More handpicked essays just for you.
Conclusion to environmental ethics
Introduction to environmental ethics
Introduction to environmental ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Conclusion to environmental ethics
What the provided quote means is that the primary quest in environmental ethics is to find a logical reason for preserving the environment for something other than its instrumental value. There are two types of values; intrinsic and instrumental. Modifying a statement by Taylor, something of intrinsic value can be defined as an entity (or thing) whose good is worthy of being promoted or preserved as an end in itself, and for the sake of the entity (or thing) whose good it is (p. 105). This contrasts with something of instrumental value, which could be defined as being worthy of being promoted or preserved only for its role as a tool in promoting the good of another entity. When Sober says that the problem is a search for rationale, what he is saying is that when there is no discernable instrumental value of something, there is difficulty in finding a logical ground to explain why we feel that should invest in preserving it. …show more content…
(i) Plumwood tries to provide a rational for environmentalism by saying that nature, in her experience with the crocodile, provides “a humbling and cautionary tale about our relationship with the earth, about the need to acknowledge our own animality and ecological vulnerability” (Plumwood, p. 271). Maintaining an ecosystem’s integrity is important because it entails the preservation and respect of animals that may prey upon us (acknowledging our ecological vulnerability), which acts as a test for the strength of our identity of being just another animal on the earth (acknowledging our animality). She says that maintaining the environment is important because it humbles and reminds us of our place in the world—we are not above the rest of the animals, and we must be conscientiousness of the inaccuracy of our own internal narrative, which provides this illusion (Plumwood, p.
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.
Man has destroyed nature, and for years now, man has not been living in nature. Instead, only little portions of nature are left in the world
Aldo Leopold’s essay, “Thinking Like a Mountain” shines light on a prominent issue amongst the ecosystem concerning the importance of a single organism. Leopold attempts to help the reader understand the importance of all animals in the ecosystem by allowing a wolf, deer, and a mountain to represent the ecosystem and how changes amongst them cause adverse effects on each other. Leopold recounts of the killing of a wolf and seeing a "fierce green fire" die in its eyes, this became a transformational moment in his life causing him to rethink the beliefs he had grown up with. By connecting the wolf’s death to the health of the mountain he was inspired to promote the idea that all predators matter to the ecosystem. He believed then that all native organisms are critical to the health of the land, if any change occurs in one part of the circuit, many parts will have to adjust to it and if something is removed the consequence can be detrimental. The essay highlights the idea that all living things on earth have a purpose and that everything is interdependent of each other.
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
One strength of his article is that it can easily elicit an emotional response from the more sympathetic readers and outdoor enthusiasts. Duane appeals to pathos when first setting the scene of a day in the wilderness. He describes what it would be like if one had the “good fortune” to spot a Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in the wild. He writes, “You unwrap a chocolate bar amid breathtaking views . . . the sight fills you with awe and also with gratitude for the national parks, forests, and yes, environmental regulations that keep the American dream of wilderness alive” (Duane 1). For the audience that connects to this emotional appeal, this instantly draws them in to the article and can arouse feelings of amazement and wonder toward the sight described. It can likewise leave readers wondering whether or not this scene is truly so perfect. This statement can also appear too dramatic for those less passionate. When Duane writes, “The sight fills you with . . . gratitude for the . . . yes, environmental regulations that keep the American dream of wilderness alive,” it seems almost untrue, as most people do not think twice about the environmental regulations that keep animals in their
As discussed previously, Kareiva and Marvier argue that focusing on human welfare does not have to sacrifice biodiversity (962-969). However, some find that the argument only holds when conservation itself is tied to a clearly outlined conservation agenda (Sanderson and Redford 389). For conservation efforts to be successful, multiple countries and agencies need to cooperate (“Lecture Week 13”). Conservationists, economists, and political strategists must find conservation issues that do not hinder efforts to alleviate issues of the human condition such as global poverty and world hunger. In actuality, biodiversity loss and poverty are linked, but conservation strategies that will reap success in integrating the two need clear conceptual frameworks (Adams et al. 1146). In order to find a balance and to foster stability for lasting and sustainable development and environmental health, it is important to take humans out of the equation when assessing the status of the environment, and to implement formal scientific strategies to conservation policies (Erwin
In “The Fish” by Elizabeth Bishop, the narrator attempts to understand the relationship between humans and nature and finds herself concluding that they are intertwined due to humans’ underlying need to take away from nature, whether through the act of poetic imagination or through the exploitation and contamination of nature. Bishop’s view of nature changes from one where it is an unknown, mysterious, and fearful presence that is antagonistic, to one that characterizes nature as being resilient when faced against harm and often victimized by people. Mary Oliver’s poem also titled “The Fish” offers a response to Bishop’s idea that people are harming nature, by providing another reason as to why people are harming nature, which is due to how people are unable to view nature as something that exists and goes beyond the purpose of serving human needs and offers a different interpretation of the relationship between man and nature. Oliver believes that nature serves as subsidence for humans, both physically and spiritually. Unlike Bishop who finds peace through understanding her role in nature’s plight and acceptance at the merging between the natural and human worlds, Oliver finds that through the literal act of consuming nature can she obtain a form of empowerment that allows her to become one with nature.
