Environmental Ethics Term Paper

Environmental Ethics Term Paper
Name
Institution
Environmental Ethics
Section 1. In Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, Donald Van De Veer discusses several theories about the ethical and social responsibility of businesses, communities and individuals to preserve the environment. The author’s view covers religious, cultural, economic, social and political perspectives on environmental conservation. In addition, the book covers animal rights and how these rights are tied to the environmental issues.
The author’s foremost argument is that human actions are motivated by self-interests. He singles out two concepts, psychological egoism and ethical egoism, which explain the motivations and desires that influence people’s actions. Under Psychological egoism, he argues that all human acts are driven by the desire to “promote one’s self-interest.” In relation to environmental issues, this view suggests that people can only preserve or protect the environment if doing so will promote their self-interests. For instance, a fisherman may be inclined to prevent water pollution because doing so will protect the fish and boost his fishing. Similarly, businesses are often compelled to engage in environmental conservation activities because it helps to protect the natural resources they use as raw materials, as well as boost the public image. In this regard, efforts to preserve the environment are not informed by altruistic motives, but calculations aimed at promoting self-interests. On the other hand, self-interest compels individuals and businesses to exploit the environment in ways that can benefit them, such as clearing forests for agriculture.
The ethical egoism concept argues that individuals have a duty to promote their own interests- it is expected that people should act in ways that benefits them. In this regard, Van De Veer suggests that exploiting the environment is morally acceptable because it involves fulfilling one’s duty to one’s self. The implication of this view is that it is misplaced to expect people to protect the environment if such efforts cannot lead to self-profiting.
The issue, then, is the point up to which individuals ought to pursue self interests. It brings into question the idea whether there is a point beyond which the pursuit of self-interest becomes unethical and immoral. For instance, the overexploitation of the environment endangers rare animal and plant species, in addition to denying future generations the used of the overexploited resources. This reasoning moves the discourse to the next level; does society owe future generations any obligations with regards to environmental preservation?
The author’s ideas on these issues suggest that the first premise is acknowledging the fact that people’s first responsibility is to themselves. They have their own self-interests to promote, hence the harsh reality that it is futile to expect individuals to do something that does not promote their immediate interests, such as incurring costs and foregoing some benefits in the name of environmental preservation. In business activities, the author argues that making comprises and payoffs, such as tax cuts, are one way that governments can encourage environmental-friendly corporate practices. In conclusion, therefore, the idea is that providing incentives can help society to act in the desired manner aimed at promoting environmental conservation efforts.
The author also talks about “Social Darwinism,” which argues that the need for survival, and the fact that the fittest have the best chances of survival, is what accelerates the fight for and exploitation of natural resources. This concept is demonstrated in the way nations compete for the world’s scarce resources such as oil. However, the existence of competition does not justify the irresponsible exploitation of the environment. In this regard, the author suggests that as is the case with ethical and psychological egoism, there is a limit beyond which environmental exploitation either for survival or promotion of self-interest is morally and ethically unacceptable.
David Schweickart’s After Capitalism argues that capitalism is the primary cause of the social, economic and environmental problems facing society today. Capitalism’s greatest sin is the entrenchment of socio-economic inequalities. Other ills such as poverty, unemployment and exploitation of the working class are necessary and inevitable consequences of a supporting a capitalist economy. He proposes an alternative system, “Economic Democracy, which he argues will help in reversing the negative impacts of capitalism. Under Economic Democracy, there will be self-management in the workplace headed by elected supervisors, equal trade relations between nations, and public management of capital investment. It is expected that Social Democracy will improve the conditions of the working class and help to alleviate poverty. This is because profits will be shared among workers while tax from business enterprises will be distributed to public banks that fund the economic expansion of businesses.
While Schweickart’s proposition is ideal in promoting equitable resource distribution, it does not explain the source of the initial capital. It fails to provide a framework that can replace capitalism by doing away with entrepreneurs. Given that workers will be working for profits that will be shared individually, it is not clear how factors like ethical and psychological egoism will not encourage the emergence of another bourgeoisie class.
Section 2. Making ethical or moral decisions is inevitably occasioned with a win-loss situation in which wither the individual or society/environment will have to forego some benefits or incur loss. The ethical and psychological egoism implies that individuals put their interests first, the cost of which is taking actions that will benefit them but cause damage to the environment. In the cost-benefit analysis approach, the ideal decision is that which will bring the greatest benefit to the individual. Given that people are most satisfied with results that benefits them directly and individually than those that benefits society as a collective entity, it is expected that individuals will always take decisions that promote their personal self-interests. Accordingly, it is futile and unrealistic to leave the responsibility of environmental protection to individuals in the hope that they will make the right decisions. This is because any effort that benefits the environment directly involves foregoing certain benefits on the part of the individual. A good example is expecting a farmer to retain a patch of forested land to conserve endangered species plants and provide a natural habitat for wild animals. Taking such an action will cost the farmer agricultural opportunities that can increase his income. It follows, accordingly, that individuals are often forced to weigh the benefits of any decision they make, and the environment will lose when people are interested to promote their self-interests.
