Environmental Ethics
The anthropocentric approach is criticized for "limiting values to the human realm," for being biased toward the nonhuman world, and for its failure "to provide a satisfactory basis for a moral philosophy of ecological obligation" because it is concerned with human self-interest (Lecture). These are the claims of supporters of the deep ecology perspective, who believe that intrinsic value should be extended to all of nature. In this essay, I argue that the claims of the deep ecology approach are wrong and I will put forth a defense for anthropocentrism. Before anything else, I will give the definitions of intrinsic and instrumental values and nature. An intrinsic value is "the worth a thing has in an end of itself." These values are good for their own sake. Examples of these values would be love and beauty. An instrumental value is the "worth a thing has an instrument to achieve a goal or end." (Lecture) Money would be an example of an instrumental value. Having money will allow a person the achieve the goal of a life of leisure. Lastly, nature means everything in our environment-the soil, the climate, and all living things. Anthropocentrism maintains that only human beings have intrinsic value and that nonhuman anima
Still, it is only natural of us to do so. # 477) Although humans may be hurting nature in such instances as mentioned above, the benefits outweigh the costs. However, this claim of deep ecology is groundless because there is no useful purpose in attributing intrinsic value to non sentient beings (Lecture). A great deal of the diverse things that human beings do can be perfectly natural, even if it can be destructive or lead to some transformation of nature. Because we have moral responsibilities, we are more valuable than anything else in nature. As anthropocentrism contends, our moral obligation to protect the environment is based on human interests (Lecture). On the contrary, nature does not use us. For example, we recycle so that we can reuse certain things that have been produced with material coming from the environment. So, while the human way of living may be destructive to the environment, we still strive to make up for it. Another claim of the deep ecology view, given by Aaron Naess, is that the self is all, reality is one, and if we damage the environment, we damage ourselves (Lecture).
Common topics in this essay:
Land Ethic,
Aaron Naess,
,
Lecture Money,
deep ecology,
Aldo Leopold,
intrinsic value,
deep ecology view,
ecology view,
instrumental value,
moral obligation,
moral philosophy ecological,
philosophy ecological obligation,
deep ecology perspective,
human self-interest,
claim deep ecology,
humans nature,
optimal pollution,
ecological obligation,
air pollution,
|
Acceptance Essays
