Environmental Ethics As The Moral Relationship Of Human Beings To The Environment

As environmental ethics has not given enough attention to the obligations of the environment to future generations. This field of ethics has a non-anthropocentric theory, thus stating that we have obligations which are not directed to a human being. Rather than our obligations is to preserve and protect the environmental systems. By ding this the consideration for our future generations is excluded, even though this is the case it still has many more objectives. Such as, “If we pursue efforts to regulate mountaintop removal as a method of coal mining, we may, at the same time, hope to preserve mountaintop ecosystems, protect rural communities, ensure the safety of mine workers, prevent stream runoff, maintain biodiversity and promote alternative methods of energy production.(Clark, 2016), even though some of this example may not be non-anthropocentric it still shows the considerations taken for environmental ethics.

When it comes to environmental ethics, it is an important discipline as it studies the moral relationship of human beings to the environment and the non-human contents. It also studies the values and moral status of these beings to the environment and its non-human contents. Desjardin stated in his book, “As philosophers turned their attention to environmental issues, it became clear that simply applying standard ethical theories would not yield satisfactory analyses of these issues. (Desjardin, 2013. p. 90) Here we can see that by just applying the standard ethical theories to the different environmental issues we will not fulfil exceptions in analysis the different issues. Thus by exploring the different theories, we can see that we should start to consider out ethical efforts of our actions on the future generations. Therefore making use look further that the traditional boundaries we are used to.

With regards to different ethical theories, we know that it provides a foundation in decision making. As these theories, all represent different viewpoints in which individuals seek for guidance, as they go through their everyday life. The different theories represent different points, thus representing different decisions and different rules. To see this better we can look at the different ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.

Utilitarianism a theory which helps study environmental ethics. A theory which develops the common sense of insight into the consequences of our decisions, and how that plays an important role in deciding what one does. In the end, this is a theory which is based on the maximum overall good to produce the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. This is a theory which rests on 2 elements, the account of the good and a rule in judging all aspects and decisions in terms of that good. (Desjardin, 2013) In the end, we can see that this approach is based on one’s ability to predict the consequences of their actions. One chooses the ethically correct path by picking the choice which yields the greatest benefit to the most amount of people.

Therefore telling use to look at the consequences of our actions, where if the act tends to maximise good consequences you are ethically correct. Even though we have no control over the consequences of our actions, we can still be held responsible for them, thus violating a fundamental part of its core. To conclude that where deontology approach takes a different stance. (Desjardin, 2013)

With regards to future generations, utilitarianism would, therefore, minimise the suffering and to maximise the overall happiness for all concerned. Two problems come to light in this part of the book concerning this approach, prioritising present needs over the interest of the future people and maximising the sustainable yield.

The book refers to Jeremy Bentham and Mary Williams arguments to help argue the point for the utilitarianism approach on the responsibilities for future generations. Williams argues that discounting the future value of resources is in line with utilitarian goals. The only reason she says this is that if these renewable resources remain to produce value in the future for future generations. Therefore if we maximise the resources now we will maximise the total overall value as they will continue to produce value (Desjardin, 2013. p.82). But if we look at non-renewable resources that is not that case. If we maximize the resources now, we will deplete them therefore the total overall happenings is not reached. Williams introduces us to the utilitarian bases for sustainable development, she gives 2 essential points. Calculating the future consequences of our current environmental policies (Desjardin, 2013. p.82). And the maximum sustainable yield, thus focusing on maximising the present return without jeopardising themselves (Desjardin, 2013. p.82 and 83). If we continue with this view and believe that we have to maximize the happiness of future generations. Should that come to a cost of current generations maximum happiness?

The Derek Parfit conclusion is something which best fits this, if the overall world happiness is increased, we ought to create as many people as possible (Desjardin, 2013. p.83). Even if this means we have billions and billions of people but their happiness can be limited. Whereas we would rather have a world with a smaller population where peoples happenings are greater. Here we can see that if we chose the path of total happiness view and adopt environmental policies aimed at increasing the total future happiness, we can see one implication to commit to increasing the future population size. Thus we can see that the total happiness sacrifices the happiness of future generations. The view of average happiness requires more distribution of both happiness and resources which are necessary to achieve happiness. Because of this one thinks that a deontology approach could be better.

By taking into account the overall happiness we can violate the rights of future generations, as they are not here to vote as of yet. But with this approach, it is easier to consider them. We can see that this approach brings its problems, they are still able to rectify them. Thus making it easier to stretch this approach to consider future generations. This is also the case because the younger generation of today cares more for the future, thus they are already starting to change their ways. By doing this they change their ways and making things more sustainable for the future.

The next approach is deontology, an approach which rather focuses on acting on principle rather than in terms of consequences. Thus central points of this theory involve duties and rights, thus being a rights-based theory. Form the utilitarianism approach we can see that one of the main issues it faces is the consequences of its actions. Something which violates its core responsibility. This is where deontology gets its main head from, the fact that they believe that we can be held responsible for only those things in which we can control, therefore the focus should be on those principles. These are principles on which we use to express the intentions of our actions. (Desjardin, 2013) In the end, we can see that this is an approach which states that people should adhere to their obligations and duties. They should adhere to them when they are partaking in decision making when there are ethics at play. Thus following their obligations to another individual/society.

