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.
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