Sustainability and Environmental Ethics on the Future of Life - Admission/Application Essay Example

Sustainability and environmental ethics on the future of life This paper is humbly submitted to the Council of all Beings in the planet for their consideration. I. Perspectives on environmental ethics Ethics studies morality and morality is our judgment on how to live our life (Keller, 11). Atkisson argues that the difference between ethical and moral is that morality refers to our feelings while ethics pertains to what people generally accept as moral (1-2). Our sense of morality and ethics determine our behavior and, thus, our notion of morality and ethics determine the character of the sustainability in our planet. Essentially, ethics refer to reflections between right and wrong, judgment on the good and the bad, and determination of responsibility (Bartra, 1). It is important to have a good notion of right and wrong that can guide our action. The notion will ultimately guide our behavior even if there is no outside force that will reward or sanction us for doing an action. Making people believe in or uphold upholding an ethic for environmental protection is the more powerful way of promoting sustainability and protection of the environment because it needs no outside force to make others comply with or live a set of behavior that is not harmful to the environmental and that promotes sustainability. Let us examine the leading perspectives on environmental ethics, assess on what matters the notions are wanting, and define what can be a better notion of environmental ethics. This work argues that, given current perspectives, the best notion of environmental ethics is one that upholds anthropocentric ecology and symbiotic co-existence of life forms and species. In course of discussion, this pleading will also argue that anthropocentricism is not immoral per se but it will be immoral if the anthropocentrism is not thoroughgoing and consistent enough. For a consistent and thoroughgoing anthropocentrism, it is important to recognize that humanitys long-term survival lies in part in the long-term survival of species and biodiversity. In a discussion on what constitute to be ethical, ethical theories are important. Ethical theories are frameworks that guide individuals to make decisions and actions (Keller, 40). 1. Anthropocentrism based on human rights Ethics based on the right to environment is premised on the "right to a health or clean environment conducive to well-being and higher standards of living" (Cullet, 3). Caring for the environment is conceived as a respect for the right of humanity to a higher standard of living and is not out of respect for all life on the planet. Non-living forms acquire value only if they are necessary to advance human well-being and promote higher living standards. Dr. Philippe Cullet of the International Environment Law Research Centre even acknowledged that the right is subject to several interpretations and imprecise (4). Cullets comment is understandable because one can argue that humanity will have to pollute the rivers so goods will be available to advance humanitys living standards to make automobiles, hamburger sandwiches, potato fries, and sodas available. The air can be polluted because there is car airconditioning anyway and mobility may have to take precedence over clean air in some areas of the globe. According two Cullet, there are two principles involved in the right to environment (4-5). One is the principle of solidarity and the other is principle of prevention. The principle of solidarity pertains to interrelatedness of actions of human being. What one does can have impacts on the lives of others. Thus, following the principle of solidarity, sustainable development requires a development that will enhance not only local but global conditions as well (Cullet, 4). Meanwhile, the principle of prevention pertains to the avoidance of any "potentially hazardous situation" (Cullet, 6). Pollutants, for example, can kill. 2. Anthropocentrism based on environmental microeconomics Economics and microeconomics (a branch of economics) is inherently anthropocentric. By definition alone, economics and microeconomics is inherently anthropogenic. Economics is usually defined as the allocation of scarce resources to satisfy human wants while microeconomics is defined as a branch of economics that follows the same framework, i.e., allocating scarce resources to satisfy human wants. Microeconomics is the economics of individual economic agents: producer, consumer, firm, and the like. On the other hand, macroeconomics, its opposite, deal with aggregates. The microeconomic view of the need to protect the environment can arise on the following: 1) externalities; 2) public or social goods; and 3) willing to pay for the social or public goods (social and public goods are synonymous in economics). Goods have externalities if they have effects on parties other than the specific consumer or producer of the goods. Thus, humanity must act to control the externalities because a section of humanity---parties outside of the specific consumer and producer for the good---are affected. For example, production of a good may be emitting pollutants that can make other people sick. Humanity must act either through government or via the markets (e.g., defining the problem as one of "missing markets") to address the