Responsibility and the Environment
This is an excerpt from the paper...
What exactly is man's responsibility to the environment? When deliberating on whether to take an action that benefits human beings but harms nature or natural organisms, what kind of moral calculus must be undertaken to reach a decision? These are the questions that lie at the heart of the field of environmental ethics. The answer depends greatly on the ethical constructs used to deliberate on the topic. For example, some people hold an anthropocentric view of ethics, believing that the well being of humans takes precedence over all other considerations. Others attempt to create a moral construct based on utilitarian or psychological constructs, arguing that the interests of all conscious beings should be taken into consideration when making ethical decisions concerning the environment. Others still argue that all life has an intrinsic value and must be protected and considered when making decisions. This paper will explore all of the considerations surrounding the field of environmental ethics. We will explore ethics generally, the concept of the environment and man's place in relation to other organisms, and then move on to the various environmental ethical constructs that have been advanced. In the end, we will see that a pragmatic approach that recognizes the relative intrinsic value of organisms and considers their inter-relatedness is the best method. Before we begin exploring environmental ethics, we must first consider ethics generally. Ethics are inextri
. . .
nterests should take precedence. Aristotle, for one, noted that "since nature makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man" (Singer, 56). Thus, within Aristotle's system of ethics the interests of human beings always take precedence over those of the natural world, because nature created us superior to animals for a reason. The Christian philosophical tradition echoes this thought, although it rejected outright cruelty to animals. As St. Thomas Aquinas noted, "it is evident that if a man practices a pitiable affection for animals, he is all the more disposed to take pity on his fellow-men" (Singer, 56). Even St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of all environmentalists, was moved to proclaim "every creature proclaims: 'God made me for your sake, O man!'" (Singer, 56). While this view that animals were put on earth solely to serve the interests of man is not stated quite as plainly today, we can nevertheless see its echoes reaching down through the generations in the U.N declaration that man is at the center of all environmental concerns.
So what kind of an ethical calculus needs to be made when evaluating whether man's interests are more important than an
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Aristotle Aquinas, Ontario Rowe1, , Francis Assisi, Rolston1 United, Environment Development, Jesus Christ's, Rowe1 Canada, Life Earth, Malden MA, environmental ethics, intrinsic value, rolston iii, natural world, iii eds blackwell, ethical constructs, ma 2003, publishers malden, blackwell publishers, andrew light holmes, pragmatic approach, light holmes rolston, eds blackwell, rolston iii eds, holmes rolston iii,
Approximate Word count = 3569
Approximate Pages = 14 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
