RMPS
Christian Ethics in a Secular
Context
Ecology and Environment
(Higher)
4458
Autumn 1998
HIGHER STILL
RMPS
Christian Ethics in a Secular
Context
Ecology and Environment
(Higher)
Support Materials
*+,-./
CONTENTS
1. Teacher’s Guide
2. Student’s Guide
3. Biblical Sources and Commentary
4. Depletion of Resources
5. Climatic Imbalance
6. Pollution
7. The Work of Organisations
8. Treatment of Animals
9. Suggestions for further reading
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
1
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
2
1. TEACHER’S GUIDE
Introduction
These support materials allow students the opportunity to consider ethical issues from
within the topic Ecology and Environment. The issues to be studied are contained
within the following areas:
• Depletion of resources
• Climatic imbalance
• Pollution
• Treatment of animals.
Within each area issues are understood to have arisen as a result of the interplay of
traditional Christian beliefs and values with those of a rapidly changing society. An
important element in our changing society has been the way in which it has become
increasingly secular. The word ‘secular’ originally meant ‘the world’ as opposed to
‘the church’, though it could also be used to mean clergy who worked in the world as
individuals, rather than being members of religious orders. In recent use it means
primarily a world free of control by religion. The important spheres of human life politics, law, education, medicine, social welfare - have been withdrawn from the
influence of the churches and religion, and placed under the control of lay people.
The secular, or more properly the idea of a ‘secular context’, however, does not denote a
world in which religion is increasingly absent. Religion continues to flourish and have
influence. By setting the study of Christian ethics within a secular context, the unit is
emphasising the importance of taking seriously the information which comes from the
rational, technical and scientific study of the world. For example, the biological
sciences emphasise the unity between ourselves and other animals. This leads to a
greater awareness of responsibility for the effects of our actions on other creatures.
Within Ecology and Environment, each broad area contains an outline of relevant
background information emanating from the physical and social sciences. There is
also some discussion of and commentary on related biblical sources, together with a
consideration of Christian viewpoints. In addition the materials contain information
and responses from recent reports, publications, and developments, both from within
the churches and from within secular organisations.
The issues dealt with in the area of Ecology and Environment have arisen because of a
number of factors. Some have arisen because of deliberate uncaring acts, for example,
the deliberate discharge of chemical effluent into a river with no thought for the plant
and animal life in the immediate environment. Other issues have arisen because of
ignorance or are the result of a series of actions which no one actually intended.
Knowledge of what the problems are and what can be done to rectify them is an
important part of this unit. Equally important, however, is a consideration of the
attitudes towards the natural world which underlie them, and make it possible for
human beings to behave in a thoughtless way. How far has Christianity, for example,
contributed to such attitudes, because it has seemed to concentrates almost exclusively
on the relationship between God and human beings, with the natural world scarcely
mentioned?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
3
Students should be encouraged to identify and explain the ‘moral’ issues involved.
When analysing students should take care to explain different viewpoints and
responses in some detail, and demonstrate how these are supported from Christian
scriptures and tradition, or from secular documentation. Viewpoints and responses
should be evaluated in terms of their contemporary relevance having taken account of
the secular context. This will also involve making judgements on the extent to which
particular responses relate to traditional Christian teaching as expressed, for example,
through scriptures. Conclusions should be supported by appropriate evidence.
Students are required to:
• demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the essential features of the moral
issue
• cite sources which are relevant to the moral issue and its secular context
• analyse two different viewpoints or responses on the issue
• evaluate the contemporary relevance of the viewpoints and responses
• present a logical conclusion supported by evidence.
Learning and teaching approaches
The issues to be studied cannot be seen in isolation. They involve elements of
science, technology, politics and economics, as well as ethics. Students should not be
expected to give detailed accounts of all of these, but they should have a firm grasp of
the background factors so that they can make reasonable comment on the ethical
aspects of the issues.
Teachers will have their own preferences for the organisation of the course and the
allocation of time within it. Many like to run issues concurrently while others prefer a
more discrete approach. Running issues concurrently helps students to see the
relationships more easily and thereby improve their understanding, while the discrete
approach allows for clearer progression and better opportunity for assessment.
Teachers will also have their own strategies and preferred ways of organising learning.
A recommendation to include variety, however, is an important one given that
students will inevitably have different learning styles. Since ethical issues are
grounded in real problems their study will benefit from the use of visual materials.
These can help to introduce and clarify ideas and viewpoints while at the same time
they can illustrate and explain the context in which the issues have arisen. Group and
class discussion will also be important so that students can, in dialogue with others,
talk through different responses and learn from others before coming to their own
conclusions.
Learning strategies will therefore take a variety of forms:
• Gathering information and viewpoints from books and magazines
• Student presentation
• Teacher presentation
• Class and group discussion
• Role play
• Direct teaching
• Essay and report writing.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
4
2. STUDENT’S GUIDE
These materials are intended to help you to study some of the ethical issues and
responses from within the topic Ecology and Environment. It is recommended that
you supplement these with a variety of other materials in order to develop and extend
your knowledge and understanding. Some useful resources are included in section 9.
The materials will help you by:
• introducing and explaining some key issues and ideas within the area of study
• making reference to some appropriate sources
• indicating and discussing Christian viewpoints
• suggesting activities.
The issues and responses for the topic Ecology and Environment are contained within
the following:
Depletion of resources; Climatic imbalance; Pollution; Treatment of animals.
