More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethical issues in environmental ethics
An essay on environmental ethics
Ethical issues in environmental ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of …show more content…
view. In doing so, I will then offer a critique of his philosophy, namely discussing the issues that this version of anthropocentrism poses when considering the current ecological crisis. The primary argument that Murdy puts forth in support of anthropocentrism in the modern age is dependent on the principles of evolutionary theory. Through citing Charles Darwin’s work on natural selection, Murdy asserts that because of an unconscious motivation to produce successful offspring, all species therefore “exist as ends in themselves” (281), as all beings are inherently self-interested in their own survival. Such a defense of anthropocentrism that stems from scientific reasoning stands in contrast to older philosophies, which are derived from a sense of divine right and unquestionable authority of humankind over the Earth. The accumulation of knowledge over time as to how ecosystems depend equally on all forms of life leads Murdy to declare that humans are not in fact the overarching, dominant species, but rather “a set within a hierarchical system of sets” (283). However, acknowledging these ecological realities does not necessarily negate the relevance of anthropocentrism: according to Murdy, humans should nevertheless “behave as though [we] value [our] own survival and that of [our] species more highly than the survival of other animals or plants” (282) because, as stated earlier, to do so is to merely follow an ingrained biological instinct. Murdy makes a point to acknowledge that all species have intrinsic value, given that every aspect of the natural world is interwoven, and human “existence depends upon the proper functioning of the earth’s present ecosystems” (283).
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
viewpoint.
Despite finding Harley’s article easier to absorb, I will be providing insight and knowledge of Scannell’s article “Dailiness” as I drew interest into his concepts and ideas behind the notion of temporality of everyday life. After Scannell’s reading, I could see myself reflecting different notions of time and ‘media time’, through his concepts of routinisation and the ‘care structures’ of dailiness I became exposed to the recurring cycle we live in.
The majority of this piece is dedicated to the author stating his opinion in regards to civilization expanding beyond its sustainable limits. The author makes it clear that he believes that humans have failed the natural environment and are in the process of eliminating all traces of wilderness from the planet. Nash points out facts that strengthen his argument, and quotes famous theologians on their similar views on environmental issues and policies. The combination of these facts and quotes validates the author’s opinion.
Elliot Sober's main point in this essay is about how could justify the environmentalism theories because they have some difficulties in reasoning their objectives and solutions. He illustrates about this difficulties and then he suggests some ways that can help to reason correctly about environmental concerns. He explains his points about some philosophers theory that try to give reasons about preserving the species and the environment. He tries to clarify about the ignorance argument that this argument suggests we must preserve every endangered species that it can be useful for human. Sober criticizes this opinion because sometimes a valuable species was known not to be valuable previously. Therefore he suggests that we should not because of human preference try to keep a species or keep not. The Slippery Slope Argument, that environmentalists affirm that every extinction is important significantly because it is possible arguing that none of species can be important that much then it will turn to a slippery slope argument. Sober mentions about the fact that If we consider a value for diversity therefore each species have value so we can value diversity without overemphasizing the position of each species separately. The Appeals to What is Natural, that is about what is natural to or what is domesticated or artificial. Sober claims that this distinction is meaningless because we believe that human beings also are part of the nature and what human makes also is part of
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
On December 2,2015 I went to to the Lynnhaven building to receive some feedback on my agreement paper for English 111. It was a very rainy day after running through the rain when I reached the writing center room. There was a yellow note saying that the writing center was in the student center until December 4,2015. After reading the note I ran back in the rain to my car.It was to cold to walk it was raining. As I approached the student center I was told by a security guard that the tutoring lab was located on the third floor. I had walked up three flights of stairs. When I had finally reached the third floor,I walk into the tutoring lab. There were about eight tables, but only four staff members and one student. Amen had approached me asking what did I need help with today. I replied saying that I would like some feedback on my paper for English. He then pointed to the writing table and said “she can assist you with your paper”.
The roots of ecofeminism are credited to a rising interest in both the environment and women’s rights. These topics became hotly debated after the Victorian era but many scholars say “ecofeminism is a new term for an ancient wisdom” (Diamond & Orenstein). Ecofeminism combines ecological and feminist rights to generate a very virtuous cause. It aims to change human’s relationships with each other and also with the environment, but it of course encompasses much more than that. Ecofeminism can best be defined as an attempt to show that all life is interconnected (Baker). That humans and nature share a common bond and that bond is what each depends upon to ensure the other survives.
