Aristotle once wrote that “nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man’ (Politics, BK. 1, chap 8). This statement alone shows us the anthropocentric ideas humans have had since the earliest writings. Humans believed that it is fine to consume natural resources, including animals, for the benefit of human kind without regards to the consequences that could happen to our environment. As we examine the current situation with our needs for more fuel, we are looking for ways to fill this need by going into untouched environments, leaving ourselves open for possible environmental disasters (Lieberman, 2005).
The creation of the world was a miracle and cannot be explained by scientist. Supernatural forces God contains can explain the act of creation. God can create and breathe life and be the designer of our souls. In the bible there is commentary and scriptures below provide proof that God created the universe. Key Bible verses such as: Hebrews 11:3, John 1:3, Romans 1:20, and Genesis 2:7, and.
Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. These are the opening words of the bible, to believe that God is the creator of the universe is to see everything very different from those without such faith, belief in God’s creation brings with it a way of looking at reality that centers on relationship that sees life in the light of human dependence on God. According to SDA Bible Commentary written by E.G White commenting on this verse it says; “the verb to create describes an activity of God, never of men, God creates”. She continues saying; “the first words of the bible point to the fact that the creation bears the imprint of God’s own activity”. This clearly shows that God is the one who created
The freewill defence argues that freewill is an essential part of humanity, without which we would be like robots. This explains why freewill is sufficiently worth the risk of evil, as many circumstances of evil are a part of the soul-making process according to John Hick. Genuine freewill requires the possibility of evil and without this possibility we would have freewill. It then argues that all the accounts of evil that have happened throughout history were necessary to our freewill. This explains why God did not simply step in and save us from the worst effects of our choices.
Once formed, this foundation serves to inform our notions of “acceptable risk” and responsible engineering, allowing us to set a course for our society in real terms. I argue that this moral compass must be forward-thinking and aggressive, and represent the future we wish to achieve and preserve for future generations. It is only with this mindset will we keep apace of our innate human desire to expand, explore, control, and multiply. It must also be built on a rich appreciation for the immense complexity of Earth’s interconnected biosystems. Deepwater drilling represents both a surrendering of this moral courage to our perceived immediate needs and a failure to adequately value the obligation this natural complexity requires in securing the future health of the planet.
Why for Hobbes is the desire for power so central to his conception of the ‘natural condition of mankind’, which can only be remedied by the creation of an absolute sovereign? In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes outlines the necessity of the existence of the state given the natural conditions and inclinations of mankind. This essay shall discuss what the natural condition of mankind is, particularly in relation to its desire to power, and how this condition can only be rectified by the creation of an absolute sovereign. Hobbes contends that as humans, we are egoistic. We act selfishly in order to survive.
Darwin in Evolution VS Creationsism There is a difference between Darwinism and Creationism, one is based on data and the other is based on belief. Darwinism concerns itself as a science that is explained by scientific methodology. Biological evolution concerns changes in living things during the history of life on earth. It explains that living things share common ancestors and over time evolutionary change gives rise to new species. On the other hand, the ideas of creation science is derived from the conviction of most Abrahemic religions that God created the universe-including humans and other living things-all at once in the relatively recent past.
Teddy saw the beauty of our wonderfully diverse planet, while also giving heed to the many naturally preserved resources that it holds. He would not agree with the environmentalists who are strongly opposed to taking advantage of our national resources, yet he also would not agree with the people who paid no attention to the beauty of their planet, and viewed it as a source of income, rather than a home. Theodore Roosevelt, by category, would be considered a conservationist; but a well-informed, earth respecting conservationist. This is the mindset that all inhabitants of Earth need in order for us to thrive as a whole. Most preservationists and environmentalists are completely ignorant when it comes to the topic of natural resources.
This is an idea of considerations of justice, relating to the rights of human beings. Following on this, I shall discuss John Rawls’ ‘Law of Peoples’ in which he presents the idea of a social contract for justified living, in which we should enable others to live just lives but that we are not obliged to distribute our wealth equally throughout the world. Cosmopolitans would disagree with this as the hold the humanitarian idea that everyone is of equal standing, no matter what their nationality or citizenship is. They argue that our obligations of justice are equal to everyone in the world because everyone holds the same moral values. Before deciding what it is that obliges us to aid the global poor it is important to understand the sheer scale of the current state of
It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism. Taking this into consideration I will explore Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism and it’s potential to challenge my thesis on our moral obligation to the environment. While I find the anthropocentric view selfish in nature, it can be used to great effect to justify my claim. Anthropocentrism puts forward the claim that humans are at the centre of nature, and in order to sustain our existence and continue to advance, every living thing and resource exists solely to serve that purpose (Cochrane, 2007). Yet this does not imply that we should mine every mineral and strip every tree, for if we were to consume and take every resource to meet the demands of our ever advancing and growing civilisation, the planet would be devoid of all resources that humanity cannot exist without.