A main view of anthropocentrism is that nature serves only to serve mankind in any way possible. This idea has led modern society to exploit and plunder natural resources for the “betterment” of mankind. Because it values humanity with such high regard, anthropocentrism seeks to protect only the things that can directly benefit mankind, without leaving room for the things that can indirectly benefit man too. Anthropocentrism has extrinsic value for the world, meaning it sees the organisms and systems on earth as existing for the sole purpose of benefiting mankind. As human technology progresses on so does the damage this type of thinking can inflict upon the planet.
A follower of natural law would say that the statement is flawed, and that the theory can be extremely useful when dealing with issues concerning the environment. However, there are those who would believe otherwise, and suggest an alternative ethical approach to be more appropriate. One way in which natural law is of no use when dealing with issues concerning the environment is that some rules formulated by the theory do not work when applied. For example, Aquinas’ synderesis rule of ‘do good, avoid evil’ is the foundation of his ethical theory, this principle implying that the exploitation and abuse of the environment would be wrong as it is regarded as evil. Despite this, his synderesis rule consequently cannot be applied to all situations when dealing with issues concerning the environment as it is impossible to ‘avoid evil’ completely.
‘Naturalism’ is the term used to describe the attempt to arrive at a moral system based on observations of human life. In other words, all things are knowable using empirical evidence, and thus, ethical language is objective. Naturalists argue that we can get an idea of what words such as ‘good’ mean by looking at the world and find moral laws (which do exist) through our experience and understanding of nature. For example, Utilitarianism is a form of naturalism which claims that moral laws exist. We promote goodness and happiness using nature and experience, we can work out thus, that murder, for example, is wrong because committing murder does not cause happiness.
These are changes which seem to be reshaping economic, political, and social life in societies around the world. This essay will discuss the contributory factors, supporting factors, and criticisms towards this claim… There are two key approaches to environmental values: The philosophical approach considers what people should think about the environment, whilst the sociological asks what do people think about the environment. The methodology to attaining results for each approach is dissimilar: Philosophy will rely on approaches such as consequentialism and rights, whereas sociology routes for statistics and decisions through both quantitative and qualitative methodology. These divergent approaches, when combined are positively contributory in making a balanced evaluation of one’s environmental values. (Society and Nature 3a, lecture) However, Inglehart is criticised for not making this balanced evaluation since his approach is predominantly only sociological.
Hynes also concludes that an altruistic, bridled, “green” or spiritual quest toward consuming less may only be a small part of the answer. Hynes goes on to say that as consumers, we must appraise our “ecological footprint” which includes government responsibility as well as genuine concern from the general public. On an individual level, it would include a more conscientious and self-aware approach to consumerism. ! As I read the Hynesʼ assessment of the different types of North American consumers, I felt pegged.
He writes, "There is yet no ethic dealing with man's relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it" (Leopold, 516). This is a problem for Leopold, for he strongly believes that human beings must take ethical responsibility for the effects they have on the land. He furthers his point by explaining that ethics have evolved to rest on the idea that ethics serve to prompt individuals to cooperate in an otherwise individualistic community. Therefore, it is through these ecological ethics alone that humankind can work together to alter their environmental state. Leopold goes on to explain that "a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it" (Leopold, 517).
Prioritizing means that one particular situation is the only one in concern before all other situations. Prioritizing poverty means forgetting about HIV/Aids, diabetes, but more importantly environmental protection. That comes to our definition of protection. Protecting ourselves from something means we are only doing things to help prevent something bad from happening. It does not mean we are eliminating the situation.
If profits are more important the argument might be made of the attachment of the plant to the idea of maximizing profit. Union Carbide’s ethical duty to those injured seems all around clear. Both Buddhism and Confucianism state the importance of welfare to humans, but they approach is different. Confucianism promotes the importance of self-cultivation, sometimes through the means of altruistic or righteous acts, and this disaster creates an opportunity to act in such a way, thus fortifying your moral obligation to cultivate yourself. According to Ren a ruler must act in
Within Utilitarianism, philosophers have produced different theories. Bentham states that we should follow the basic principle of “The greatest good for the greatest number”. This would suggest that when looking at problems considering the environment, the ethically moral decision made should consider the effect on sentient beings. So, when considering the principles of conservation ethics, where the environment is here for our own benefit, it is clear to see that a utilitarian approach would maintain this theory too, as the environment is here for the greatest benefit towards humans. Mill also looked at utilitarianism.
3) How can we fix it? A prevalent worldview today is naturalism, which answers the three questions like this: 1) We are the product of random acts of nature with no real purpose. 2) We do not respect nature as we should. 3) We can save the world through ecology and conservation. A naturalistic worldview generates many related philosophies such as moral relativism, existentialism, pragmatism, and utopianism.