Recent reports, publications and developments within the Churches and other
organisations.
The materials explore the issues that arise within the above areas and describe the
nature and significance of the ethical dilemmas involved. Background information is
provided in relation to each area to help you understand the issues. There is
discussion of Christian viewpoints and responses drawing on, where appropriate,
biblical and other relevant sources. You will be expected to come to your own
conclusions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.
You will be expected to:
• explain the moral issues involved in each topic
• explain different viewpoints and responses
• show how these viewpoints and responses are supported from within Christian
scriptures and secular documentation
• make judgements about whether these viewpoints and responses are consistent with
traditional Christian teaching and relevant to people today
• present your own conclusions and supporting evidence.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
5
3. BIBLICAL SOURCES AND COMMENTARY
The background to our use of the Earth’s resources from the Christian point of view is
not clear cut. So first of all, let us explore some of the basic ideas Christians might
have about the Earth and our rights over it (and responsibilities to it) and then we will
go on to look at some differences of opinion.
The Earth belongs to God: In Genesis, the creation story affirms the idea that God
created the Earth ex nihilo - out of nothing. Why he did so is not clear, but the Bible
is only concerned to support the belief that he did. It is also clear from Genesis that
God created the Earth to be looked after primarily by humans. However, the Christian
believes that the Earth is the ‘property’ of its creator, God. Because of this there must
be certain rules about how we treat it. Obviously, if you are looking after something
for someone else you take special care of it because you want to hand it back in good
condition. If you have ever looked after someone else’s pet during a holiday then you
know what this means - its always far more worrying for you that it might die while in
your care than any pet of your own! Christians believe that God is the creator of
everything that exists, and so everything is his - only he therefore has the right to do
anything with it or to it. Christians believe that God created everything with its own
right to existence, and that God gives value to everything in his creation
Humans are God’s special creation, the highest form of life on Earth. Christians
believe that when God created the creatures which live on Earth he made humans last.
He gave humans the responsibility of looking after the rest of the Earth. This is called
‘Dominion’ - humans are the most advanced species on Earth and so have the greatest
responsibility towards the Earth. In the book of Genesis, humans are given the task of
naming the animals. In the ancient near east, this power to name gave you control.
When you named something it became your responsibility. This naming of the living
things of the Earth therefore gives humans control over them. Christians believe that
only humans are ‘made in God’s image’. There are a lot of different ideas about what
this might mean, but most Christians are agreed that it means humans have a special
role to play in looking after the planet. Many Christians believe that image means
humans share some of the characteristics of God, and at least are his most meaningful
representatives on Earth. This idea of image gives humans the greatest power over,
but also the greatest responsibility for, the Earth and everything on it.
The Earth was originally a paradise. In the Adam and Eve story, which many
Christians understand symbolically, God gave humans the ‘power’ over the natural
world. But they didn’t have to worry too much about what this meant because
everything they needed was there. They didn’t have to work or farm - all their needs
were met effortlessly by the world in which God had put them. However, mankind
disobeyed God’s command and as a result God punished him. This punishment took
the form of being thrown out of the paradise God had created. After this humans had
to work against the Earth to struggle for their survival. Christians call this ‘the Fall’ where man ‘fell out’ with God. From this point on, all mankind’s relationships with
the natural world would be more difficult. Again, there are differences in
interpretation about what this means in practice. However, what is clear is that in
some way there was a rejection of God by mankind, and this rejection had
consequences. Some believe that the Fall did not result in a punishment as such but in
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
6
the logical result of looking after a planet without the help of its creator. So the Fall is
what happens when the creator of a planet leaves his creation in charge - things
become more difficult. Many Christians respond to environmental issues with the
idea of the Fall in their mind - they claim that as long as the relationship between God
and man is corrupted, the relationship between man and the natural world will also be
corrupted.
All through the Christian Bible, God sends people to try to make up after the fall.
They try to remind people of the perfect relationship between man and God (and so
between man and the Earth) which existed before the fall. However, again and again
humans briefly make up then go their own way again. This making up was to take the
form of an agreement, or a covenant, between man and God. When this covenant was
fully established everything would be paradise again. But it never really happened
because mankind continually chose to go his own way and not God’s. In practice this
would mean that the human relationship with the natural world would always be
strained. This would continue until man and God made up their differences.
Jesus should be the model for a successful covenant. Christians believe that Jesus
pointed the way to making the relationship between God and man right again. Jesus
repeatedly demonstrated his own power over the natural world. When humans accept
the teachings of Jesus, and follow them, the covenant between God and man will be
back in line, and the human relationship with the rest of the natural world will be right
again. Christians believe that Jesus is the unique ‘blueprint’ for a right relationship
with God. If Christians follow his way of life then the relationship will be put right
and life will return to the same state it was in before the fall.
Some have argued that Christianity has concentrated almost exclusively on the
relationship between God and human beings and ignored the natural world. They
trace the origin of this to Genesis 1 where only humans are said to be made in the
image of God and are therefore different from all other creatures. Also they are given
dominion over all other creatures. Thus humanity is seen as separate from and
superior to the rest of creation. In addition, as Christianity spread across the world, it
forbade those practices which expressed the belief that Gods and spirits dwelt in the
streams and the rocks and the trees. As a result God was no longer seen as part of the
natural world but was only accessible within the church and was ‘above’ the world.
The tree, for example, had therefore no connection with God and therefore could be
cut down at will.