pollution. The interest is to protect man and not the environment per se or other life forms. For economics, the environment and the life forms freely available on the planet may not have a monetary value and, therefore, have no intrinsic value. Further, when expenditure is required to protect the environment, provision of the good must be equal to the sum of the willingness to pay. Unfortunately, willingness to pay is difficult to determine. Those who value the good can free ride and attempt to let others spend for the good because they cannot be prevented from consuming it anyway. For example, there is basically no way to stop others from enjoying unpolluted air even if they paid no tax for the efforts to produce unpolluted air. Goods in which it is difficult to prevent others from consuming the good fall into the category of social or private goods (there is another characteristic, non-rival, but discussing the concept will only make our discussion overly technical). Again, provision of the social good must be consistent with the entire societys sum of willingness pay for the social good. Environment, ecology, and non-human life forms fall into the category of social goods. In economics, efficient provision calls for providing the goods in a manner that the expenditure on the social or private is equal to the sum of the willingness to pay for the good of all the members. Yet, economics also admits that because revelation of willingness to pay for the good is difficult, free-riding can lead to a situation such that the good is not provided at all. 3. Zoocentrism grounded on the moral value or rights of animals The zoocentrist perspective is in the works of Peter Singer and Tom Reagan: Singer argues for animal liberation while Reagan advocate animal rights (Hsieh, 1). Animals are distinct from other forms of life because they have sufficient consciousness and, as such, acquires value, deserve respect from others, and have rights. For example, if there are men or women who are less conscious or articulate, do they cease to have rights. If humanity have rights because they are the intelligent beings, do people with less intelligence have fewer rights because they are less intelligent? Do the insane, the neurotic, the less intelligent, and those with mental or intelligence have less rights compared to those who are brighter, more educated, or more intelligent? Are people who are comatose and babies endowed with fewer rights to live? Do they have fewer less rights? These are some of the questions that can be raised by zoocentrists. Both Singer and Reagan asserted the principle of equality of rights among species in the animal kingdom. Singer argues that human rights would be in shaky ground without recognizing animal rights: all talk of equality for gender and race would be on softer moral ground if animal rights were not recognized (Hsieh, 8). Reagan goes even further to claim that humanity is oppressing those with less intelligence. Hence, there is a need for liberating animals from the oppression or for "animal liberation" and for an "animal liberation movement" (Hsieh, 1). In part, Singer and Reagan, by driving home the principle that less intelligent species have rights, are actually saying that individual members of humanity who are less intelligent have rights to live and have rights equal with the rest of humanity. Zoocentrists, therefore, advocate greater space for domesticated animals, better living conditions, and less pain in the way humans handle them. Hunting animals, trapping them, milking them, experimenting on them, and training them to be circus performers violate animal right to be treated with respect (Hsieh, 2). Anthropocentrists may scoff at Singer and Reagan for advocating animal rights almost equal if not equal to humanity but, in the process, by advocating that the less intelligent or less able have rights, Singer and Reagan are actually pointing out that anthropocentrism, to be more complete, must also recognize the rights of people who are less intelligent and less conscious. The zoocentrist critique on anthropocentrism is also a critique on utilitarianism. The utilitarian notion of "greatest good for the greatest number" were restricted to humans because animals are believed to have no emotion or enough intelligence (Weber, 3). 4. Biocentrism grounded on the moral value or rights of animals and plants Keller clarified that Taylors biocentric ethics distinguishes between a moral agent and being morally considerable: moral agents are aware of their moral duties but those who are not human are not moral agents but are morally considerable as well (43). Ecological protection and other environmental action must be done for the sake of nature regardless of human benefit (Booth, 2). Those with biocentric values would protect or restore the natural environment even if there are no materials benefits, increase in market values, or development of recreational opportunities (Booth, 2). Based on the works of Rolston, Calicott, and Norton, the biocentric perspective holds that species have absolute rights to exist (Booth, 2-3). 