Environmental Eithics By Jordan Smith

Jordan Smith
April 14, 2010
Phil 2400-001

300 or so word essay:
In the early development in environmental ethics the historians and professors just said that trees and other natural plants and animals have feelings and have every right that humans have. They say that you can’t just cut the trees down or kill an animal and there should be a limit in how many trees or plants you kill or cut down. The people protecting the plants and animals eventually took the companies who cut and take down plants and animals to court and tried to reverse the law that allows the companies to cut them down. A guy named Naess and many others came to focus on the possibility of the identification of the human ego with nature. He talks about that to respect and to care for yourself you have to respect and to care for the natural environment because if you disrespect the environment because your only hurting yourself and if you treat the environment with respect and with care in return you with be better off. Some animists say that there is the same connection between persons and non-persons. They say that living nature comprises not only humans, animals and plants, but also mountains, forests, rivers, deserts, and even planets. They believe that no matter what you are an object in the air or an actual living thing that you are on that same level. Some other people say that the planets, deserts, rivers, and forests don’t have the same values as humans or living things, but they say that they don’t have the same value they just have an important value in our society and in this world. The philosophers that talk about the rights of the plants and animals and many other objects that really don’t have the same value say that the animals have the right to not have to suffer or die.

100 or so word essay:
In class the articles we havetalked about two articles that deal with environmental ethics. The first one is that the article discussed the Ulitinarian view on the subject, and also discussed the Deontological view on the subject. The ulitinarian focuses on the pain and pleasure of something. Since Singer reguards the animal liberation movement as comparable to the liberation movements of women and people of colour. Unlike the environmental philolsphers who attribute the intrinsic value to the natural environment and its inhabitants.

Three Questions:
1.Why is it considered morally wrong to use the environment?

2.How do people make a discinction between plant VS. animal importiance?

3.How can we begin to take a pro-active arroach to saving our planet?

In response to your questions Jordan, I feel that it is considered morally wrong to use the environment because it is presumed that the environment is a life source that is very much as important as other human beings and animals. Of course, there are different perceptions, morally, when it comes to these accusations about trees and nature being the same as humans, but we do know that in our society we cannot just kill any living human being or do anything dangerous with animals
-Nick Liske

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License