You can make a topic - Essay Example

HUMAN BEINGS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS This article is based on the environmental law revolving around the topic of the ethics as is defined in variation by presented discussions from works of literature. The interactions between persons (human beings) and other living things such as the plant cover and animals within one environmental set up vary depending on the rights and interest as defined by the natural law. As singer advocates, the expansion of human beings moral horizon is necessitated by the need to include other living species within the context of moral rights and obligations as is espoused by the principle of equality.

Stone reason that the whole concern of equality and rights revolve around the subject of who ‘human being’ is and what nature has empowered him to do. Humans has the capacity through the experience of pain and or pleasure to substantiate the moral authority bestowed by nature on them to protect animals from pain and other sufferings while at the same time defining the interest of trees in being watered. Contention in this discussion places human beings in the centre place through which he is morally obligated to relieve animals of any form of pain and suffering.

The movements that run in the interest of liberating animals and safeguarding their interests lobby on the natural responsibility endowed on humans to protect their lives or at least meeting their interests (Sagaff, 38-39). This revolves around a postulation by Leopold that human beings exist in a community of nature through which interactions are bound by morality and through which human beings are bound to honor the natural obligation of safeguarding the interests of animals in at the least form minimizing their pain and suffering.

The contradiction arises while the environmentalists and conservationists concentrated efforts in ecological issues unlike expressing their interests in humanitarian issues. Therefore, the environmentalists are seen through the eyes of allowing hunting practices as a means to balance the ecological support by nature when some species exceed the carrying capacity of the environment. This raises the concern that there exist the disparities in matters of morality in safeguarding the interest of these animals when at the same time advocating for the hunting.

However, this whole discussion leave humans at the centre with his role being defined by nature and morality in respect to safeguarding the interests of animals which are notably prone to sufferings. The liberationist movements therefore champion the role of human beings to relieving distressed animals of their sufferings. Nevertheless, another contention arises with the reasoning that though the liberationist strive for the safeguarding of the interests of the animals, they have no concern about the ethical concern on environment as envisaged by the environmentalists.

Nevertheless, in the discussion, the ‘rights’ both to human beings and animals have the concern of confusing the efforts of human beings within a society. This discussion leads therefore to the comparison between the rights of animals as are provide fro by nature as compared to the provisions that are within the confines of farm context. The natural habitats as postulated by the forces of nature has higher limitations to the animals rights as compared to farm management which besides providing for the basic of these rights ascertains some form of provisions in terms to living up to certain stages as necessitated by individual gains by the human beings.

Human rights therefoe overrides the rights of animals as other would have it though the ethical framework that bind people stem from the natural provision that humans are supreme in the ecological set up. The rights to common good differs with utilitarianism in that some interest are bound to be overlooked in the course of realizing other rights within the natural environmental setup and relationships between animals as well as human beings. This therefore supports the view that humanitarian ethics (appreciation of animal welfare) will always contradict environmental welfare (Sagaff, 43).

Works citedSagaff, Mark, “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce” animal liberation and the land ethic. Nd. Print