It is true that the covenant between God and Israel in the Old Testament, as expressed
through the exodus, is primarily a relationship between God and human beings. But it
also included the natural world, for example, the Sabbath was a time for rest, not only
for people but for the animals and the land as well (Exodus 23: 10-12). Similarly,
every seventh year was ‘a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land’ (Lev 25: 4) when there
was no sowing, reaping or gathering grapes, because the land was to lie fallow. Then
after seven times seven years, the fiftieth year was a jubilee, and again the land
remained fallow. This shows that respect for the land and the farm animals was an
integral part of the Israelites’ relationship with God. (Ruth Page, in Esler, p215)
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
7
Some Christians believe that how we treat the natural world is important but nowhere
near as important as how we behave towards God. The only way to sort out
environmental problems is to get the relationship with God right. So Christians
should not concern themselves with environmental activism, but with prayer and bible
study. This will lead to changed attitudes, which in themselves will lead to a different
view of the Earth, which will lead to the end of environmental problems. So humans
can take the view that the treatment of the Earth is secondary to how we get on with
God. If we sort out our relationship with him, that will change our attitude to the
world we live on and so we will behave differently. This difference in behaviour will
mean that we treat the Earth with more respect and so our environmental problems
will disappear.
These Christians might well argue that resource depletion is not the primary concern
of the Christian. They will point out that the Earth contains all we need for life and
that if only we were to use it in the way God intended at the beginning then all would
be well. These Christians would argue that the Bible teaches that everything we need
for a happy life is given to us - the thing that really causes problems is how we share it
out, and this in itself is the result of our greed. These Christians might argue that were
we as a species not to behave in such a greedy way, then there would be no
environmental problems. They might argue that our hunger for natural resources is
for all the wrong reasons. For example, it is right to use electricity, generated by fossil
fuels, to keep ourselves warm and comfortable, but we have to ask if all our uses of
electricity are equally valid.
So these Christians believe that the prime activity the Christian should engage in is in
allowing people to see themselves for what they are - God’s children and all equal.
Depletion of the Earth’s resources largely comes about because of competition - it can
be solved by greater co-operation. This co-operation can only come about when your
attitude to God and your fellow man has been sorted out, not by any kind of
environmental action.
Other Christians take the view that there is no point in worrying about ‘the
environment’ because God will renew it all anyway when Jesus returns. The second
coming of Christ will be a time when there is a ‘new heaven and a new Earth’. It
would be wrong for humans to try to do what only God can. Jesus will return, judge
humanity’s actions and sort out the natural world accordingly. This would mean that
these Christians would not see any form of environmental action as a priority because
the time and effort should be put into ‘religious’ activity - getting the relationship right
with God - all else will follow after that, because that in itself could speed up the
return of Christ.
Other Christians take a more practical view. They believe that our relationship with
the Earth is actually part of the process of making the relationship between ourselves
and God right. If we continue to mistreat the world which God gave us, then no
matter how much prayer and Bible study we do, our actions will give us away. They
will say that ‘the Fall’ was actually humans making themselves God-like, by relying
on their own power rather than accepting God’s. Our present poor treatment of the
natural world is a continued example of the misuse of our own God-given abilities to
keep ourselves in charge of the Earth instead of its rightful master, God. These
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
8
Christians then would say that involving ourselves in activities designed to lessen our
impact on the planet, and put right our environmental wrongs is actually part of
making up with God.
These Christians would agree that prayer and Bible study were important, but they
would perhaps suggest that these were less useful unless they were accompanied by
direct action. For example, most Christians believe that they should pray for the poor
and those whose lives are difficult. However, most also believe that such prayer
should also be backed up by action. They would say that their own actions in helping
the poor can be God working ‘through’ them to do his will. In the same way some
Christians believe that the Christian Church should be at the forefront of
environmental action because this can also be God’s way of putting things right.
These Christians would therefore have the same approach, generally speaking, to
environmental action as groups like Greenpeace. The only difference is that their
motivation for their actions might not be the same. These Christians would feel that if
they sat back and did nothing practical then they would not be living the life which
God would want them to. Their direct environmental action is therefore a function of
their Christian belief.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
9
4. DEPLETION OF RESOURCES
Background information
Most of what we term ‘Environmental Issues’ has to do with the way that we treat the
Earth. Humans are only one of the species on this planet, but they are the most
powerful one. The effect of human existence can be felt almost everywhere on the
planet. Many complain nowadays that there are no real wildernesses left - everywhere
has been colonised by humans and made suitable for our use. For example, the
National Parks service in the USA recently reported that most visitors to national
parks never travel further than five minutes walk away from the car park!
There are very few needs which humans seem unable to meet these days - all our
energy needs and all the raw materials we want are available to us. Our technology
enables us to take what we want from the Earth and use it however we want.
It is a fact that nothing can exist on Earth without having effect on something else.
Because of the number of humans there are, how widespread their existence, and the
activities they get up to, we have to face the fact that human impact on the Earth at the
moment is very great. Of course there are some things which are unavoidable - all
living things require to use other resources in order to survive - but many
environmentalists argue quite simply that humans take far more than their rightful
‘share’ of the raw materials for life and are therefore harmful to the environment in a
way far greater than any other living organism.
