The value of nature has been greatly debated by humanists, scholars, social scientists and many other professionals all over the world. Whereas some argue that nature might be indirectly morally considerable, many others believe that it is morally considerable. When it comes to environmental ethics; the moral relationship of humans to the environment and its non-human contents, some actions by human beings are not morally permissible. According to Light and Rolston (2003), “nature might be directly morally considerable if it possesses some kind of value (for example some kind of value in and of itself not dependent on its value to anything or anyone else) which could be further demonstrated as the sort of value that demanded that we respect or protect it” (pg. 2).
Among many other morally wrong actions, destroying or polluting parts of the natural environment and consuming significant proportions of mother nature’s natural resources is often considered morally unacceptable (Brennan & Lo, 2016). I totally concur with this assertion. Research boldly indicates that global warming is often intertwined with destroying the environment (whether for settlement or agriculture) and polluting it. The intrinsic value of the environment or forests cannot be ignored and neither can we overlook the effects that come along with clearing or destroying the environment including depletion of the ozone layer, acid rain, as well as pollution of soil, water, and air thus impacting negatively on human beings, plants and animals.
Unlike other forms of applied ethics that focus only on the area of concern, the scope of environmental ethics moves beyond the human sphere. Environmental ethicists have shown concern over who counts morally and why when unethical events occur in the environment as well as reexamine the human-nature relationship regarding wilderness areas, endangered species and old growth forests among other things (Light & Rolston, 2003, pg. 4). Nonetheless, humans should start to develop a conscience about the way they act on their environment. Deep ecologists firmly believe that humans need to completely change their perspective about nature and appreciate it to the point of granting rights to all wild living things.
Brennan, A., & Lo, Y. (2016). Environmental Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2018, from https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=ethics-environmental
Light, A., & Rolston, H. (2003). Environmental Ethics: An Anthology (pp. 1-11). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Antibiotic resistance is becoming a great problem in the medical world. It is affecting the use of antibiotics because most of them do not work. Antibiotics leave people vulnerable to diseases. Some are chronic that they lead to death. A big examp...Antibiotic-resistance- …Read Article
Introduction: History and evolution Texas has levied fees and taxes since 1800's. In the recent past (since 1989) it has enjoyed a significant 6.4% average annual growth in total tax collected. However, the state of Texas has a reputation of l...Fees-and-Taxation-in-the-State-of-Texas …Read Article
Thesis Statement: The popularity of social media facilitates its potential use as a tool for e-learning by means of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The use of social media tools in education has a variety of benefits in education. ...Revising-an-Essay …Read Article