Viewpoint of Leopold and Schweitzer about Artificial Destruction of Ecosystem Centers - Assignment Example

Essay Assignment Introduction The emerging human destruction of nature has attracted mixed reactions from the society. Political leaders, scholars and the members of the public have argued on multiple perspectives of the environmental degradation. The industrial revolution led to increased human destruction of wildlife which has led to imbalanced ecosystem. The question has always remained unanswered on whether to take care for the future generation or serve selfish contemporary interests. The main cause of environmental degradation is human being and this has compelled philosophers to analyze behavior and possible remedies that can address such violence against nature. Many philosophers have argued in terms of ethical aspects of humanity towards environmental care. Leopold viewpoint Various ideas about artificial destruction of ecosystem centers on ethics as a tool of human conscience. The moral obligation of man towards the non-living objects and other living organisms has been proposed by two environmental thinkers in a divergent perspective but convergent basis. Leopold is a proponent of land ethic as a critical moral instrument that should guide human actions towards nature. His claim emphasizes the overriding perception of man that land is a property. His analogy of Odysseus killing his maid servants is a comparative scenario of how man treats land. He argues against the human notion that land should be treated as personal property that can be exposed to destruction at will. Instead Leopold explains that man should consider land as part of ecology in which man is also a member (Kohák 88). The point is that land serves as the habitat of several other organisms besides man. In that respect, man’s effort to destroy land interferes with the otherwise complex biotic and abiotic system that constitutes nature. Land ethics is used by Leopold to emphasize the need for a moral conscience of man in his relationship with soil. The description of land in this case encompasses water, soil, wildlife and all living and non-living organisms that make up ecosystem. The relationship that exists between man and land is more of symbiotic and property aspect should not be upheld. The land is considered the source of energy through food chain that ends up sustaining man. Leopold argues that the working of the ecosystem is complex and limited knowledge of man which prompt violent attack on nature is not fair. Man is the only organism with conscience and has the obligation to exercise morality in his treatment of nature. In this respect, Leopold champion for responsibility on the side of man in his desires to satisfy societal needs through nature. Other animals and plants may not have the conscience but it is evident that they always pose limited risk to the same ecosystem that supports them. The history of evolution and biblical assertions of human superiority over nature assigns moral obligation to do the right thing for sustainable existence. The argument of Leopold is consistent with the basic knowledge that the society have. The direction of climate debate depends on the personal initiative to pursue positive environmental ethics. Daily actions of man has led to deforestation, depopulation of wildlife which has direct effect on survival of the living and non-living organisms. The outcome of such human intrusion into the ecosystem can be seen in rising global climate, emerging extinction of some animal species and reduced fertility of land (Kohák 108). Schweitzer’s viewpoint Albert Schweitzer seems to argue close to Leopold though his point takes another angle of description. According to his findings, every living organism gas the will to live and that right need to be observed (Gillespie 126). However, man believes that the life of other living organisms mean little provided the societal interests are met. This explains why a person can kill antelope without any feeling of guilt. What people fail to understand is that the observed behavior and survival adaptation diversity among living organisms shows the will to live. Although man has the mental ability to make informed decision and develop feelings, other living organisms have a lifeline that predicts a particular pattern and fits into the overall view of the will to live. Schweitzer has an ethical claim which focusses on reverence of life. In respect of unprecedented environmental degradation by man, he asserts that the natural habitat of wildlife should not be destroyed neither should they be killed (Gillespie 127). The argument is justified since such environment destructive activities have significantly threatened a number of living species that contribute to the survival of man. The criticism that his argument attracts is the missing evidence from the other living organism on the will to live. According to Schweitzer’s antagonists, the animals exhibit struggle to survive but have no conscience that can justify the idea of having a “will” to live. Even if the position of Schweitzer may not be absolutely true, the nobility of the idea centers on friendly treatment of other members of the ecosystem by man. Comparative arguments Comparative analysis of the two authors shows their relentless campaign for ethical concept in environmental care. Nature has its own way of achieving balance but man has influential role in destroying it. There is clear evidence that man has more to lose in the long run in the event that the nature depletion effects swing into action. It can also be noted that the two authors addresses the position of man in terms of conscience ranking in regard to maintenance of the ecosystem. Both of them argue on the grounds of moral responsibility of man over the other living organisms and abiotic system but differ on their reasoning. The proposition of Schweitzer is relatively weaker on its premise of will-to-live as experimental evidence on conscience of other animals proves negative. The symbiotic relationship between man and land as claimed by Leopold carries significant weight of truth and stand out as a strong and preferred idea. Conclusion It can be concluded that environmental care is a contentious issue that has attracted diverse scientific and philosophical tests. The findings concentrate on man as the central player in distortion of nature at his own peril. Philosophical ethics therefore concentrates on prevailing over man to have morals and take care of the ecosystem for sustained co-existence. Work cited Gillespie, Alexander. International Environmental Law, Policy and Ethics. , 2014. Print. Kohák, Erazim V. The Green Halo: A Birds-Eye View of Ecological Ethics. Chicago, Ill: Open court, 1999. Print. Read More