Understanding Thresholds of Increasing Complexity 2: You may proceed through the thresholds in consecutive order, from the Big Bang to the Future, or skip around bouncing from protostar to Pangaea, from Silica to the Silk Road.
References and Further Reading 1. Extending Moral Standing As noted above, perhaps the most fundamental question that must be asked when regarding a particular environmental ethic is simply, what obligations do we have concerning the natural environment?
Thus, an anthropocentric ethic claims that only human beings are morally considerable in their own right, meaning that all the direct moral obligations we possess, including those we have with regard to the environment, are owed to our fellow human beings.
While the history of western philosophy is dominated by this kind anthropocentrism, it has come under considerable attack from many environmental ethicists. Such thinkers have claimed that ethics must be extended beyond humanity, and that moral standing should be accorded to the non-human natural world.
Some have claimed that this extension should run to sentient animals, others to individual living organisms, and still others to holistic entities such as rivers, species and ecosystems. Under these ethics, we have obligations in respect of the environment because we actually owe things to the creatures or entities within the environment themselves.
Determining whether our environmental obligations are founded on anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric reasoning will lead to different accounts of what those obligations are. This section examines the prominent accounts of moral standing within environmental ethics, together with the implications of each.
This should be of little surprise, since many of the concerns we have regarding the environment appear to be concerns precisely because of the way they affect human beings.
For example, pollution diminishes our health, resource depletion threatens our standards of living, climate change puts our homes at risk, the reduction of biodiversity results in the loss of potential medicines, and the eradication of wilderness means we lose a source of awe and beauty.
Quite simply then, an anthropocentric ethic claims that we possess obligations to respect the environment for the sake of human well-being and prosperity. Despite their human-centeredness, anthropocentric environmental ethics have nevertheless played a part in the extension of moral standing.
This extension has not been to the non-human natural world though, but instead to human beings who do not yet exist. The granting of moral standing to future generations has been considered necessary because of the fact that many environmental problems, such as climate change and resource depletion, will affect future humans much more than they affect present ones.
Moreover, it is evident that the actions and policies that we as contemporary humans undertake will have a great impact on the well-being of future individuals. In light of these facts, some philosophers have founded their environmental ethics on obligations to these future generations Gewirth, Of course, it is one thing to say that human beings in the future have moral standing, it is quite another to justify the position.
Indeed, some philosophers have denied such standing to future people, claiming that they lie outside of our moral community because they cannot act reciprocally Golding, So, while we can act so as to benefit them, they can give us nothing in return.
This lack of reciprocity, so the argument goes, denies future people moral status. However, other philosophers have pointed to the fact that it is usually considered uncontroversial that we have obligations to the dead, such as executing their wills and so on, even though they cannot reciprocate Kavka, While still others have conceded that although any future generation cannot do anything for us, it can nevertheless act for the benefit of its own subsequent generations, thus pointing to the existence of a broader transgenerational reciprocity Gewirth, However, perhaps we do not have obligations to future people because there is no definitive group of individuals to whom such obligations are owed.
This argument is not based on the simple fact that future people do not exist yet, but on the fact that we do not know who they will be. The heart of this problem lies in the fact that the policies adopted by states directly affect the movement, education, employment and so on of their citizens.
Thus, such policies affect who meets whom, and who has children with whom. So, one set of policies will lead to one group of future people, while another set will lead to a different group.
Our actions impact who will exist in the future, making our knowledge of who they will be incomprehensible. Since there is no definitive set of future people to receive the benefits or costs of our actions, to whom do we grant moral standing?
Secondly, and of particular importance for environmental ethics, how could any future people legitimately complain that they have been wronged by our environmentally destructive policies? For if we had not conducted such policies, they would not even exist.
In response to the non-identity problem, it has been argued that while we do not know exactly who will exist in the future, we do know that some group of people will exist and that they will have interests.
In light of this, perhaps our obligations lie with these interests, rather than the future individuals themselves DesJardins,p.
As for the second aspect of the problem, we might claim that although future generations will benefit from our environmentally destructive policies by their very existence, they will nevertheless have been harmed.
After all, cannot one be harmed by a particular action even if one benefits overall? To illustrate this point, James Woodward gives the example of a racist airline refusing to allow a black man on a flight that subsequently crashes Woodward, Even if we do decide to grant moral standing to future human beings, however, that still leaves the problem of deciding just what obligations we have to them.
One set of difficulties relates to our ignorance of who they are. For not only do we lack information about the identity of future people, but we have neither knowledge of their conceptions of a good life, nor what technological advances they may have made. For example, why bother preserving rare species of animal or oil reserves if humans in the future receive no satisfaction from the diversity of life and have developed some alternative fuel source?
Our ignorance of such matters makes it very difficult to flesh out the content of our obligations. By way of reply to such problems, some philosophers have argued that while we do not know everything about future people, we can make some reasonable assumptions.
For example, Brian Barry has argued that in order to pursue their idea of the good life - whatever that happens to be - future people will have need of some basic resources, such as food, water, minimum health and so on Barry, Barry thus argues that our obligations lie with ensuring that we do not prevent future generations from meeting their basic needs.It is often noticed that the most successful animals and plants in an area seem to be well adapted to their environment.
It would be wrong to think that these organisms decided to do things in a certain way! Start studying Elements of Living Organisms Quiz GA-GSE Biology A-CR Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools.
The glossary that follows assumes a definition of ecology--the study of interactions between organisms and their environment--much wider than what fits under the field's habitual statistical timberdesignmag.cominism and ecopsychology are mentioned, for example, as are terms from organic gardening and permaculture.
Yahoo Lifestyle is your source for style, beauty, and wellness, including health, inspiring stories, and the latest fashion trends. Environmental Ethics. The field of environmental ethics concerns human beings’ ethical relationship with the natural environment.
While numerous philosophers have written on this topic throughout history, environmental ethics only developed into a specific philosophical discipline in the s. This emergence was no doubt due to the increasing awareness in the s of the effects that.
Journey back to the beginning of everything: the universe, Earth and life itself. Airing February 28, at 9 pm on PBS Aired February 28, on PBS Originally aired