The reasons for this are very complicated indeed, but generally speaking we can at
least say the following:
Life on Earth is in competition. Life is a struggle for survival, and living organisms
compete for what resources there are. When any organism finds that it has a particular
skill which helps its chances of survival, it uses that skill to settle itself into a
particular ‘slot’ in the environment (its niche). Species don’t give up that skill easily,
and with time try their best to polish it up so that they increase their chances of
survival even further. For example, let’s say that you discovered that you had psychic
powers which meant that you could predict the future. It is probable that one of the
first things you might do is help yourself to win the lottery! This would make you
rich, it would attract people to you, you could afford better healthcare. You might
have a wider choice of ‘mate’ and so on. Whatever the outcome, winning the lottery
might increase your chances of survival and having children to keep your particular
branch of the species alive and kicking. This is what Charles Darwin called
‘Evolution by natural selection’, in other words, the species most adapted to a
particular environment have the greatest chance of surviving and passing on their
genes to their offspring - so further increasing their chances of survival.
In relation to the use of natural resources - when an animal wants to keep itself warm
it can only do a few things:
• Grow a warmer skin! This takes a long time in evolutionary terms.
• Find shelter. This limits where it can live.
• Build a simple shelter out of limited natural materials.
• Use the sun - but this depends on living where the sun can meaningfully be used.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
10
Humans however can keep themselves warm in much more elaborate ways by:
• using the skins of other animals
• building elaborate shelters out of natural or man-made materials
• using Earth materials like coal, gas, oils
• harnessing other forms of energy, like the sun or wind.
This implies however, that no living organism can live in isolation, everything
depends on a fine network of relationships in order to survive. Sometimes we live
side by side with other living things in a situation of mutual benefit (commensalism),
and sometimes we use other living things for our own good (predation). All life on
Earth ultimately depends on the Earth itself for life. The Earth is the basic material
for all our activities and the basic raw materials for our existence. (Of course, almost
all life on Earth ultimately depends upon the sun - but humans haven’t managed to be
able to ‘do’ anything to that ... yet).
Humans have always used the Earth’s resources for their survival - so why do many
environmentalists go on about the perilous state we are in just now? Quite simply, it
is the rate at which we are using the Earth’s resources that many are concerned about.
Most environmentalists are well aware that to survive we need to use the Earth’s
resources, but our pattern of use has changed so drastically in recent times that there
may now be a danger that the Earth will be exhausted of many of its reserves of
natural resources.
The reason for this change has probably got a lot to do with the rise of human
technology and the different lifestyles which this enables us to follow. For example,
in ‘primitive’ societies, the land was used until it was no longer able to sustain life but then the people who had used it moved on and left it alone so that it had time to
recover. A continual pattern of moving around made sure that no one area of land was
so exhausted that it would never recover. Also, primitive societies usually just used
what they needed and left the rest alone. There are limits to how much land you can
farm when you are using only hand tools! Most of the day would be taken up in the
search for food, or in agricultural effort. As technology developed, people found that
they could get more from the land for less effort, and they didn’t need to move around
so much. The technology increased the yield of the land, which meant that people
could have more children, who needed more food, which meant more land needed to
be farmed and so on. As the amount of time needed to carry out tasks related to basic
survival decreased, because technology meant things could be done faster and more
efficiently, people had the time to work out even better ways of making life even
simpler and getting more out of the Earth for less effort.
All of this led to ‘industrial revolutions’ where humans developed even further the
ability of technology - in the shape of machines - to do the work they had previously
done manually. Just recently a tractor has been invented which ploughs fields 24
hours a day. It is ‘driven’ by a computer which finds its way around using a global
positioning system based on satellites! Harvesting used to take many people a good
while - the combine harvester meant that it could be done in a fraction of the time.
Even simple things like artificial fertiliser have changed drastically how we use the
land. There is no longer any need to let the land take a ‘rest’ - it can be used
continually by the constant application of artificial fertiliser.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
11
Even simple things like fishing have ‘benefited’ from technology. Simple nets have
now been replaced by vast, man made fibre nets which last longer, are stronger, and
can catch more fish. Also, the skill of the fisherman in knowing where are the likely
places to haul in a good catch are no longer necessary. Sonar equipment, backed up
by powerful computers, can track large shoals of fish and enable them to be caught
quickly and efficiently.
As far as energy production is concerned we have arrived at a situation where every
day, vast amounts of raw materials from the Earth ‘go up in smoke’ to fuel the everincreasing demand for energy.
Now, all of this would be fine if it happened in isolation, but it doesn’t. Life on Earth
is an intricately balanced system where cause and effect are not always very clear.
What is known however, is that the human impact on the Earth’s resources is great
and that perhaps this will lead to effects which we don’t understand or won’t be able
to control.
Many environmentalists point to effects which they believe are already taking place.
Some are on a global scale and others are more local. For example, an entire village
in England may soon have to be ‘moved’ because it was built on top of old salt mines.
These mines were ‘worked out’ long ago, but the support structures left in place to
keep the land above stable, is now crumbling. Large areas of land are beginning to
sink. Also, many fishermen report that their catch is getting less and less, and that fish
are ever more difficult to find, even with their new technology. Some believe that we
have just fished too much. Many farmers also begin to report that their land is starting
to yield less and less, even with the application of ever more fertiliser - perhaps it is
just ‘giving in’!
Since the beginnings of the industrial revolution in what has come to be known as the
developed world, our use of raw materials has increased very sharply indeed. Applied
technology means that more and more resources can be ‘won’ more and more easily.
