More handpicked essays just for you.
Environmental ethics, ethical dilemmas
Anthropocentrism focuses centrally on
Humans And Their Relationship With The Environment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Environmental ethics, ethical dilemmas
Several economic and technological advances have led mankind down a steep path to environmental disintegration. Environmental ethics is established on humans’ intuitions about what is right and wrong. Our knowledge about what is morally right comes from day-to-day interactions among our species. In today’s globalized society, the effects of our actions are indirect and cumulative. Do our ethical intuitions correctly reflect our global environmental concerns? To start off this paper, I will investigate the anthropocentric-consequentialist approach to environmental ethics. Anthropocentrism meaning humans as the most important life form, and consequentialism meaning the morality of actions solely based on their consequences. Anthropocentric consequentialism …show more content…
If we treat her nicely, she will keep us going for a while. If we scratch her, she will bleed, kick us out, bandage up, and go about her business at her planetary scale.” Gould is essentially saying a good action will yield a good consequence, the main ethical point for anthropocentric consequentialism. Gould also makes a great point that humans are insignificant compared to the planetary scale. A consequentialist would say the point of morality is to make the world a better place. In order to do so, sentient beings must make decisions that ultimately have positive consequences. In regards to affluent countries, maximizing the good might seem too demanding. Let’s say you decide to take your car to work every morning, rather than public transit. You are wasting money on gas and polluting the atmosphere. A consequentialist approach would have you take the bus because it would lessen hazardous gas emissions into the air and you can spend gas money on more pressing matters (like donating a portion of your gas money to the World Wild Life Foundation). This approach is designed specifically for human
A common objection to consequentialism, that agents are burdened with duties to help others at the expense of their own happiness, was not even addressed. This in itself seems to be one form of absolutism that riddles consequentialism in general. Nielsen made it clear that one should not be absolute about insisting on weighing consequences when they are barely known, but would he reject this notion as well? It is not clear that this absolutism, of always valuing the good of others over the agent’s own self, is separable from the concept of consequentialism; so it is not clear that consequentialism can escape absolutism as Nielsen concluded in the second argument recounted here.
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Although he believes that all beings have worth in and of themselves, Murdy does reject what he refers to as the “Franciscan” view that all types of life are equal. From a contemporary anthropocentric lens, to see the intrinsic value of all creatures does not mean that we as a species shouldn’t also interact with our environment by judging things in terms of instrumental value as well. In this line of thought, Murdy would likely approve of animal testing or the killing of a dangerous strain of bacteria, as while both non-human animals and microbes have undeniable value, these acts would be for the imperative benefit of humans. Here, Murdy expands on classical interpretations of anthropocentrism by not placing humans and nature in opposition to each other, and instead takes into account the complexities of life while still standing by his belief that anthropocentrism is a valid
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Everybody knows that to have a good social life one needs to have good ethics, but what about using those ethics in the natural environment. Many people tend to say that they are well-educated, with a high use of ethics, but it seems useless in the real world. Society needs to start to worry about the environment and not only about what one wants or need. Aldo Leopold describe how ethics in an ecological and philosophical view today needs to changed to have a good use of them. Leopold was one of the founders of the Wilderness society. At the same time, he initiated the first Forest Wilderness Area in the United States. This two are just some of the societies and jobs in which he was involved that have to do with the natural environment. During
Perhaps the most important question moral philosophy can ask is: who or what is entitled to moral rights? When we discuss differing moral philosophies such as utilitarianism or deontology we do so with the underlying assumption that human beings are centric to the moral code. Should we assume this? Historically speaking humans have only been present on this planet for 100,000 years. The planet itself has been around 4.6 billion years, so the environment and animal life existed long before intelligent human life emerged. Why then, is morality generally accepted to be applied solely to humans? To answer this question I intend to discuss some of the basic tenets of morality, such as the moral community. What does membership in the moral community entail? Does not being a contributing member to the moral community mean that you are not entitled to moral consideration? The way humans deal with the topics of animal rights and environmentalism hinge upon the answer to these questions.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
Within the guidelines of utilitarianism, Singer’s approach appears to harmonize, as he believed the goal in life should be to attain happiness and when the desirable level is reached, one should pay it forward. However, to the dismay of many, he believed that one born to pain and suffrage could not reach such pleasure therefore, had nothing to contribute to the environment and hence, such a life need not be continued and such a life furthered, would only be a strain on happiness. Singer’s judgement on moral behavior was that bringing pain into the world would only consume positive energy and could not further the benefits of happiness as, it is absent. In thinking that one’s existence should benefit environmental ethics as a whole or to those who need it most, Singer has said, “It is not enough that an environmental policy conform to the principles of some or other environmental ethic, it should conform to the correct, or best justified, one.” (p.285) Singer is also inclusive to animals within his statement as he considered animals just as equal in nature as humans. Essentially, he had a vision of animals being free from cruelties and exploitations such as factory farming. Extending happiness, to him, was meant only for people and creatures that could share it and, in accordance to his philosophy, deserved it in efforts to amplify well-being. Singer’s morally confusing ethics have added a unique wing in the developments of environmental ethics that, if anything, indulge in daring thoughts and help refine the purpose of
Let us discuss consequentialism first. Consequentialism focuses on consequences as the most important factor in the decision making process (Donaldson 3). For consequentialists the motives of an act are not as important as what comes out of it. Utilitarianism is one of the branches of consequentialism. Utilitarianism believes in the greatest good for the number (Donaldson 3). This method along with egoist consequentialism was probably the one that w...
When we think of environmental justice, we often focus on the ecosystem in which we as humans live, and the natural resources and non-human animals that live there. We tend to think about ethical uses of natural resources, and the effects it has on the non-human animals, such as animal rights, endangerment and extinction, loss of habitat, deforestation, erosion, and pollution. Environmental justice is another factor that is concerned with environmental protection and social justice, including humans into the mix of the complex ecosystem. Environmental justice considers the fair and equal distribution of cost and benefits between humans and the natural world. (1) Environmental justice is also defined as the fair treatment of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income and no particular group should have to bear more than their fair share of the burden of negative environmental consequences from industrial pollution or
There are many factors that play into our development and planning for growth. Ethical, economical, and political factors are three main focal points in society. We've realized that our growth as a civilization has wreaked havoc on many parts of the environment as we've expanded and are now seeking to right those wrongs that we can. Moving forward we're working to apply important ethics like Intergenerational Equity, Intragenerational Equity, and Ecological Justice.
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.
I propose a circle of continuous reciprocal influences between ecological theories and ethical norms respecting nature.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.