![]() ![]() Concern about the environmental impacts of human practices, and human treatment of animals, was found in ancient Greece ( 9). 2. INTRODUCING THE FIELDĮthical reflection on human relations with the nonhuman world is not new. Because of length restrictions, we cannot include the serious and careful consideration that these approaches deserve. By narrowing our focus in this way, we do not intend to imply that these approaches are not extremely important. We omit discussion of religious approaches to environmental ethics (but see Reference 4) non-Western traditions, including indigenous and Asian approaches to environmental ethics (but see References 5, 6) and Continental philosophical traditions, such as those emerging from phenomenology and existentialism (but see References 7, 8). Second, we concentrate on the secular, Western traditions currently dominant in environmental ethics within what is usually called an analytic philosophical tradition. ![]() First, we focus specifically on environmental ethics, not on environmental philosophy more broadly construed, e.g., environmental epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics (but see References 1– 3). To carry out a rigorous and thorough review, therefore, we have, of necessity, restricted the areas we discuss. It is therefore crucial to evaluate the policies and practices regarding them in terms of what is right and good, in addition to what is efficient or expedient.Įnvironmental ethics emerged as a distinct field of philosophy during the 1970s, and its scope has since expanded significantly. Many environmental issues, e.g., endangered species protection, sustainable resource management, genetically modified crop use, greenhouse gas mitigation, population growth, and chemical contamination, are as much ethical issues as they are economic or legal issues. The goals and methods of particular environmental policies, ecosystem management strategies, and practices of environmental activism, among other things, can then be assessed in terms of how responsive they are to what is valuable in the environment and how well they embody the principles that those values justify. ![]() Therefore, central to environmental ethics are the tasks of determining what things in the nonhuman environment (hereinafter, the environment) are valuable how and why they are valuable and how we ought to consider these values in deliberations about principles, actions, practices, and laws. However, to get from descriptive and predictive claims to normative or prescriptive claims other things are required-values and principles. For example, part of determining whether we ought to reduce our ecological footprint is having good data about ecological limits, lifestyle impacts, and what may occur if lifestyles do not change. Of course, knowledge about ecological systems, the state of the world, human psychology, and social institutions is crucial to good ethical reasoning. This implies that the empirical sciences alone are insufficient for answering ethical questions and justifying ethical claims. They are instead normative and aspirational, describing the behaviors, practices, and character traits for which we ought to strive, even if these are difficult to achieve. Thus, prescriptive claims are not reducible to either descriptive claims about people's acts and beliefs or predictive claims about possible future events. This claim could be true, even if lifestyles are currently unsustainable and future change is unlikely. An example of a prescriptive claim is as follows: People should reduce the ecological impacts of their lifestyles. Ethical questions are those about what we ought to do, and ethical claims are prescriptive, rather than descriptive or predictive. Environmental ethics is the study of ethical questions raised by human relationships with the nonhuman environment.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |