refection

Cui 6

Wei Cui

Professor Krista Walter

ENLG1C

11/29/2020

Ethical Obligation to the Environment

Generally, the ecological crisis since the 1970s has rapidly emerged to be a serious global issue. In this respect, people have been forced to adjust their relationship between themselves and nature. The mitigation of climate change and acclimatizing to its impact is considered necessary to eradicate poverty, reduce inequality, and develop a sustainable economy. The response to the ongoing economic crisis has been a moral issue encompassing fundamental ethics, human rights, and social justice. Primarily, it is assumed that people are endowed with the responsibility of protecting the fragility and vulnerability of life and its constituents. Man's moral obligation to protect his environment depends on the value assigned to it. Debatable ethical scenarios can be developed for the full range protection of the environment, from the environment's total protection to its full exploitation. In terms of environmental ethics, Aldo Leopold is recognized for his analysis and development of a philosophy that addresses how man relates to the biotic community. People must face up to the Ethical Obligation to the environment, take the land seriously, and ensure its protection.

First, it is an ethical obligation that the environment should be protected on improving human welfare. While the exploitation of the environment is discerned as unavoidable action, there is significance in preserving and protecting the environment. Such reasoning is founded on the notion that the ecosystems that surround people should be safeguarded for them. Society is presumed to thrive in a better and happier environment where the air is fresh and clean or clean lakes for people to swim. In due course, human happiness is attached to nature, and thus, they are rendered a vital part of the ecosystem. The various activities that enable human functioning, such as walking, breathing, and finding food, are not distinguishable from creatures. Leopold substantiated this in his essay, Land Ethic, where he states that humans are naturally social creatures, and accordingly, there is a benefit for them to live in a social setting (Leopold). Through this point, the concept of ethics materializes, and since humans cannot thrive in a social setting without being impaired by various impediments, environmental ethics are needed for their survival. Consequently, ethical deliberations to the environment determine that human welfare is enhanced through a clean and well-functioning environment. On the other hand, the rights-based claim is considered another means of justifying the environment's protection to improve human welfare. Based on people's right to pursue happiness, a functional environment is guaranteed when there are no violations of the human right to share the planet (Bürgenmeier). However, this argument is remarkably restrained by the notion that human welfare can only be fulfilled by consuming the environment's resources. The basic human needs, namely; food, shelter, and clothing, can only be met by exploiting the environment, thus invalidating the claim that protecting the environment helps improve human welfare.

Secondly, the ethical obligation of protecting the environment is based on serving the welfare of future generations. This idea is founded on social fairness, which prescribes that the environment should be in protection so that future generations may survive, and the current actions of humans determine this. Fairness is an idea that emerges from thinking about ethics from a human perspective. From Leopold's perspective, the idea of fairness is constructed around focusing on all elements of the ecosphere, which are human, nonhuman, rivers, mountains, forests, and everything found on Earth (Leopold). Thus, Leopold believes that, within an ecosystem, there is a constant interaction between the environment and the species. The environment is responsible for species development and existence, providing resources, space, and energy to survive species. A particular hypothetical manner of depicting this idea of fairness on future generations regarding the environment and its conservation through the concept of ignorance. Somewhat similar, destroying the environment is likely when people do not think of others. However, fairness forces one to seriously consider the welfare of other members of the community and the future of all species. Moreover, from an ethicist perspective, utilitarianism applies in this claim and justifies that protecting the environment should mainly be based on future generations. The utilitarian theory considers actions according to their significances for social happiness. The theory extends to the notion that people account for the intergenerational welfare based on current actions (Rose). Unquestionably, the future is not known, which bears on the current decisions that people make. Still, it is not difficult to convince people that future generations are likely to be happy when the environment is protected. Nevertheless, it is essential to point out that serving future generations' welfare can only be possible if current people's welfare is fulfilled. People depend on ecological resources to meet their needs. Therefore, working for the benefit of future generations means that people must exercise restraint and rationality while making use of environmental resources to ensure that future generations can benefit from the environment, which is, in fact, beneficial to humanity.

