Ethics

Environmental ethics is a part of environmental philosophy which takes cognizance of a need to extend its ethical boundaries from not only including humans but also the non human. It exerts its influence on disciplines like sociology, law, theology, ecology, economics and geography. There are certain ethical decisions that most human beings make in respect to the environment. There are questions on, whether or not we should continue to excise forests for human consumption, the issue of propagation, the environmental duties that we need to keep for the future generations and whether it is right for human beings to inadvertently cause extinction of species in the pursuit of convenience of humanity. Human beings have continually destroyed nature causing environmental harm. Environmental destruction is an attempt of the human beings to separate themselves from nature. We can come into an agreement and in a healthy relationship with nature only when we come into an understanding that the separation is destructive and fatuous. To fully comprehend and evaluate the impact of human action as well as inaction upon nature, we must get into an array of issues like ethical theories, normative and metal ethics as well as the value concept of ethics.

There is the normative and meta ethics. Debate on what is entitled to moral consideration does form a part of what is termed as normative ethics. It deals with substantive questions ethically including those that are at the heart of the environment concerning significance of changes in the environment and the imperative of the non-human and human that are affected. Meta ethics is generally concerned with the status and the nature of the ethical claims. It does not deal with the substantive questions in ethics but with ethical questions on whether or not ethical claims are true or false. They tend to go deep in verifying whether there is ethical reality or whether claims are usually open to justification that is rational. Meta ethics also deals with the status of the moral language. Normative ethics is usually divided between practical ethics and moral theory. Moral theory is usually concerned with the sorts of things that are good, righteous, and the relationships between what is right and good. A Meta ethical question that differentiates theories is a question on whether or not it is wrong to kill the animals for food.  If we question whether the sentence really expresses attitudes we are asking Metal ethical questions. If our reaction is to wonder on whether theoretical considerations might offer us a reason to reject or accept such sentences we are basically concerned with the moral theory. If we are essentially interested in knowing whether killing of animals for food is wrong or right then we are actually concerned with a major question on practical ethics.

Generally, pain and suffering are awful and should be avoided or minimized irrespective of the sex, race or species. How bad pain turns to be depends on the intensity and the duration it lasts whether felt by animals or humans. When we come to consider deeply about life we can not assert that life is life and is equally valuable whether or not it is that of human beings or the animals. It is not speciesist to hold that the life of an animal, which is capable of abstract thoughts of planning for its future and has complicated acts of communication, is more valuable than the life of a human. Whether this view is justifiable or not, the value that is carried by life is a complex ethical question. People usually affirm that life is sacred but do they really mean what they usually say If they did then pulling up a cabbage or killing a pig would be abhorrent to them just as the murder of a human being.

At times we always wonder what really is to be counted as wrong, right, cruel, bad, evil, generous, arrogant, crooked and others when talking about ethics. These are some of the complications of the theories. Questions on the real relationships between the two ethics can turn to be fraught. Environmental philosophers do believe that there are imperative relationship between normative and meta ethics. It is always crucial to know the relationship we have with the environment and how we can make good use of our environment. This is where practical ethics comes in. The main focus when it comes to practical ethics is assessing what exactly we are supposed to do thus we have to contemplate on the acts and practices that will lead us to do what is considered right.

The argument for extending the principles of practical ethics beyond our own is simple and only amounts to a clear comprehension of the basic nature of the principles of equal considerations as far as interests are concerned. Practical ethics implies that essentially our main concern for the others ought not to practically depend on what they are really like and the abilities they usually possess. It is on practical ethics that we denote that the fact that some people are not usually members of our own race or ethnicity they should not be entitled to exploitation and the fact that some are less intelligent as compared to others should not be a reason to disregard their interests. The fact that animals are not members of our species, should not entitle us to exploit them. Practical ethics denotes that the fact that animals are less intelligent than us, this does not mean we should disregard their interests. Most philosophers have advocated for equal considerations on the grounds of interests as a moral principle.

If we have to consider the main difference that differentiates human from animals then we will be tackling one aspect of environmental ethics. What really makes human differ from animals and why are they treated differently in an ethical point of view This question has been the center for philosophical debates since time in memorial in the times of classical Greeks and Socrates civilization. In some societies in the past and also in the bible, animals were always viewed as agents to whom one entered into conjugal relationships with as well as into agreements. They were usually respected, worshipped but just like today they were usually hunted. They were a source of inspiration and protein to many. The difference between human and other animals goes beyond the academic framework. There is no way animals have ever been treated the same way that the humans are treated. We always cause them suffering before we slaughter them and though people do understand ethics most still do not see anything bad with that as the word itself is relative. If animals are subjected to suffering there is no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into deep consideration. The nature of equality usually requires us to take suffering into consideration.  However, there is always some controversy on whether the principle of practical ethics and equality should be extended to nonhuman animals. There are always some doubts about what really equality amounts to in practice. Humans have vast awareness of what is happening to them thus when they are subjected to suffering it is worse than that of animals. It is patent that if we were actually to prevent inflictions of suffering to animals and make sure the interests of humans are not affected then we would have to be involved in some radical changes in our entire treatment of animals in the areas like diet, experimental procedures in the field of Science, our reaction to hunting, wildlife, wearing of furs, trapping and even in areas of entertainment for example the zoos and rodeos.

Is there any difference between murdering human beings and how we take the lives of stray dogs, experiment with monkeys and slaughter cattle for consumption purposes Is there a reason why these two concepts are treated differently The main reason why we treat animals differently from human beings is because human beings have always been categorized in the class of the moral community while most animals are not in that cluster. In the philosophers language, members belonging to the moral community do have a moral standing and non humans do not have. However, this is not to assert that they are merely considerable when treating animals. It would be irrational and unethical to conclude that we do not owe any duty to animals but only to humans. According to philosophers, we have a moral duty towards animals though it is indirect and to humans we have a direct duty towards them. Some animals are usually within the moral scope of our indirect obligations thus they are treated as if they were in the cluster of the moral community though they usually are not. Debates about the environment do involve an expanded circle of ethical considerations. Once we come into acceptance that all members of the human do possess a full membership of moral community, it gets hard to draw a definite line between non human animals and human beings. It goes down to the criteria that are developed to define the term membership.  Basically, we have already seen that there are reasons for concluding that the killing of a person is seriously wrong than killing animals. Whether we come into terms with preference utilitarianism or Tooleys argument on right to life or still the respect principle of the autonomy or not the fact is it is true. It is factual that debates on ethics will continue to be intense as they do comprise of high stakes. Most people will continue with the cruelty of inflicting animals because of indifference and carelessness. They will always see animals outside the moral reference terms.

Moral environmental ethics have become complex to understand. Morality has no clear definite meaning and most times the issue of rationality when dealing with moral ethics towards the environment is the rational concept. Most people assume acting morally is satisfying their own interests and present ambitions.  Bad moral intentions do not make people kill animals or subject them into suffering and neither do good intentions clean up the mess. Ethics as far as environment is concerned will continue to be an issue under discussion because what is termed as ethical to some is unethical to others depending on the reasoning grounds.