Group 5 300 Word Paper On Environmental Ethics

My Summary: 300 words
Our environment in something special, something that is worth saving. Most people have the general opinoin that littering up our planet is something that could be considered unethincal. It can also be considered unethical to use up the earth’s natural resources in an abundance.
There is a group called animists that have the perspoective that there is a connection between person and non-persons. To them, living is not only in nature, it is all around us. Within is our mauntains, rivers, and other planets, etc. It is their belief that no matter what type of an object is being considered, it is on the same level as all of the others, even if it is simply air. On the opposite end, there are people who disagree with the animists. They believe that those things listed previously do not have the samevalue as humans, and/ or animals. They believe that they have no importiance and value within our society.
It was not until the 1970s that enviromental ethics was introduced into the branch of philosophy. Before this new approach to viewing our enviroment came about, many scientist viewed our natural resources as significant, however there was no backing for the cause. The new movement began by questioning the moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on the earth. It also questioned the posibility of rational arguments for intrinsic values to the natural environment and its nonhuman contents. This is the value of things as means to further some ends, whereas intrinsic vale is the value of things as end in themselves, regardless whether they are useful as means to other ends. It is the intrinsic value that environmental philosphers plae a value upon that natural habitat and all of it’s natural surroundings (including the animals within that ecosystem).
One of the people who made a big prgress for enviromental ethics was Naess. He was responsible for placing a heavier focus on the possibility of the identification of the human ego with nature. He talked about respecting and caring for yourself. It was his believe that if you disrespect the environment, your only hurting yourself. However, if you treat the environment with respect and with care in return you with be better off in the long run.
This article took the two main approaches when discussing environmantel ethics. They are the Utilitarian and the Deontological viewpoints. When looking from the Utilitarian viewpoint, there is more of an emphasis placed on pain and pleasure. Deontologist focus more on if that action being taken is one that is “right” or “wrong”. They are less concerned with consequences, whether there are ones of a positive or negative nature. They believe in a heirrchy or rules and duties. These duties can help determine what recieves more value. A thrid view, Consequalism consider the intrinsic valule (or disvalue) and the goodness/ evil to be more fundamental moral notions. They try to determine whether the action was right or wrong based on its consequences and whether they were good or bad.

100 words: This article discussed the impprtiance of viewing our environment and its surrounds are something of importiance to humans. It discussed how different groups (animists, Utilitarians, Deontologists, and Consequalists) view environmental ethics. It also discussed how environmental ethics came about to be considered a sub branch of philosophy. It talked about how the scientific community views the environment and how we should treat it. When comparing how the article related to what we have discussed in class, it was very helpful to already have an understanding on how the different groups brought up in the article think in general. By having a grasp on how they view actions and consequences…or pain and pleasure, it was easier to grasp the article. It also somewhat ties into our discussion on animals and thier rights. The environment consits of both plants and animals, so in my opinion, there are people who would place their value on the same lever, like the animists. This article was useful to have further insight on the plant and natural setting's of the world and where they stand in concern to being considered impotiant within the scientific community and the philosophical community as well.

Questions:
1.) Why did it take until the 70s for environmental ethics ti be viewd in the sub branch of philospohy? What has changed for us to take more notice and place a heavier and more importiant emphasis on it's reservation?
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? Is it importiant for human intervention to fix our destruciton already comited?
Brianne Kistner

3.) How can we begin to take a pro-active arroach to saving our planet? Is it importiant for human intervention to fix our destruciton already comited? I believe we as America can start being pro-active by doing simple things, such as recycling, car pulling, do not run lawn mowers on hot summer days, go green on certain things. Little things like this can make a huge different in our world.

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