Blog: 11 & 12
Like I said earlier, there is a lot about ethics which can be seen in the environment, namely the lack of proper diffusion of climate change and its effects amongst population of the globe. It seems to be that poorer people receive the butt-end of the effects of climate change, and no one really cares, unfortunately. Maybe we should dive deeper into environmental ethics, its method and the structure of ethical reasoning. By applying traditional ethical theories to the environment, and its problems, its policy issues, maybe we will better understand them.
First Aristotle’s practical syllogism, which is based upon two different premises. The first premise is this idea of general normative or ethics. Which leads to this idea of particular factual premise which includes this idea of the natural and social science. Then you have the conclusion of whatever has been specified in the premise two. There are all sorts of definitions of ethics, like how it is the basic goods essential to the well-being and happiness of a person or the idea of its basic societal “values.” Maybe one could refer to it as our moral duties and obligation as human beings who are indeed alive.
Thus, people will do the right thing when give the chance, but when one person preaches at them, like many environmentalists do, the likelihood of them doing the right thing is much slimmer. Slimming down their chances because a person is less likely to understand the ethical issues at hand, I know I do not like to be preached what to believe. This idea of ethical egoism comes to mind, because people are selfish and do not care about the environment and its problems unless it affects themselves somehow. We could change this perception through economics and showing people that one opinion is not better than another’s opinion but who knows how well that will work.
There is the three step method for analyzing ethical reasoning: first, figure out what the author or theory is saying. Within this step there are two steps, diagram the author’s or theory’s ethical or values reason explaining the various levels of reasoning within (breaking something down into its parts like a car, down into its parts, and think of it backwards). Finally, there are characteristics or standards which the theory in question thinks beings have to meet if we are to acknowledge his or her “moral standing.” We all have duties owed to a member of the moral community with moral standing and we must fulfill them; but also, there are indirect duties.Indirect duties result from the duties we owe to moral agents which do not affect you unless it is within a moral community.
Thus, should animals have moral rights/duties? The question is hard because some would say yes, while others would obviously say no. The idea of speciesism was created by critics to extend moral rights to species/animals, but can they be expended to animals? Personally, as an animal lover, I believe animals have souls and are fully capable of maintaining their duties; thus we should extend duties to animals. Yes, humans are egoists. Fulfilling their own dreams is much more important than caring for the moral of other humans, let alone animals.
I believe that ethical reasoning can be attached to animals, just like with humans. There are plenty of examples of animals sticking it out for humans, their best friends. Considering a dog in Japan sat by an owner’s grave for weeks after the Tsunami must mean something, or when a dog from the Tsunami, a recent orphan, suffered from post traumatic stress disorder… I am not out of my mind, animals feel, and have moral and we should respect them.
Here are some bullet points to go along with this debate:
(I.E. the arguments made)
- psychological egoism:
- human acts are motivated by self-interest
- obj: reject if altruistic acts occur
2) ethical egoism:
- human acts ought to maximize self-interest
- obj: no value can be placed on anyone’s else’s well-being unless it is for the benefit of the self.
3) Social Darwinism:
- survival of the fittest
- obj: fitness is context relative
- obj: even if “fitness” determines survival, it does not follow that we ought to act in any particular way .
- all free market competition and survival of the fittest
- no sense that people have a right to food/health care.. like Romney with the 47%
- we only look after ourselves: meaning they take this stance on other living things
- we have a natural tendency to feel for one and another
- the idea of biophilia = an attraction to other human beings
4) divine command:
- god’s commands determine whether an act is good or not.
- obj: can humans determine what god commands
- obj: is an act good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
- rights theory:
- humans have moral and legal rights which can entail certain duties
- hobbes and locke; humans have rights in “state of nature”
- obj: rights of non-human
- obj: giving exceptions to rights leads to utilitarianists
- only state that is good for its own sake is that of happiness/pleasure
- one ought to act in a way that maximizes total good
- obj: summing harms can lead to harm of individuals for greater good
- obj: motivation of acts have no bearing on moral goodness
- ethical level: consider motivations when considering something is good or not
- 19th century economists were utilitarianists
6) natural law:
- what is good is a function of the way things are
- good comes from realization of natural tendencies
- obj: what are natural tendencies and how can they be distinguished from social constructs
- obj: consequences are unrelated to what is right?
- ex:) birth control
- things that are used as morals so be able to applied universally.
- think what if everyone else did this?