Environmental Ethics PDF

Preview

Summary

Environmental Ethics The Question: Is it wrong to pollute and consume natural resources? 1. No 2. Yes; a sustainable environment is essential to present and future human well-being 3. 3. Yes, the natural world has intrinsic value and should be protected Intrinsic v. Instrumental value Anthropocentri...

Description

Environmental Ethics The Question: Is it wrong to pollute and consume natural resources? 1. No 2. Yes; a sustainable environment is essential to present and future human well-being 3. 3. Yes, the natural world has intrinsic value and should be protected Intrinsic v. Instrumental value Anthropocentrism- only human beings have intrinsic value  Human-centered  Should still protect environment for its instrumental value and posterity (future)  Baxter; “people or penguins” 1. Intuitive 2. No dire consequences for environment 3. Actually concerned w protecting environment 4. The environment cannot participate in collective decision-making 5. The incommensurability of environmental goods 6. Ethics is a distinctly human activity  Optimal pollution- when marginal benefit of reducing pollution = marginal cost of doing so  Global issue: should developing countries have to limit CO2 emissions (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) if it will slow their development and limit their standard of living? o Anthropocentric view: depends on current vs. future humanity  Last Man argument- if the last human on earth decided to completely destroy the planet, would that be wrong? Ecocentrism- the natural environment and many of its nonhuman components also have intrinsic value  What exactly has intrinsic value? o Humans, animals, trees, rivers, oceans, ecosystems, species? o Don’t have to believe all of these do, just some  Why/how does the environment have intrinsic value (biggest challenge)  Hettinger and Throop: “wildness”; not humanized o People value less humanized things o Ex: natural vs. artificial beauty, organic food, c sections… many people believe natural is better  Questions on Ecocentrism: 1. Can humans improve the intrinsic value of nature? Ecocentrism says no, human involvement destroys its intrinsic value (but can increase instrumental) 2. Does human intervention always harm, or can it be helpful? (Ex: tearing down a forest for a mall and planting a new forest) Ecocentrism says no in the short term, but in the long term it can speed recovery of “wildness” by helping humanization wash out of natural systems Priority principle: with so many intrinsically valuable things in the world, how do we weigh these goods when they come in conflict? (Ex: convenience vs. wildness, clean power vs. wildness)

Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Anthro: willing to pay/accept (how much money would you pay) Eco: it’s hard to evaluate intrinsic value in money  Sometimes Ecocentrism requires us to sacrifice overall utility for the sake of non-sentient things  Can the value of the environment outweigh the value of human interest?...