It's the first time for me to really get to know the environmental ethics which is far from what I used to think. I'm deeply impressed by many interesting opinions concerning the definition of "ethics". Among them, the holistic environmental ethics resonates with me the most, and it inspires me as well.
Theoretically, I basically agree with the "Gaia hypothesis" which emphasizes the entire Earth. The entire Earth is the focus of moral significance. I personally think this concept actually coincides with Leopold and Callicott's view in essence, not conflicting with it at the least to say. Historically, human beings have been keeping trying to look for new ways to survive from and then to live better in the great nature. Those behaviors considered to do good to people's life used to be deemed as being ethical. However, evidence shows that some methods, adopted by people from good will, ultimately turned out to be harmful, such as the use of pesticide. Human beings gradually figured out what is right and what is wrong through many years' trial and error. And most right things are proved to be in compliance with the intrinsic rule of the nature. Hence, ethical behavior in human beings is defined as responses by individuals which make species more likely to survive (Pojman,21).This definition suggests people follow the concept of "natural law", under which people should leave species and the environment as what they are. The nature will achieve its potential as every element of it works in their original way.
People may wonder: Does it mean human beings can do nothing in front of the nature? The answer is NO. As demonstrated in the Principles of Marxist Philosophy, human beings task is to understand the world and then change the world. Human beings can undoubtedly transform the world depending on their preference. The key is they should change the world in a right way. Then, what is the right way? I think it is to follow and utilize the intrinsic nature of every other thing on the earth to fulfill human's needs rather than distort the universe and try to create a brand-new world for the King: Human. Therefore, I think ethics behavior in human beings means behave instinctively in accordance with the natural law.
Apart from this, I don't agree with Callicott in terms of the scarification of the human. I think to make the whole world good doesn't necessarily sacrifice human beings. As I see it, the current many undesirable situations, such as global warming, are the consequences of many wrong methods adopted by people before. It's not a mistake that people transform the environment in their preferable way instinctively. The problem is they took improper approaches. So I think the benefit of human beings eventually identifies with the whole world. If people employ a right way to live in harmony with the environment, they won't be sacrificed as indicated by Callicott.
Theoretically, I basically agree with the "Gaia hypothesis" which emphasizes the entire Earth. The entire Earth is the focus of moral significance. I personally think this concept actually coincides with Leopold and Callicott's view in essence, not conflicting with it at the least to say. Historically, human beings have been keeping trying to look for new ways to survive from and then to live better in the great nature. Those behaviors considered to do good to people's life used to be deemed as being ethical. However, evidence shows that some methods, adopted by people from good will, ultimately turned out to be harmful, such as the use of pesticide. Human beings gradually figured out what is right and what is wrong through many years' trial and error. And most right things are proved to be in compliance with the intrinsic rule of the nature. Hence, ethical behavior in human beings is defined as responses by individuals which make species more likely to survive (Pojman,21).This definition suggests people follow the concept of "natural law", under which people should leave species and the environment as what they are. The nature will achieve its potential as every element of it works in their original way.
People may wonder: Does it mean human beings can do nothing in front of the nature? The answer is NO. As demonstrated in the Principles of Marxist Philosophy, human beings task is to understand the world and then change the world. Human beings can undoubtedly transform the world depending on their preference. The key is they should change the world in a right way. Then, what is the right way? I think it is to follow and utilize the intrinsic nature of every other thing on the earth to fulfill human's needs rather than distort the universe and try to create a brand-new world for the King: Human. Therefore, I think ethics behavior in human beings means behave instinctively in accordance with the natural law.
Apart from this, I don't agree with Callicott in terms of the scarification of the human. I think to make the whole world good doesn't necessarily sacrifice human beings. As I see it, the current many undesirable situations, such as global warming, are the consequences of many wrong methods adopted by people before. It's not a mistake that people transform the environment in their preferable way instinctively. The problem is they took improper approaches. So I think the benefit of human beings eventually identifies with the whole world. If people employ a right way to live in harmony with the environment, they won't be sacrificed as indicated by Callicott.
No comments:
Post a Comment