So much so, that many of the industries which are involved in the extraction of raw
materials are finding that their business is getting harder and harder because the raw
materials are almost exhausted. For example, the last tin mine in Britain closed on 6
March 1998. The company found that tin was becoming far too difficult to get at,
because the richer seams had been used up, and they were down to working much
more difficult seams. This made the business uneconomic, and the government
refused to help out, because it believed that this would be a waste of public money.
Likewise, in the 1980’s the mining industry in the UK began to crumble. The rich
pickings of the past were increasingly more difficult to come by. Also coal from other
countries was cheaper because they were new reserves and more easy to get at. At the
moment, oil reserves seem relatively strong, but of course that can’t last for ever.
Many scientists predict that North Sea oil will run out early in the next century.
It’s not only Earth resources like fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas and their derivatives)
which can run out. Any material can run out! Products like iron ore, copper, and a
vast array of basic chemical materials all have to be mined from somewhere and they
can’t last forever. Even substances like water can run out. We all know about the
droughts (and hose pipe bans) which seem to take place in England every year, and we
think that we in Scotland are alright because of the amount of water we get as rain!
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
12
However, it is not as simple as that. The total amount of water which is available for
use in practical terms is not necessarily as much as we think, and as the water table is
lowered through over-extraction, the quality of the water decreases.
Apart from this we would have to include all kinds of other materials, including living
things. For example, Britain used to be covered in forest. Most of this was removed
soon after the middle ages to provide fuel and building materials for the increasing
population. Remember, it can take a tree a hundred years to fully mature, but it can be
destroyed in less than an hour. It has been estimated that it takes a whole forest to
make the UK’s Sunday newspapers - and that’s just one country’s papers! And of
course there’s the depletion of food stocks too - animal and vegetable. This can be
because we take too many of something and don’t allow it to recover (that’s why
governments are sometimes keen to limit the amount of fish we can take, it’s why net
sizes have to be at a particular level so that the young fish can get away and keep the
stocks going), or it can be because we ‘push’ the land so hard that it cannot keep up
with the demand and so returns less and less for our efforts.
What this means in practice is that often we have to work harder, dig deeper for our
resources. For the land, it means that marginal land is more likely to be used than it
was previously; for natural resources, it could mean that the quality of the materials
lessens and we need more of them to do the same job, and for us, it may mean that we
need to look for alternative sources for our resources.
Depletion of the Earth’s resources is therefore a serious threat to life on Earth. The
fact is that there is only one planet Earth, and when all that we can use has been used,
then what will we do? Many people are very excited about the apparent discovery of
water on the moon, which was reported on 5 March 1998, because it means that in the
future we could live there. At the moment there is hope that the moon will also
contain other natural resources which we could start to use as the Earth’s run out. The
race to develop these is now on.
We can behave towards the Earth in a number of ways because of how we see things
panning out in the future. Some, who take a pessimistic view might say that what we
have is all we’ve got and so we should take care. Others who are optimistic (or just
less cautious) say that we shouldn’t worry too much about the future - it will sort itself
out. Perhaps the discovery of water on the moon means that we will soon be able to
take our resources, not from the Earth, but from the moon. Human skill in getting to
the moon and discovering its potential is just another example of how human
intelligence can overcome any problem - even our home planet running out of
everything we need to exist.
Within the last century, many have begun to realise the fragility of the Earth and have
begun campaigns and organisations to make people more aware of how we are
treating of our planet. In the UK, the Romantics first gave people the idea that the
natural world could be a source of ‘rejuvenation’, in other words, it could ‘re-charge
people’s batteries’. Before this people had been wary of ‘nature’ preferring to
‘conquer’ it by ordering it and structuring it to fit in with the human way of life. The
Victorians developed elaborate gardens and ‘nature sanctuaries’ but it was all very
controlled and run by mankind. The idea that ‘the wild’ had rights of its own and was
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
13
in some ways better than human-controlled nature was still to find a place in the
public mind. Interestingly, we still sometimes call places which have been left alone
by humans ‘wastelands’ - wasted for who? Soon people began to realise that the
natural world was an asset, and like any asset it had to be conserved so that it would
last. The idea of nature conservation took off. However, at this point there was, some
might argue inevitable, conflict.
We live on the Earth, and we share it with other living things, but we also have to live
from it. It supplies our needs. As industrial society developed, we began to work out
more and more efficient ways of using the Earth’s resources. The conflict between
exploitation and conservation became more pronounced. On top of all that, the
industries who exploited the Earth’s resources inevitably became powerful - and as
their power increased, people’s ability to oppose their activities became harder and
harder. People’s livelihoods became dependent upon the exploitation of the Earth’s
resources, as did people’s comfort as a result it became very difficult to act against a
system which had become so wrapped up in a particular way of life, and
environmental concern became a little suspect. People who were concerned about
conservation issues were accused of standing in the way of ‘progress’ and denying
others the benefits which some already had. When fairly clear evidence arose of the
potential damaging effects of over-use of the Earth’s resources, the system had
become so complex, and people’s investment in it so great, that it became difficult to
oppose. For example, many fishermen agree that stocks of fish are decreasing, and
that there have to be strict regulations about the amount of fish that you can catch - but
fishing is their life, and it is what keeps their families alive. They are not likely to
give it up easily. A more personal example perhaps is the car. We have all become
aware of the potential damage which the burning of fossil fuels can do, and that the
process of securing oil for our petrol can be a very damaging business
environmentally, but how many are willing to give up their cars to help the situation?