Thirdly, animal welfare is also the primary argument in presenting an ethical obligation towards protecting the environment. Whereas other arguments emphasize humans' intrinsic value and their relationship to the environment, its preservation extends to satisfying animals' welfare. In A Sandy Country Atlantic, Leopold emphasizes the interrelationship between humans and the natural environment, all of which are embraced in a community where the constituents have the right to survive (Leopold). Creatures in the natural ecological environment are endowed with a moral value that is independent of human beings. Whether human beings are adapted to this ecosystem or not, they unbelievably exist in the biological community and perform their respective ecological community functions. From an ethical basis, animals' endowment with an intrinsic value incredibly them with equality, just like humans. It is stressed by Leopold, who discerns that humans are members of the land community. Therefore, there should be an identical relationship between humans and animals in partnership and should not be viewed as a master-servant relationship (Leopold). The land community concept further provides an ethical code to all nature in existence to provide with the right to existence. By establishing the responsibility of protecting the animals, the various means applied translate to the natural world's general conservation (Nelson). Animals require habitat to indicate their presence as their needs and instincts suggest they are free in their natural setting.

Similarly, a segment of the population must raise objections to the moral obligation to protect the environment. This view directly expresses its belief that the environment should not be protected. It is based on free use, which portrayed the natural world as the primary means of delivering and satisfying humans' wants and desires. The natural resources are mostly understood as belonging to every person in the context that people should exercise full ownership over the relevant resources. This argument embodies both ethical and historical elements. From a historical standpoint, the concept of free use originated from the idea that people are protected from the environment rather than protecting it. Moreover, the concept of free use is supported by two fundamental arguments, namely the domination and progression argument and the geological time argument. On the one hand, the domination and progress argument illustrates its constructs by stating that the natural world does not have intrinsic value, and thereby, people who exploit nature cannot be accused of violating environmental ethics. On the other hand, the geological time argument posits that the experience of humans is negligible. The argument depicts that the passing of time is not relative to humans, but preferably in Earth's history. With that understanding, human existence is brief, and the expected changes take the natural course without any intervention. For instance, global warming as a grave environmental concern could escalate Earth's temperature by a few degrees; it is considered a meaningful Earth change. The free use argument is reinforced by the belief that the natural world is unnecessary, and any issues that arise from its exploitation will be determined by technological advancement. All the same, this claim is not sufficient to decide that the environment should be exploited. It does not consider the harms and dangers resulting from exploiting the environment but rather justifies environmental exploitation, which is not ethically appropriate according to an ecofeminist perspective. Human beings overexpand land occupancy while ignoring ecological communities' survival, which further accelerates the atmospheric change, increases the pace of global warming, and aggravates the severity of the ecological crisis.

Environmental ethics is a necessary discipline that has gained popularity to explain environmental issues such as global warming and climate change. Protection and conservation of the environment are founded on various ethical considerations. The basis on which the environment should be protected varies from different environmental, ethical perspectives. While some people approach the environment from how it relates to humans, others consider that everything in the environment has intrinsic value. The moral status of ecology deserves to be treated seriously with the idea of "thinking like a mountain," which is undoubtedly for humankind's survival, the reproduction of ecological species, and the ecological diversity of animals and plants. The protection of soil and the ecological environment is the ecological, moral responsibility and obligation that human beings must shoulder.

Works Cited

Bürgenmeier, Beat. "Ethical aspects of environmental protection." Studies in Environmental Science. Vol. 55. Elsevier, 1993. 1-11.

Leopold, Aldo. "The land ethic." The Ecological Design and Planning Reader. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2014. 108-121.

Nelson, Michael P. "Aldo Leopold, environmental ethics, and the land ethic." Wildlife society bulletin 26 (1998): 741-744.

Rose, Carol M. "Scientific innovation and environmental protection: some ethical considerations." Envtl. L. 32, (2002): 755.