What are encompassed by “environmental issues” ?
-Health and safety? No, not really. These are environmental only insofar
as they impact the environment...
-Preservation of natural habitats and species (both plants and
animals)
-Conservation of natural resources
-Does concern for other species entail a belief in animal rights? Not
necessarily. You could be concerned about preserving a species, even if
you aren’t concerned about inflicting harm on particular members of the
species (you might even favor reducing one population in order to benefit
an ecosystem)
What can moral theories tell us about environmental ethics?
Kant believed that we only have moral obligations to human beings,
because only human beings are capable of being guided by reason, and
therefore only human beings can be autonomous moral agents. The value
of nonhuman species and the environment generally is only extrinsic –
they are valuable only insofar as they further human ends. On Kantian
ethics, the only reason to protect the environment is to protect human
interests.
Social Contract Theory holds that we have moral obligations only to those
who are part of the social contract. Since only human beings are capable
of being part of a contract, this means we only have moral obligations to
human beings. (Actually, it turns out that we only have moral obligations
to some human beings, which is usually seen as a shortcoming of the
theory). Once again, the value of the environment can only be extrinsic – if
there are rules protecting the environment which people would be rational
to agree to adopt out of self-interest, then those rules are justified.
Utilitarianism, unlike Kant or SCT, can recognize the interests of animals
directly, so long as they are capable of being happy (or having whatever
property is to be maximized by the consequentialist theory). This provides
for at least a limited defense of animal rights (e.g. Peter Singer). However,
unless you think that the environment can literally feel pleasure or pain,
utilitarianism is of no avail for providing a foundation for environmental
ethics. Once again, the value of species, habitats, natural resources, etc. is
only extrinsic – they are valuable only insofar as they help to maximize
happiness (of other things).
What are some human-centered reasons for protecting the
environment?
-Health (polluted air quality & contaminated rivers can threaten health)
-Asthetics (the natural beauty of wilderness areas cannot be created
artificially)
-Resources (anything lost that cannot be recreated is a potential lost
resource; this includes genetic information as well as things like fossil
fuels)
-Science (species and habitats that are wiped out now cannot be studied by
science, depriving us of valuable knowledge)
These provide the justification for most of the environmental regulation
that exists today.
Utilitarian justifications for environmentalism are especially precarious
because the theory seems to imply that we ought to have a large
population. But environmental concerns arise largely due to the fact that
there are so many humans…
Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations
Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2004 Revision and World Urbanization Prospects: The 2003
Revision,
http://esa.un.org/unpp, 08 December 2006; 9:29:08 AM.
World
Population (thousands)
Medium variant
1950-2050
Year
Population
1950
2 519 470
1955
2 757 399
1960
3 023 812
1965
3 337 974
1970
3 696 588
1975
4 073 740
1980
4 442 295
1985
4 843 947
1990
5 279 519
1995
5 692 353
2000
6 085 572
2005
6 464 750
2010
6 842 923
2015
7 219 431
2020
7 577 889
2025
7 905 239
2030
8 199 104
2035
8 463 265
2040
8 701 319
2045
8 907 417
2050
9 075 903
Deep Ecology – the idea that not only sentient creatures, but that the
environment itself has value in its own right, not merely in its relation to
humans.
Problem: If inanimate objects can have intrinsic value, then which ones do
and how much? If everything has value, then it would seem that no value
is lost when the environment is wrecked (the wrecked environment would
have intrinsic value as well). On the other hand, if some inanimate objects
are more valuable than others, then why? If it is for human-centric
reasons, then we are back to “shallow” ecology (i.e. human-centered).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_ethics
The industrialized/developed world versus unindustrialized/undeveloped
world.
Europe
Population (thousands)
Medium variant
1950-2050
Year
Population
1950
547 405
1955
575 186
1960
604 406
1965
634 032
1970
655 862
1975
675 548
1980
692 435
1985
706 017
1990
721 390
1995
727 885
2000
728 463
2005
728 389
2010
725 786
2015
721 111
2020
714 959
2025
707 235
2030
698 140
2035
688 041
2040
677 191
2045
665 637
2050
653 323
Charges of hypocrisy: Is the western world being hypocritical in trying to
impose standards on the rest of the world? If so, does this matter
ethically?
The child gap: If environmentalists have fewer children than nonenvironmentalists, then there will be fewer environmentalists around.
Doesn’t this defeat the purpose?
Brief history of environmental laws impacting business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_US_environmental_and_occupati
onal_health_regulation