As time passes, our population continues to increase and multiply; yet, on the other hand, our planet’s resources continue to decrease and deplete. As our population flourishes, human beings also increase their demands and clamor for the Earth’s natural products, yet are unable to sacrifice their surplus of the said resources. Garret Hardin’s work highlighted the reality that humans fail to remember that the Earth is finite and its resources are limited. Hardin’s article revealed that people are unable to fathom that we indeed have a moral obligation to our community and our natural habitat — that we are not our planet’s conquerors but its protectors. We fail to acknowledge and accept that we only have one Earth and that we must protect and treasure it at all costs. Despite all our attempts at annihilating the planet, the Earth will still be unrelenting — it will still continue to be present and powerful. Human beings must recognize that we need this planet more than it needs us and if we persist on being egocentric and covetous, in the end it is us who will
While humans are becoming increasingly aware of the environmental issues that are occurring in the world, most human systems are still unsustainable. Being sustainable in a society means that humans treat Earth like it has a limited supply of resources that need to be carefully managed in order to prevent damage to the world around us (Chiras, D. D., 2016). So, being unsustainable is the opposite; when humans treat the world like they are dominant over it, as well as believing that the Earth has an unlimited supply of resources that should be consumed by humans. Human beliefs and practices influence unsustainability, which can, and often do, correspond with the root cause of the problem.
Mill takes on the claim that utilitarianism is fit for a swine. “…life has no higher end than pleasure - no better and nobler object of desire and pursuit... as a doctrine worthy only of swine... (however) Human beings have faculties more elevated than the animal appetites” (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p331). This objection identifies the flaws in Mill’s moral theory. It mentions that humans have higher capacities and more special moral values than just pleasure that we must recognize and take into account that utilitari...
Taylor believes that if one concedes and accepts the first three components then acceptance of the fourth component is not unreasonable. He also suggests that in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature one must accept all four elements of the biocentric outlook. “Once we reject the claim that humans are superior either in merit or in worth to other living things, we are ready to adopt the attitude of respect. The denial of human superiority is itself the result of taking the perspective on nature built into the first three elements of the biocentric outlook” (Taylor 153). This is where Taylor is mistaken. I will argue in the subsequent paper that humans, as a condition of moral agency, are superior to other living things and that one does not need to accept Taylor’s fourth element in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
In his article, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," W.H. Murdy integrates these two conflicting phenomena by tracking the evolution of anthropocentrism itself and proposing that Darwinian theory marks the shift from an old version of anthropocentrism to a new, modern version. This modern reconceptualization is able to situate human centered thinking within the story of evolution, but it also elucidates a complex and uniquely human crisis in which anthropocentrism becomes self-destructive.
Such ploys seek to undermine any legitimate eco-consciousness in the audience, replacing it with rhetoric that is ultimately ambivalent toward the health of ecosystems, but definitively pro-business. These tactics assume a rigidly anthropocentric point of view, shutting out any consideration for the well-being of non-human existence; they seem to suggest that nature lies subordinate to our base desires. In addition to upholding the subordination of nature to business and leisure activities, this view establishes nature as something privately owned and partitioned (243), rather than something intrinsic to the world. Our relationship with nature becomes one of narcissism.
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.
Thomas Aquinas for example, used this view to rebuke the criticisms of anthropocentrism, “We refute the error of those who claim that it is a sin for a man to kill brute animals. For animals are ordered to man’s use in the natural course of things, according to divine providence. Consequently, man uses them without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way” (Desjardins, 99). Not only has Aquinas claimed that animals are subject to man as a “natural course”, but also that anyway in which they are used is justified because of this. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, and claims that the sole basis for plants and animals’ existence is to serve humans. He later goes on to say that if nature makes nothing without purpose, then nature has made everything specifically for the sake of humankind. Both Aristotle and Aquinas based these beliefs upon the idea that only human beings are worthy of moral standing. This is due to the belief that humans alone have a “soul” capable of thinking and choosing. Since they thought animals not to have such a soul, animals must be morally irrelevant (Desjardins, 99). In this first example, the basis for environmental responsibility comes entirely from the belief that said the environment is meant to serve humans. Meaning that any obligations man has towards nature is entirely