5. Deep ecology environmental ethics Norwegian Arne Naess pioneered the use of "deep ecology: in environmental literature in 1973 (Drengson). According to Drengson: Ecologicalism became popular movement with the publication of Rachel Carsons book, Silent Spring. Naess identified two strands in environmentalism. He identified one as "shallow" but the other as a "long-range and deep ecology movement." Deep ecology involves questioning up to root causes while "shallow environmentalism" usually promotes technological solutions. "Long-range deep ecology" advocates restructuring the entire system based on values on methods that genuine preserve ecological and cultural diversity of nature. "Deep ecology" holds that living beings have inherent values and proposed eight principles for deep ecology. Drengsons eight principles were articulated by Naess and Sessions: Human and non-human life have inherent worth or intrinsic value. These values are independent of their usefulness to man. Richness and diversity contribute to the realization of these values. Humanity has no right to ignore these values EXCEPT to satisfy important needs. Interference of humanity on nonhuman life is worsening and the interference must stop. Abundance of nonhuman life requires a decrease in human population. At the same time, the flourishing of humanity also requires a decrease in human population. Policies must be changed to be compatible with deep ecology and the policy changes will have an impact on the entire sphere of life, including technology. The required policy changes will also require a change in ideology. Those who believe in deep ecology as articulated by the seven foregoing points have an obligation to advance the cause of deep ecology. The problem with deep ecology is that it puts the rights of species on equal footing with humanity that can endanger humanity itself and the survival of all species. Nature is not always caring for humanity and species. The fundamental character of nature cannot change. In contrast, men and women can transform themselves to be more human. 6. Ecological feminism or ecofeminism Ecofeminism posits the oppression of men on nature and women as the foundation for reflection on what is good and bad, correct and wrong, and responsibility. Carolyn Merchant pointed out that Francoise dEaubonne coined the term in 1974 to highlight the key role of women in ensuring the survival of humanity (Besthorn and Pearson-McMillen, 8). In 1990, C. Spretnak identified three basic points held by ecofeminism: patriarchal oppression of nature and women, divine feminism inherent in nature and all living things, women involvement in the environment movement (Besthorn and Pearson-McMillen, 9). Ecofeminism is a movement that combines feminism and ecology (Besthorn and Pearson-MacMillen, 10). The origin of patriarchal oppression is attributed to the schism between humanity and nature that ultimately led to a division between men and women (Zimmerman as cited by Besthorn and McMillen, 11). Because nature is inherently feminine, mens domination of nature promoted a patriarchal ideology or worldview that encouraged the oppression of women as hierarchical ranking and oppression are interrelated (Zimmerman as cited by Besthorn and McMillen, 11-12). Ecofeminists emphasize interconnectedness and the notion of interconnectedness provides the basis for its fundamental view on sustainability and environmental ethics. Interconnected means that "all energy, matter, and reality are related to the greater whole" (Besthorn and McMillen, 13). Thus, basic on the interconnectedness, the basic task of ecofeminists in promoting sustainability and correct environmental ethics is to reweave the inherent interconnectedness of the universe through revitalizing humanitys "sensual experience" with nature (Diamond and Orenstein as cited by Besthorn and McMillen, 13-14). II. Head stewardship in a symbiotic nature as an environmental ethic Anthropocentrism based on human rights, anthropocentrism based on environmental microeconomics, zoocentrism, biocentrism, deep ecology, and ecological feminism have their strengths on what constitute as correct notion what is the morally correct for sustainability. However, these ideas will not allow the collective survival of all species and, as such, will not constitute as what is moral in todays century. For this paper, what is morally correct is that notion which will allow or enhance the survival of all species. Individual members of a specie can die but is most important is that all or most of the species survive on our planet. Nature, God, or divine authority endowed humanity with intelligence. This intelligence is what makes humanity distinct form animals on earth and other living organisms. Humanitys intelligence imply that humanity must act as the head steward of the planet for most if not all of the life forms to sustain their lives in the planet. As head steward, humanity must recognize that not only are the lives symbiotic but the survival of life forms are deeply link with ecology that includes that non-living life forms in the planet. Symbiotic life or lives on earth arise from specific ecology. Not only must man preserve the totality of lives in the planet, man must also preserve fundamentally preserve the original state of the totality of non-living forms of the planet. Conservation of the fundamental state of the non-living forms of the planet is essential for the survival of all species because it is from the fundamental state that the symbiotic life of all species have emerged. This imply that what must be preserved or conserved are not only all species (although science say that a number of species regularly