We live in a world where we have become so used to the car that we can’t imagine
how we might get along without it - and so we continue to support, what many argue
is unsustainable resource extraction merely for our own comfort.
More than this, some argue that our use of the Earth’s resources will soon itself lead to
conflict. Some have said that the next great wars in the world will not be about oil (as
many have imagined), but about water.
In the Middle East for example, there are many rivers which run through different
countries. If you set up a dam in your country for your own use, you might affect the
flow of the river in the next country - so you have benefited at their expense. At the
moment there are certain tensions in the Middle East about water supply and use
between countries. Perhaps this is a good example of why we have to learn to use the
Earth’s resources wisely.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
14
Student Activities
1. You should make your own report on resource depletion including:
• what resources are used by humans at the moment
• what are these resources used for
• how are these resources gained
• what are the direct environmental consequences of their extraction/winning
• what are the indirect environmental consequences of their extraction/winning
You should try to include a range of natural resources and also include organic and
inorganic resources where possible.
2. You should also write a short report about the work of one of the environmental
organisations referred to in the support notes. You should include:
• some brief historical notes about the origins and development of the
organisation
• the philosophy of the organisation and your own analysis/evaluation of it
• the activities of the organisation and how effective it has been/is.
3. You should find out about the alternative materials/processes which some think
could be used to help lessen our depletion of the Earth’s resources. What are they
and how effective could they be? What environmental problems could they
themselves cause?
4. Do you think resource depletion is a problem we can solve?
5. ‘The Christian Bible is silent on the issue of resource depletion.’
How far do you agree with this statement?
6. Should a Christian join Greenpeace?
7. Why might a Christian become involved in Environmental issues?
8. ‘The Christian Church has been slow to respond to issues involved in resource
depletion.’
Do you agree?
9. ‘Resource depletion is a scientific issue, not a moral one.’
To what extent do you agree?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
15
5. CLIMATE IMBALANCE
Background information
As you have seen, humans have developed some very elaborate ways to use the
materials of the Earth for our own benefit. Our use, or overuse of resources is an issue
in itself, because, as already stated, when things run out, that’s it, there’s nothing else
to turn to.
However, it is not only the use of natural materials which might give
environmentalists concern, but the side effects of their extraction and depletion.
Every process in life has a side effect, some more serious than others. We each
individually have an impact on the planet we live on. For example, each of us
generates a staggering amount of waste material in any one year. The more of us there
are, the greater the effect will be.
The Earth is a finely tuned system of cycles. Water, air, and many of the elements
continually change their ‘form’ and go through various phases. Provided that
everything is in balance, this should have no serious effects on any one species, or life
at all, because life on Earth has learned to adapt to just this balance. For example,
when the Earth was ‘new’, certain bacteria began to respire. This created carbon
dioxide which, after some time, led to the development of an atmosphere. This
atmosphere allowed other life forms to develop, like plants. The ‘imbalance’ caused
by the activities these ‘new’ bacteria at the beginnings of the Earth, led to a change in
the climate which proved favourable for the development of more complex organisms.
This was actually a ‘greenhouse effect’ - but in this case useful for us!
Some scientists have suggested that if we wanted to colonise other planets we would
have to artificially create a greenhouse effect on them, because this would be the best
way to kick start a breathable atmosphere. So the cycles of nature have to be adapted
to as they change, and sometimes this can be done really quite successfully.
Occasionally a major freak event throws this balance out of sorts and has serious
consequences for life on the planet. For example, one of the theories about why the
dinosaurs died out is that a comet or a meteorite hit the Earth, sending out so much
dust that the sun was blocked out for a long time. Those animals which could not
adapt to this new, cold, environment (like the dinosaurs who may have depended on
direct sunlight for their bodily warmth) died out. Those who could, survived.
Apart from freak events like this, many believe that slower alterations over a longer
period of time can have an equally serious effect, an effect which can ‘creep up’ on us.
The climate can be changed by any form of activity on Earth, but when a number of
activities are put together in unforeseen ways, they can have unforeseen consequences.
When one person breathes, they change the atmosphere a little, but when 1 million
people breathe they can cause a bigger change.
What is clear, although the science is often disputed, is that in principle, human life on
Earth has a greater effect on the climate than any other life form. Whether this effect
will prove to be so small as to be meaningless or really quite serious remains to be
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
16
seen. What is true, however, is that scientists believe that we should at least keep a
very careful eye on how our activities might affect our climate. Because we depend
on our atmosphere for survival, without it we could see the end of humanity.
Global Warming
The science behind this is complicated and has a habit of changing quite regularly. In
short, global warming is the idea that the overall temperature of the planet could be
raised as a by-product of a number of activities which are labelled as polluting. The
causes of this pollution are many, and how exactly they work is not yet understood.
Sunlight warms our planet. A lot of this energy is absorbed by the Earth itself, some
is reflected back into space by clouds, land, sea and ice-caps. Some is absorbed by
atmospheric gases. The Earth seems to be quite good at regulating the amount of
‘warmth’ it receives from the sun (leading a scientist, James Lovelock, to propose the
Gaia hypothesis). This ability to regulate however, is finely tuned, and depends on
very specific environmental conditions being present. These conditions can be altered
by changing the relative abundance of certain gases in the atmosphere which then alter
the Earth’s ability to regulate the amount of heat it captures from the sun.