With regards to future generations, deontology is an insufficient approach. In the book, we see that it distinguishes between who has rights, what rights are and what rights are for. One of the may areas of concern here is the debate on the rights of these generations and the rights of future generations. With this, we can see that if we discount the interest of the future generation we override their interested health. This is all done with our interest at heart, to make our lives more comfortable.

This begs the questions on whether or not future generations have rights? But if so we first need to understand that rights, rights can see two different sides. If it is an attribute that belongs to people and exits in the world to be discovered, then the future generation does not have rights. If we look at rights from its function point of view, assigning rights to future generations is more logical. Thus the rights function to limit the behaviour of other people, to protect certain basic interests of a right-holder. (Desjardin, 2013) Based on deontology approach three conclusions can be drawn on ones responsibility to future generations.

Our current way of producing energy is very harmful to the environment, as fossil fuels and uranium pollute the air and is bad for the environment and one’s health. Therefore we have the responsibility we have to make a sincerer and serious effort to develop an alternative source of energy. As we can see the dangers from our reliance on this energy source. Thus we have to minimize it, and to d this we can step in a different direction. A direction which finds alternatives which are better for our health and the future generations of this planet. If we continue with our current methods we will be on the same level of criminal negligence.

Next, we have the duty we have to conserve our resources. If the generation had to continue with the way they using the natural resources, we will use up the reserves of the future generations within two hundred years (Desjardin, 2013. p.85). We must not waste these resources, so that we can conserve without significant sacrifice of convenience, allowing the hunter generations a fair opportunity to attain the lifestyle they wish to have or one in corresponding in size with our own.

Lastly, the chance of happiness we are the future generations. If we had to carry on going the way we are now our global footprint will overshoot, thus we would have gone over Earths carrying capacity. It will take us one and a half Earths to sustain our current population and their needs. Therefore we need to be able to limit the ever-growing population of Earth, thus not bring people into the world who stand little to no chance in living a minimally decent life.

Based on those factors we can see that future generations do have rights. As we need to change the way we use our essential resources, as it is also essential for their well-being. Now another question is whether not they have the rights to non-essential resources. I may enjoy wilderness areas but that does not mean the next person does. Thus our generation might enjoy something but the future generation might not. It all depends on what type of world the future generation inherits form us. This leads us to our next ethical theory approach, virtue ethics. As we must take into consideration the preservation of the non-essential resources, we take the stance that the preservation of them have a great potential to benefit humans of their current and future generations.

This approach can be insufficient but I think that it could be used for the sustainability issues we face, as it is rights and duties based. It takes into consideration future generations even though they do not have a voice now. This approach does not have room for judgement though, it is either right or wrong.

Virtue ethics judge a person by their character rather than by the action which deviates them from their normal behaviour. By doing this it can take their morals, reputation and motivation into account when rating their behaviour which is considered unethical.

With regards to future generations, virtue ethics is an approach which is based on ethics of care, something which is treated with sympathy. Through this approach, we can see that people can and do care about future generations in many different ways. In the book, we see that humans can have the view of do we care or, are we self-interested. We can see that it takes the position of care as it argues we should preserve the animals, plants and ecosystems for their own sake, as they should become direct beneficiaries of our responsibilities. (Desjardin, 2013) Thus we should be pressuring these resources as we care about future generations, and we care about the type of people they will become.

We can see this on three different levels, political, private and personal. On the political level, we can see that the measures are taken to protect wilderness areas, shorelines, forests, heritage sites and national defence all shows that we are caring about those yet to be born. As the decision taken will affect those of the generations not born yet. On a private level, the decisions that one takes in charitable and educational foundations to help those in the cultural sector helps provide those of our following generations with a more human and decent world to live in. And lastly, on a personal level, we can see that our decisions can suggest that we care about future generations. We can see this throwing the simple act of painting a tree, as this will help future generations as the tree matures over time.

To gain a greater understanding of their approach one can look at a parent and their child/children. If we had to look at parents of their responsibilities to their children, they provide them with a child needs or wants. But it goes further than that so that they provide them with a reasonable chance to get what they need and want. And to do this we must use our resources sparingly. A parent must also shape their child’s needs and wants appropriately, so they get what they need and want in an appropriate and good way, thus involving moral education and development. Therefore if we care about our children and the type of world they will end of living in, we will start concerning ourselves with the type of life they will live and what they might become if we carry on going the way we are now.

Based on this I do not think that it is the greatest theory to represent sustainability. As it is based on care, not everyone has the same emotions, thus not everyone will care the same. Even though we can see that people do and can care about the future. More needs to be taken into consideration with regards to future generations.

To conclude we need to take into account what is being sustained, we also need to be careful about the over-reliance on economic and self-interested arguments and lastly, we need to rely on a more value-based approach. Therefore, in the end, we can see that we need to look further than our traditional ethical theories. By doing this we will be able to take future generations into account and think about things more sustainably.