“Does Ecologism begin where Anthropocentrism ends?” Discuss Ecologism is a new political ideology based on the position that the non-human world is worthy of moral consideration, and that this should be taken into account in social, economic, and political systems. However, Ecologism contains diverse approaches such as shallow which is seen as an anthropocentric strand and deep ecology of which takes an ecocentric approach. In this essay I will be assessing the claim that Ecologism begins where anthropocentrism ends. Firstly, Anthropocentrism is the belief that human needs and interests are of overriding moral and philosophical importance. It can be reflected in religious, political, cultural and other theories.
Artifactualism is constructed from many aspects of a variety of law theories, such as the Natural Law, Legal Positivism and Legal Realism. Though comprised of these theories, Artifactualism also criticizes them on different levels. What this theory derives from Natural Law is that law cannot be interpreted without taking into account it solidifies social norms that are present within it. From Legal Positivism it emphasizes that law is a human construct and that the focus should be on more tangible dimensions of law . Law should be interpreted through the contextual analyses of what people do in law versus focusing on finding the essence of Law as it criticizes Legal Positivists for doing.
Although they don’t condone the procedure, they prefer to hope for change from within. Other anthropologists point out that, although cultural relativism may help us understand a culture on its own terms, it can also help us understand how cultural beliefs reinforce inequalities by convincing people to accept practices that may be harmful and demeaning as natural. In
Natural Moral Law is a theory that is explained by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It states that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. It was originated in the philosophy of Aristotle and then developed by Aquinas. Natural Law is an absolute theory of ethics but it is not rooted in duty but in our human nature and our search for genuine happiness and fulfilment. Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
The claim that moral values cannot be derived from facts is grounded in the idea that facts are descriptive and informative whereas value propositions are prescriptive and imply that we ought to carry out certain action or act in a particular way. In essence, while facts give us information about the world itself, values tell us how we should act. It is accepted that facts are cognitive and are therefore know to be true or false. However, non-cognitivists support the idea that moral truths cannot be known due to the notion that any individual who is making moral judgements is not articulating their beliefs about the way the world is. Essentially, it is believed that there are no transcendent moral thoughts to be known or ascertained by individuals.
Meta ethics is the study of ethical language; however it differs from normative ethics. Normative ethics determines what is “good” and “bad”, whereas Meta ethics determines the meanings of the terms “good” and “bad”. There are two ethical approaches to Meta ethics, one being Cognitivism. Cognitivism is the view that ethical language can be known and understood objectively, through empirical experience or intuition. The second approach is Non-Cognitivism, this is the view that ethical language cannot be known and understood, due to subjectivity.
In searching for what nonconsequentialist believe, I found that it is the opposition of consequentalism. One view that is in opposition to consequentialism is deontology. Alexander describes dentology: In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to (aretaic [virtue] theories) that—fundamentally, at least—guide and assess what kind of person (in terms of character traits) we are and should be. And within that domain, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to
Sociological Perspectives Paper SOC/100 Introduction Institutions of higher learning are not the same as a few years ago. Although the institutions continue to provide general and core classes of study, they now offer a wider selection of elective or liberal arts classes. From the standpoint of functionalism, there is a framework which stresses that everything, no matter how seemingly strange, out of place, or harmful, serves a purpose. Therefore, taking part in more non-traditional classes, such as “The Joy of Garbage,” provides a sociological perspective that is molded by broader social forces (NB C News Archives, 2011). Classes such as these, examine the context in which people live, and how these contexts affect them.
I believe that ethical conduct appeals to “conscience”. In judging whether a person’s actions are ethical, I look to the intent behind his actions, rather than focusing on results. In other words, to consider ethical I believe that we must choose how we act and what rules we are willing to follow. From my perspective, ethical principles must be (a) appropriate under any circumstances; (b) respectable of human dignity; (c) committed to promoting individual freedom and autonomy. I do not consider human beings treated as “means” to the accomplishment of some defined “end”.