For example, when we burn fossil fuels we release the element carbon as a gas which
was stored up in the fuel as a solid. This gets into the atmosphere. Once in the
atmosphere it can combine with other gases and become what has been called a
greenhouse gas. All this means is that it traps even more of the sun’s heat. This then
warms the atmosphere up. This can reduce the amount of snow and ice on the planet
and so reduce the ability of this snow and ice to reflect heat back into space. This
warms the planet up further and so on... So just by burning fossil fuels we alter the
balance of gases in the atmosphere leading to atmospheric change. Now this is a
normal process in many ways. All life on Earth affects the atmosphere in some way,
however...
Some environmentalists argue that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has risen dramatically, and so the
average temperature on the planet has increased. Now you might quite like the idea
that it seems to be getting warmer, but scientists say that if it does there could be many
serious consequences for life on Earth, like rises in sea-level for example. This could
lead to serious flooding and so major changes to where and how people live. This in
itself could lead to more tensions between people, and non-human life being pushed
even further ‘out of the way’, as humans learn to live with less land. Temperature
changes need only be slight for there to be a fairly large effect. There could also be
other climatic changes which result from global warming, some of which might be
difficult to predict. These could range from seasonal weather changes to more freak
weather patterns to even changes in the relative amounts of gases necessary for life in
the atmosphere - this could all be very unpredictable.
The situation is also made more difficult by the fact that scientists disagree, often
quite strongly, about the possible sources of greenhouse gases and what their effects
might be. They are also not particularly sure how best to go about dealing with the
problem even if we could show conclusively that it does exist. To tinker about with
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
17
the Earth’s atmosphere itself would be an experiment with an unpredictable outcome and might even be worse than the original problem!
It is just this unpredictability which is the source of many people’s concern.
Also many scientists deny that there is such an effect as global warming, preferring to
suggest that climate change follows natural cycles (like the El Niño weather system)
which have nothing to do with human activities on Earth.
The ozone layer
Ozone is a very dangerous gas and can be very harmful to humans in high
concentrations at ground level, so why are we worried about it? The zone which
concerns us is the stuff which can be found high in the stratosphere, around 20 - 35km
above the Earth. The ozone molecule, which is just three atoms of Oxygen joined
together (03), forms a thin protective band in the stratosphere which has the benefit of
filtering out harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. The production and
dissolution of ozone in the stratosphere takes place continually, and is a very natural
process.
However, the concern is that certain chemical products which result from human
activities on Earth are interfering with the rate at which ozone is formed, causing
ozone ‘holes’ in the stratosphere. There are many possible chemical culprits
nominated as ozone depleters, but the precise way in which these chemicals actually
interact is still not fully understood. What is clear, is that there are holes appearing in
the ozone layer. The first recorded actual observation of this was reported in Nature
in May 1985 by scientists at the Halley Bay British Antarctic Survey station in
Antarctica. Here scientists provided clear evidence that concentrations of ozone in the
stratosphere were reducing over Antarctica. Since then, further evidence has been
gathered, including a large ozone hole over Northern Europe, including Scotland. The
ozone hole is seasonal, because changes in weather cycles affect it.
The major possible pollutants leading to ozone depletion are:
• Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC’s) - these are often used as coolants in fridges and
propellants in aerosols
• N20 - from fertilisers and other products
• CH4 - Methane (often from the ‘gas’ from agricultural animals - but also our own!)
As ozone concentration decreases, the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching Earth
increases. U-V radiation is extremely harmful to living organisms. It can cause
cellular disruption leading to cancers. It can also affect crop growth in the same way.
Plants irradiated with U-V grow much less well than those protected from it. All of
this can have very serious consequences for life on Earth.
In 1987, 11 countries agreed ‘The Montreal Protocol’. This was an agreement that
meant they would reduce their production of ozone-depleting chemicals to 50% of
1986 levels by the year 2000. Since then, many believe that the countries involved
have not put much effort into making this protocol work, and besides, many of the
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
18
developing countries who are also using ozone depleting materials quite widely. They
have not signed up to the protocol. The danger remains.
The activities of all species of life on Earth have some impact or other on the climate
of the planet. Where one species affects the cycles of the Earth more than another,
these natural systems will respond by adapting to the change and ultimately ‘return the
favour’ to the offending organism. In this way, climate change can be seen as the
Earth’s defence mechanism.
For example - let us say that we put 20 guinea-pigs in a small hutch with a grass run
2m2. Very quickly the pigs would run out of food. It would not be very long until
they started to eat each other - eventually there would only be the number of pigs
which the area could sustain comfortably (probably only one!).
This principle is called a feedback loop, and many think that this is the way that
climate imbalance will be ‘solved’. So for example, it seems clear that the human
species is the greatest contributor to climate change, and so if feedback occurs, then
the human species will also be the most likely to suffer its effects.
Let’s look at a possible scenario. Human activities lead to an increased output of
ozone-depleting gases. The ozone layer is damaged. This results in increased U-V
rays reaching Earth. This increased U-V causes more cancers and more genetic
defects. This reduces the human population on Earth. This reduces the amount of
ozone depleting gases released. This allows the ozone layer to recover and so on.
Clearly this loop could go on forever, and many think that this is just what happens.
At the moment, the human species is the most powerful one on Earth, but only in the
present climate. Were the climate to change, another species, better adapted to the
new conditions would take over. For example, there are organisms on Earth called
thermophiles. These are bacteria which thrive in temperatures which would be deadly
for humans. If the temperature of the planet were to increase by say, 70 degrees or so,
human life on Earth would be much more difficult, but the thermophiles might love it.