As a great deal is being done to help endangered wildlife as well as animals in general, there is still a considerable amount of improvements to make. “The exterminating of predators by governments or individuals is wrong-headed, extremely selfish, cruel and the very worst example of wildlife management. It is failed management. In today's backwards and upside-down world, our wildlife needs our protection, not extermination” (Pitt). We need to instill the good values of animals in today’s society so that we may work towards better maintenance of the future lives of these animals. Instead of mounting an animal’s head on the wall as a prize and reducing wildlife population, we should be proud of the variety of species we have on earth and leave them to live free.
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.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
The land ethic is a holistic view of ecosystems. It entails an entire view of a biotic community to include all of nature, not just the individualistic components which incorporate our environment. Great efforts would be taken by supporters of the ‘land ethic’ to support an ecosystem that was threatened. The individual components that comprise the ecosystem are not of great concern to supporters of this theory; they would argue that a threat to an individual organism, even protected or endangered, should be evaluated on whether or not the protected or endangered species does endanger the integrity of the whole system. A supporter of the land ethic argument would have consequences to weigh regarding the value of the threatened individual and how it relates to the survival of individuals of the group. If the group were to suffer a threatening blow that could affect the livelihood or existence of members of the controlling group one would expect that the threatened organism could be evaluated for possible “non-protection”. In contrast, a Respect for Nature ethic believes that any animal or living organism should be protected because that organism is deserving of its own individual worth; the fact that it is protected or endangered would be of little concern to these supporters. The simple fact that an individual is threatened is more than sufficient to justify that great efforts be taken to protect that individual entity. The Respect for Nature ethic followers would argue that every organism is worthy of protection because of an inherent worth that entitles that entity to protection from destruction.
In her essay, “The Difficulty of Reality and the Difficulty of Philosophy,” the American philosopher Cora Diamond discusses animal rights and our obligations as human beings to nonhuman animals. Diamond has a fascinating philosophical take on the matter of animal rights. She is concerned with reminding people that they are animals. They are just another species among a plenty of others. Diamond uses the idea of the existential other to remind us of our animality, because it is in our shared mortality that humans and animals are alike. Furthermore, our morality is simply a human construction that allows us to talk about others from a distance as Diamond calls it the “language-game” (Diamond, 45). In essence, we view ourselves as different, separate or better than those animals because of the separation that we emphasize between mind and body, forgetting that we are animal as well. By placing the animal in a position of equality which is the place of the other, we should find compassion and sympathy for it.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Katz then analyzes an article written by Robert Elliot, in which Elliot compares nature to a work of art. To Elliot when nature is restored, it is analogous to copying or forgeding a work of art; in the process it loses its value. The problem Katz finds with Elliot’s argument is that because a land developer nor a strip mining company would never actually restore nature to its original state, it is not analogous to coping a piece of artwork because at that point is is completely different. Nature is different from art in that it is always changing, so there is no original, therefore, restoration of nature is not forgery, it is the creation of an artifact, which is made to serve human need. Restoring nature would be more similar to restoring a piece of artwork, not forgeding a piece of artwork.
I view myself as someone who possess an anthropocentric view but at the same time, I respect nature and the environment. I strongly believe that nature is there for humans to manipulate and use to their benefit. The environment is valuable in my eyes because it sustains all lifeforms on earth. Without nature and the environment, we simply wouldn’t exist as the resources needed for survival are all based on nature and natural elements. While certain aspects of nature and certain resources are crucial, not all natural or environmental existences are valuable. I measure an item’s value by how it contributes to human life. An item is only as valuable as it’s ability to serve humans. For example, I see crude