Mark sagoff makes this point when he states that “a civilized person might climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest river, or cross the hottest desert for love, sweet love; He might do anything, indeed, except be willing to pay for it” (Sagoff, 2007, p. 62).
Sagoff accurately capture the situation with efforts to persuade individuals and businesses to protect the environment. The reality is that while everyone agrees that it is good and necessary to protect the environment, no one is willing to incur a personal loss or sacrifice their self-interests to achieve this goal. Preserving the environment often means businesses foregoing profits and incurring additional expenses. The cost-analysis concept suggests that individuals and businesses will avoid situations that will compel them to pay a personal price or forego profits. This reality captures the state of affairs in the corporate sector, and by extension, the cost of capitalism to society and the environment.
There is also a classic conflict of interests between people’s best intentions/ethical and moral obligations and their self-interests. While people want or wish for the common good, their personal interests are sometimes threatened by efforts to promote the common good. Sagoff demonstrates this with an example whereby he bribes a judge to fix his traffic tickets, but at election time helped to vote him out for his corruption. Thus, although people wish for a corrupt-free society, they find it necessary to engage in corrupt acts from time to time when it suits their interests. The same situation applies to the environment and animal rights. While most agree that animals have rights and that it is good to conserve the environment, people love to drive fuel guzzlers and eat meat products. In the corporate sector, likewise, businessmen like to appear to be supporting environmental conservation efforts as both a publicity stunt and to assuage their guilty consciences. However, in private, they may do the exact opposite, such as skipping a manufacturing process that removes toxic substances from industrial waste because it helps to maximize profits.
3. Deep Ecology
With the desire for a deeper understanding on the world we live in; one young philosopher has given birth to the notion of deep ecology. This notion is classified as a contemporary environmental philosophy that denies the ranking of this world's beings based on human needs.
This concept argues that all existent creatures on the planet are from a balance in the Eco-system, therefore, are dependent of one another. Furthermore, it is believed that human’s interference in the natural world leads to the destruction the so argued balance, which poses a threat not only to them, the humans, but to everything else on this planet as well.
The keyword and fundamental principle in what deep ecology is concerned are respect. Regardless of human use of individual organisms, each and everyone should be respected and let to grow in its natural surroundings, keeping everything in the initial natural balance. This philosophy describes itself as “deep” because the deeper look it takes on the relationships between humans and the natural world. With this in mind, this look is capable of generating more profound, psychological, conclusions because ecology is not just viewed from a biological point of view.
People adopting this notion of deep ecology believe the natural world is not just a place where humans can exploit the available resources. In order for a person outside this concept to understand, people implicated in the notion of deep ecology created a number of eight principles for explaining purposes.
The first principle states that all values of human and non-human life are independent. These values are not implied by the usefulness of the non-human for the human life. The second one emphasizes that the diversity of life forms contribute to the making of such values, making it a value in itself. The third principle describes the prohibition of humans to reduce this diversity except when necessary. At the fourth, we are told that the growth of human life is compatible with a decrease of it. In other words, less means more.
The fifth and sixth principles emphasize the idea of reducing human interference with the human world because the current one is worsening our situation. Not doing so will change the future life drastically worse. The last two principles focus on the solution and application of these principles. It is said that humans should appreciate their present life quality more rather than striving for higher standards.
4. Social Ecology
Social ecology is a theory of the social nature created by the activist Murray Bookchin. The belief of social ecology is that all of the world's environmental problems come from social issues. Therefore, it is said that all the problems of the ecological nature cannot be understood or be confronted with a solution. At least not until problems in society are not dealt with.
This notion is in direct relation to the idea of hierarchy and human domination. Seen as one major issue, the domination of man by man has lead to the idea that man has to dominate everything else. That includes the nature. Furthermore, the so-called natural human desire to have more and more has result in the belief that our planet is nothing more than a massive mine bound to be exploited by its resources. The competitive nature of man against man seems it has backfired, turning not only against each other, but against the world we live in as well. It can be seen the social part considered problematic in this notion. As humans desire to have more than one-another, they make use of the natural world in rather exploiting and damaging ways.
One great belief in the notion of social ecology is that of direct democracy. The core view of social ecologists is that of a moral economy, one that passes the limits of hierarchy. With this in mind, it is believed that human communities can come into harmony with the natural world, generating a happier way of life based on appreciation of what a person already has, rather than the unhappiness of never having enough.