die even as new species emerge) but also the material non-living environment as well (at the same time, some may argue that all of environment is living and none are non-living). Meanwhile, while it is true that there less intelligent individuals in our humanity, many individuals of lesser intelligence appear to be gifted or endowed with other traits that confirm their humanity or higher rank with other beings of the planet. Further, the individual members of the specie of homo sapiens may be less intelligent but they continue to possess other traits the make them superior to other life forms. True, there may be people who are comatose and may not have the faculty of reasoning or intelligence in their current state but their situation is only abnormality if not temporary. They continue to possess rights as well. All species in the planet have their intrinsic value because science is continually proving that the existence of species is symbiotic. Life forms depend on other life forms. Each life on our planet depend on other life. Hence, there is a ground to believe that we have equal rights because respect for that right may actually serve to sustain the lives of others species in the planet. All living life forms may have equal rights in the as lives of life forms on the planet are interconnected and interrelated. The existence of one life form provides support for the existence of other life forms. However, not all are endowed with equal intelligence. It is therefore only proper that the one with the greater intelligence assumes head stewardship over the rest of the other life forms. In addition, the superior intelligence or humanity must recognize that the non-living life forms are essential to the survival of the entire life forms and their symbiotic relationships. Thus, for sustainability of life, even the non-living component of ecology must survive. For all species to survive, including humanity, humanity must recognize the rights of all species to survive. At the same time, humanitys natural intelligence provides a basis for humanity to be the head steward of living and non-living forms of the planet and must ensure the fundamental survival of both the living and non-living components of the planet---in the interest of sustainability and in perpetuating all lives and the symbiotic existence of all lives on the planet. Work Cited Atkisson, Alan. "Global warming is an ethical issue." 2009, available 20 December 2009. Bartra, Valentine. "New ecological ethics." Paper submitted to the Eco-Res Forum. 2007, available 20 December 2009 . Besthorn, Fred and Diane Pearson-McMillen. "The oppression of women and nature: Ecofeminism as a framework for a social justice oriented social work." Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 83.3 (2002): 221-232. Bureau of Public Information, UNESCO. "Environmental ethics." Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. 2009, available 20 December 2009 . Carbon Footprint Ltd "What is a carbon footprint?" 2009, available 20 December 2009. Cullet, Phillipe. Definition of environmental right in a human rights context. Geneva: International Environmental Research Center, 2002. Drengson, Alan. "Deep ecology movement." Foundation for Deep Ecology. 2009, available 20 December 2009. "Ecological Footprint Calculator." 2009, Available 20 December 2009 Global Development Research Center."What is an ecological footprint?" 2009a, available 20 December 2009 Global Development Research Center. "Ecological footprint analysis: Towards sustainability indicator for business." 2009b, available 20 December 2009 Guo, Jingfu., Haijun Mao, & Yuwen Yang. "Research on ethnic eco-ethics and eco-civilizations construction in Chinese ethnic regions." Journal of Sustainable Development 2.3 (2009). Hsieh, Diana." Animal rights." 2005, available 20 December 2009 James, J. (2007). Climate change, national security and ethics. Available from http://www.planetextinction.com/documents/ethics.pdf Keller, David. "A brief overview of the basic ethical theory." In Peggy Connolly, Becky Cox-White, David R. Keller, and Martin G. Leever, Ethics in Action: A Case-BasedApproach. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009: 11-49. Available from http://media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/80/14051709/1405170980.pdf Lee, Laura. "A biocentric basis for moral standing." 2008, available 20 December 2009 Lenning, Ryan. "Ethics of respect for nature: Paul Taylor." ____, available 20 December 2009 Naess, Arne and George Sessions. "Deep ecology platform." Sausalito, California: Foundation for Deep Ecology. ____, available 20 December 2009 Pezzy, John and M. Toman. "The economics of sustainability: A review of journal articles." Discussion Paper 02-03 (2002). Washington: Resources for the future. Available from http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-02-03.pdf Rolston III, Holmes. "Is there an ecological ethic?" Ethics: An International Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy 18.2 (1975): 93-109. Rolston III, Holmes. "Duties to endangered species." BioScience, 35.11 (1985): 718-726. Rolston III, Holmes. "Disvalues in nature." The Monist 75.2 (1992): 250-278. Rolston III, Holmes. "The future of environmental ethics." Teaching Ethics 8.1 (2007): 1-27. Weber, Darren. "Environmental ethics and species: To be or not to be." 1993, available 20 December 2009. Read More