Introduction
Environmental ethics is a hot contemporary ethical issue of the modern era. Basically, it refers to the moral association between the natural environment and human beings (Dench, 2006). This issue faces a lot of conflict because of the various conflicting approaches to it. Religious and traditional approaches contend that human beings were granted dominion over the natural environment to meet their needs. The concept of anthropocentrism or human-centered nature states that human beings are the chief bearers of intrinsic value and all that is in the environment, exists to sustain the existence of humanity. However, over the decades, human greediness has led to numerous environmental crises that the world confronts today. On the contrary, the ecocentrism approach explicitly recognizes the worth of all things in the environment regardless of their value to humanity (Killen & Smetana, 2005). From this approach, the human race is solely responsible for all the biological life on the universe. This is simply because humans are not only the most consuming species on earth but also, they are capable of perceiving and thinking. Therefore, by treating the environment in an ill-manner humans are not only altering the ecosystem but also threatening the very survival of humanity. This paper will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches to the issue of environmental ethics. I will also articulate and defend my position on this contemporary ethical issue by applying critical reasoning skills to my defense.
Alternative Positions
There are three key approaches to environmental ethics. They include anthropocentric, holistic (non-extensionist) and extensionist. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages. Anthropocentric approach is basically all about the human qualities. This approach offers criteria for moral position like the state of potential personhood, being human and rationalism. In this view, only human beings can have a moral position. Non-human things are only given a particular moral consideration in the sense that they are valued with only human beings who have a moral position. The main advantage of this approach is that it is amenable to adjudication methods (Kraut, 2014). To have a moral position, one must be human and this is final. The Western cultures have spent many years trying to perfect an adjudication procedure. Today, this procedure is properly advanced and defined. None of the other approaches have successfully defined an adjudication method. However, this approach has weaknesses too. It solely focuses on human beings. By being human centered, this approach is extremely limiting hence its moral criteria is unjustifiable (Killen & Smetana, 2005).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The extensionist approach works just like the anthropocentric approach but the only difference is that it extends moral position to non-humans (Killen & Smetana, 2005). In our society, the anthropocentric approach gives non-human beings a moral position even if they lack the relevant criteria such as an ability to feel pain, perceive and self-awareness. Basically, extensionalism extends past the non-human category to cover non-human things (Bruce, 2002). Hence, it calls for justifiable criteria. For criteria to be justifiable, it cannot be sexist, ageist, racist and the list continues. Because of justifiability reasons, the extensionist approach debunks criterias that can be simply overshadowed by things such as sexist, ageist, racist and other “ist” labels (Gowans, 2008). In this case, my personal criteria for morality derive from my ability to feel pain. The downside of this approach is that it does not clearly set out methods for adjudicating for those who can feel pain. Moreover, it does not even tell us how to adjudicate. However, a key strength of this approach is that it rejects overly human-centered criteria. Another source of disadvantage rests in its failure to decline the hierarchical ordering of personal morality (Hursthouse, 2012).
Position on a contemporary
Based on the principles of both ecocentrism and anthropocentrism, it is difficult for one to make moral decisions, which satisfy both approaches. Particularly, humanity and the environment are damaged when human beings practice anthrocentrism (Kraut, 2014). And, it is simply impossible to shift to ecocentrism overnight due to the generation or waste and heavy dependence on resources. From an iconological perspective, people tend to make justifications only when their intervention in the environment is important to the fulfillment of human needs such as for luxury or survival. Ecologists have encircled ecocentrism and anthropocentrism by recognizing inherent value in the environment and enabling consuming species to profit from what the nature provides to meet vital human needs. A good example is interfering with the environment for building a golf course. This is highly unethical because a golf course is hardly essential for the survival of humanity. Worse is the fact that devastation is caused to vegetation and the Earth (Kraut, 2014).
As we have previously mentioned, moral decisions pertaining to the environment are paradoxical in nature. For one to make a decision that may benefit humanity without causing any reparable damage to the environment, it is important to first weigh the potential impacts and decide which one takes precedence (Youssef et al., 2012). For instance, though exploring oil for energy production is detrimental to the environment, it benefits humans for numerous applications such as production of pesticides and fuels besides the economic benefits. Looking at the potential damages, the excessive use of oil as an energy source is not eco-friendly. Hence, there is a deep need to pursue alternative energy sources. Following intensive researches in this field, scientists pursuing a solution finally decided to recycle waste to generate biodiesel used to power cars. Application of the recycling process reduces the consumption of natural resources hence respect the inherent worth of the environment (Killen & Smetana, 2005).
Critics might argue that alternative energy sources like solar are expensive. But, nano-technology can be used to invent flexible sheets of solar cells at a much cheaper cost compared to photovoltaic cells that are used today (Williams, 1999). In view of the industrious development that human beings have achieved, we can agree that we can easily find solutions for the numerous environmental challenges we are facing today. Sadly, this may be challenging because economic and political factors may alter our personal morality and decent ethical decisions (Youssef et al., 2012). The world over recognizes that people have failed to take care of each other and this is evidence by global wars, such as the Israel versus Palestine war whereby many lives are seen as worthless. Therefore, unless we all acknowledge the inherent worth in each human being and shift this respect to the Earth, the environment remains under threat.
Conclusion
To this end, because human beings are born with greediness, then, they must be intelligence enough to see that humanity of facing dark days ahead. If human beings fail to take action towards the betterment of the environment, then, they will likely witness the nature’s species undergoing ultimate extinction (Killen & Smetana, 2005). It is impossible to abandon anthropocentrism instantly. However, human beings can control their nature consumption and intervene when necessary for their ultimate survival. Approaches towards environmental ethics seem to be conflicting in some way. The most important thing is for human beings to consider engaging in actions that yield less harm to their surroundings. This means we must follow the ecocentric approach. This approach argues that granting both human and non-human things some intrinsic value would be the first step towards a better world in future.
References
Bruce, W. (2002). Personal ethics and administrative actions [Supplemental material]. International Review of Public Administration , 7(1).
Dench, S. (2006). How personal can ethics get? The Journal of Management Development, 25 (10), 1013–1017.
Gowans, C. (2008, December 9). Moral relativism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
Hursthouse, R. (2012, March 8). Virtue ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Killen, M., & Smetana, J. G. (2005). Handbook of moral development . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kraut, R. (2014, April 21). Aristotle's ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
Williams, R. (1999). On making moral decisions. Anglican Theological Review, 81 (2), 295–309.
Youssef, F. F., Dookeeram, K., Basdeo, V., Francis, E., Doman, M., Mamed, D., . . . Legall, G. (2012, April). Stress alters personal moral decision-making . Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37 (4), 491–498.