One the other hand, it is more possible that a human being will blame something else entirely rather than the poor social interactions with one another. Contrary to social ecology belief, one is more inclined to blame the industrial expansion for egotistic matters rather than ecological ones. The present consumerist world has implemented the thought of either grow or die trying, making people never satisfied with their state of living. This leads to a burning desire of continually climbing up the hierarchical ladder by all means.
When people will understand that human interactions with the world around them – and themselves, for that matter – are more important than domination of everything possible, environmental issues could be better understood. Understanding the problem is solving half of it that is why social ecology is one viable notion in this world.
5. Ecosocialism
Ecosocialism argues that a socialist approach to economic exploitation of the environment is necessary to achieve environmental sustainability. This because ecosocialism takes into consideration the long term impact of environmental exploitation on communities and societies as opposed to capitalism’s short-term focus on profits. Activists claim that the ecosocialsm shares the main reason of the socialist ideology: that of making justice. These terms mainly try to merge the idea of Marxism and socialism with that of green politics and a healthy environment. It is highly disputed if “ecosocialism” is the right term to be used in this case. Other, more or less known, names such as ecological Marxism, perspective ecosocialism or just simply socialism are taken into consideration. But, it has to be borne in mind that it is the main idea behind this notion that counts, and not the label itself.
Ecosocialists, as socialists for that matter, aim for the subversion of capitalism, taking more into account the idea of collective ownership. The believe that the world would be more prosperous if the lands were not privately owned but shared among the citizens. The Marxist value of use value above exchange value is the root of this ecosocialistic idea.There are two main reasons of argument that come from the ecosocialists. The first arguments present the capitalist countries that are highly advanced with their production and consumption mode. They say it is based on the accumulation without boundaries, waste of resources and egotistic consumption that ultimately leads to environment destruction. Thus, it is considered that this type of living system has to be replaced with an environmental friendly approach, or the consequences could quickly lead to an ecological crisis.
The second reasoning argument of ecosocialists revolves around the expansion of our civilization based on a market economy. With the current consumption rate, it is believed that the survival of the human species is highly threatened. Therefore, the protection of the natural environment is something that has to be done. Although the ecosocialist movement highly criticizes this expansion of the capitalistic world, it should not be understood that they also criticize the improvements brought by the advance of technology. Quite contrary even, the demand for running water, more medical dispensaries and electricity are subjects highly sustained in their discussions and movements.
The concept of ecosocialism was also created because of the critique made by environmentalists of Marx's concepts on human expansion. The common point of both notions, ecological and socialistic, is one of qualitative living rather than one based on potential profit upon expansion. Socialists are looking at points such as social equality and use-value while environmentalists want the protection of nature and ecological balance. With these resemblances in mind, they have joined forces in raising awareness of their causes.
Ecosocialism, therefore, is a critique of capitalism and its negative impact on the environment. However, the theory ignores the fact that environmental exploitation is inevitable in any economic activity, hence does not give a practical explanation on how to achieve economic growth and environmental sustainability without sacrificing either.
6. Ecofeminism
The words feminism and ecology were first used together in 1974, by French feminist Francoise d'Eaubonne in the book titled "Le féminisme ou la mort." Hence, the term of ecofeminism was created. Taking a deeper look at this notion will help us understand it better.
When talking about feminism, we know the subject is about full equality between men and women. In what ecology is concerned, this studies the relationships between humans and the environment. Ecofeminism promotes that the ideas of female and nature oppression are strongly linked together. One other definition states that the discrimination based on gender, race and class of the female population are in direct relation with the destructive character of humans towards the environment.
People who believe in this connection usually state that women are much closer to nature than others because of their role as mothers and family expanding capabilities. This leads to a bigger awareness in the environmental field of discussion. The ecofeminist movement addresses, for the most part, the main environmental issues present nowadays. The ecofeminist perspective argues that capitalist interests and the male dominate corporate world are responsible for problems like pollution of water, the right to animals, nuclear weapons and global warming.
The core reason for ecofeminism existence is to promote awareness about the impact of capitalism on the ecological system, and how this extends to gender inequalities. This notion has the constant desire to expand in its followers in order to better raise awareness of the environmental issues that are believed to destroy us as a race at an alarming pace. We can see the close relation between woman and environment since early times and cultures. As we all know, women have had the role of gatherers and caretakers throughout history. In ecofeminist literature, this stands as a great reason to accept the idea of the close connection between woman and environment.
Since women have had more interactions with nature and the nurturing side of it all, it is so thought that they are more aware of these ecological problems that arose in time. Not surprisingly, this movement is significantly increasing as time passes, gathering more and more women interested in spreading the message that environmental problems are ones that should not be ignored. There are several events taking place in different parts of the world. The most common is tree-hugging.
The proponents of this theory seem to suggest that men are the problem in environmental issues. They imply that it is the aggressive and exploitative manner i...