Human beings have a direct relation with the environment, thus they are obliged to ethical responsibility of their surroundings. In the past, proponents of philosophy have underscored that every existence in the environment is for the interest of man and therefore humans should be ethically responsible if the environment meets their interest and not that humans to meet the interest of the environment. This view has led to the abuse of nature because it contends the importance of nature only in the interest of human beings and not in the interest of the environment itself. It has since then created a philosophical school of thought on what best should be the course. In the discussion, other philosophers have intended to propose morality in view of the human relation with the environment. In regard, both human beings and the environment need each other. As a result, moral coexistence is considered as the best ethical standards that oblige man to be responsible in handling nature. The views of Leopold, McShane Kate, Taylor, and Sylvan shall be used to draw a comparison of environmental ethics as proposed by philosophical theories.
Comparison and Contrast
According to McShane (407), the early philosophers through the tenets of anthropocentrism theory contend that our environment only has value in the existence of humankind. This theory argues that, “human beings and/ or their interests matter morally in their own right while everything else matters morally only insofar as it affects human beings and/or their interests.” (McShane 407). This kind of view was presented in the early days to support the oppression that human kind gave to the environment. The view contends that the environment exist to serve and satisfy the interest of human kind. The theory further suggests that the environment and everything in it has no value without the existence of human beings. Contrary, Leopold in Ethics of the Land argues that both human beings and the environment exist independently but work together to satisfy one another’s interest. According to him, the environment is a community that incorporates plants, animals, soil, and human beings (Leopold 109). Although the instincts of man may prompt him to fight for his space in the land, it is ethically moral for man to cooperate with the environment as he competes for his place. It consequently means that human beings are just members of the land community with equal existence rights as other members as the quote illustrates, “... man is, in fact, only a member of a biotic team is shown by an ecological interpretation of history.” (Leopold 110)
Similarly, McShane in the tenets of intrinsic value agrees that environmental ethics hold every member of the environment with a moral obligation to be responsible in the equal existence for all. In regard, he proposed the nonanthropocentric theory that is in view opposition of the anthropocentrism. The theory contends that the natural environment or its part have independent value regardless of the effect such value may result on man (McShane 408). This argument asserts the environmental ethics that views the environment as a community where each member individual exists to compete for a space but rather serving each other for a peaceful and cooperative coexistence.
In addition, Taylor asserts the moral obligation of human beings to be responsible for the environment in his life-centered theory. Taylor observes that, “…we have prima facie moral obligations that are owed to wild plants and animals themselves as members of the Earth’s biotic community. We are morally bound (other things being equal) to protect or promote their good for their sake” (Taylor 198). For example, we should not cut down trees and destroy forests because we need firewood, charcoal, or timber. We have the moral obligation to protect the plants for the successful coexistence of all members of the environment. By so doing, we demonstrate and duty of integrity and respect to the ecosystem of which we are part. Life-centered theory therefore explains the inherent worth and good for its own characteristics of individual member of the ecosystem. Destruction of the organisms and plants thus is purely unethical.
On the contrary, sylvan just like Leopold in his theory of anthropocentrism posits the western view of the environment that exposes man as the supreme dominant creature in the environment. Nature is made and persevered for the service and satisfaction of humanity. In the principle of human chauvinism for instance, human comes first as everything else follows last. The environment and its components consequently are for human to decide its utilization. Moreover, the choice to doing anything with the environment is sole human beings to make as far as it does not interfere with others (Sylvan 207).
Conclusion
Environmental ethics dictates equality among members of the ecosystem that includes plants, animals, water, and human beings. Anthropocentrism view gives human superiority over other members of the ecosystem while nonanthropocentrism views argue the importance of all creatures in the environment. As underscored by the different scholars discussed above, the human beings should morally hold each member of the ecosystem with equal importance and consider their inherent worth.
Works Cited
Leopold, Aldo. "The land ethic." The Ecological Design and Planning Reader. Island Press, Washington, DC, 2014. 108-121.
McShane, Katie. "Environmental ethics: An overview." Philosophy Compass 4.3 (2009): 407-420.
Sylvan, Richard Routley. "11 Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic?" Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (2010): 207-210
Taylor, Paul W. "The ethics of respect for nature." Environmentalism: Critical Concepts 1.3 (2003): 202-217
