be well approached from an intergenerational justice perspective. It would be noted that through the principles of intergenerational justice, all people are tasked with the responsibility having to give back to the future generation, what it inherited from the past generation. Even more, theories of intergenerational justice including indirect reciprocity, mutual advantage and utilitarianism help to define the real extent to which duties of environmental preservation can be explained with intergenerational justice. The reason for saying this is that apart from the fact that the theories support the environmentalism usage of intergenerational justice, they also explain the measure of preservation expected from current generation if the real guarantee of sustainability for the future generation can be assured. References Barry B. (1989). Justice as Reciprocity. in: Liberty and Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daly H. (1996). Beyond Growth, The economics of sustainable development. Boston, Beacon Press. De Shalit A. (1995). Why Posterity Matters. Environmental policies and future generations. London, Routledge. Diamond J. (2005). Collapse. How societies choose to fail or survive. London: Viking Books. Dworkin R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue. The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press. Gardiner, S. (2004). The global warming tragedy the dangerous illusion of the Kyoto Protocol, Ethics and International Affairs Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 23-29. Gardiner, S. (2006). A Perfect Moral Storm: Climate change, interegenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption, Environmental Values 15, pp. 15:397-413. Gauthier D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Gosseries, A. (2008). Theories of intergenerational justice: a synopsis. Sapiens, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 23-40 Hardin, G. (1968). ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science Vol. 162 No. 3859, pp. 1243-8. Hayward, T. (1998). Political Theory and Ecological Values. New York: St Martin’s Press. Jamieson, D. (2001) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell. Jamieson, D. (2003). Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jamieson, D. (2008). Ethics and the Environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LaFollette, H. (1997). Ethics in Practice. Oxford: Blackwell. Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac with Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press. Low, N. & Gleeson, B. (1998). Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology. London: Routledge. Meadows, D. et al (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books. Meyer, L. (2008). Intergenerational Justice Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Neumayer, E. (2000). In defence of historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, Ecological Economics 33, pp. 185-92. Page, E.A. (2003). Climate Change, Justice and Future Generations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Page, E.A. (2008). Distributing the burdens of climate change, Environmental Politics 17, pp. 556-75. Page, E.A. (2012) ‘Give it up for climate change: a defence of the beneficiary pays principle’, International Theory, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 300-30. Rolston, H. ‘Duties to Endangered Species’, in R. Elliot (ed.), Environmental Ethics, 60-75. Sagoff, M. (1988). The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shrader-Frechette, K. (2009). ‘Environmental Ethics’, in H. LaFollette (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, 188-218. Singer, P. (1975) Animal Liberation. London: Pimlico Singer, P. (2002) One World: the ethics of globalization. London: Tale University Press. Smart J. J. C. & Williams B. (1973) Utilitarianism. For and Against. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Taylor, P. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). Vallentyne P. & Steiner H. (2000). Left Libertarianism and its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. New York, Palgrave. Read More