They could then become the dominant species on the planet.
Because of this feedback loop, there are many people who think that climate change is
just an inevitable process of the Earth regulating life. If we want to avoid the results
of the feedback we have to mend our ways by lessening our impact on the climate so
that it does not put into action its ‘defence mechanisms’.
Humans have the capability to outwit the Earth’s defence mechanisms
What some Christians see as human arrogance and therefore negative, some people
see as human ingenuity and therefore positive. For example, human skill has led to
the ability to control diseases which could otherwise have had a devastating effect on
the human population. Human skill has enabled us to live in environments which
would otherwise be too inhospitable to support life. Humans will also, through their
own effort and ingenuity, cope with the potential problems of climate change.
So instead of having to worry too much about changing our lifestyles, some people
might say that the best approach is to allow science to come up with a solution to the
potential problems of climate change. It is probably unrealistic, for example, to
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
19
expect that people will stop using their cars or stop engaging in other environmentally
damaging activities because these things have become an indispensable part of our
lives. It may be too late anyway! What we should do instead is support scientists in
their search for reactive solutions to the potential problems. There is no need for a
lifestyle change- science and technology can just fix it.
Secular organisations would be inclined to agree that environmental problems are the
logical outcome of thoughtless human activities, and that if we don’t want to suffer
the possible dire consequences then we had better start thinking about mending our
ways. It is not good enough to look for technological solutions for problems which
are caused by human behaviour. You need to sort the behaviour out first - if you do
that then there may be no need for technological fixes.
These organisations would also agree with the idea that climate change, and other
environmental problems, are a direct result of our view of ourselves as the most
valuable species on the planet. They could well say that if we remembered that we are
just one of the species on the planet, and that we have a responsibility to share what
we have with other species, then things could improve for all. They might not call this
the result of any ‘fall’ as do Christians but they might agree that climatic imbalance is
a direct result of human arrogance. Sort out the attitude, and the problems will take
care of themselves.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
20
Student activities
1. As an exercise in mutual explanation, try the following:
• Half the class present the Greenhouse effect and ozone depletion
diagrammatically. Make sure that you consider possible sources, results and
consequences. You should make your diagram as elaborate as possible.
• The other half do exactly the same but in the written form with no diagrams.
Once you have completed these swop them around. Now the groups who did the
diagrams should try to create another diagram - but only using the information
available in the written account of the group’s work they have been given. The
‘writing’ group should also rewrite their own written account based only on the
information available in the diagram they have been given.
2. If you were a politician, how would you go about trying to solve the problems of
climatic imbalance? Write a short report detailing what you would like your
government to do.
3. What are the major potential implications of climate change? Write your own
account, separated into sections as follows:
• imbalance in nature
• social implications
• economic implications
• agricultural implications
• geographical implications
• implications for the future of life on earth.
4. The area of climate change is a controversial one. Run a short class debate
looking at the issues involved. Who should speak, what should they say? You
will need to make sure that your research is good and that you know what you are
talking about!
5. Devise a set of questions which you might ask a Christian about climate change.
What would you want to quiz him or her about?
6. ‘Climate change is not a moral issue.’
To what extent do you agree?
7. To what extent do you think it is possible for the religious and the non-religious
person to work together to deal with the problems caused by climate change?
8. To what extent is climatic imbalance a result of human ‘arrogance’?
9. ‘Climate change is such a complex area that there can be no response to it which
can guarantee 100% success.’
How far might a scientist accept this viewpoint?
10. Do you think that Christians have more important things to deal with than climate
change?
11. ‘Climate change will ultimately be solved by the application of human ingenuity.’
How far might a Christian agree with this statement?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
21
6. POLLUTION
Background information
It is a common theme in this topic that all actions have consequences. One of the
common features of all life processes and many other processes which involve
inorganic substances is that they all produce waste products as a consequence of
certain processes. The definition of ‘waste’ is perhaps a little tricky, because it really
only covers things which we decide we don’t want at that particular time. Waste is
the stuff which is peripheral to our main aim - the bits we want to throw away.
Of course, some waste materials are more harmful than others. Some are absorbed
into the natural world quite comfortably while others have lasting harmful effects.
When the wastes produced have negative consequences we call this pollution. There
are several types of pollution:
• natural by-products of natural functions - for example our own bodily wastes, and
those of other living things.
• by-products of industrial processes
• intentional or accidental release of materials into unsuitable environments.
How harmful pollution tends to be is also related to a number of factors:
• The kind of material - some materials are by their nature more dangerous than
others, and if they get into systems which can affect life then they can be very
serious indeed. Examples here might be very poisonous chemicals.
• How long-lasting the material is. Some pollutants don’t last very long because they
are broken down by natural forces. Others last much longer - for example nuclear
pollution can last for thousands of years.
• The amounts and concentrations of the pollutants. Obviously if a lot of pollution is
around, then it is much more difficult to deal with than if there is only a little.
Similarly, many kinds of pollutants are less dangerous if they are widely spread
than if they are narrowly concentrated (on the other hand, some are the opposite!).
• How capable the ecosystem into which the pollutants find their way is of fighting
them off. Some ecosystems are very finely tuned and don’t need much to throw
them out of balance. Others are a little more robust. For example, for humans in
the developed world; if pollution were to get into our own water systems then we
have ways of coping with that including using alternatives until we have sorted the
problem out. In the less developed world it would not be so easy to deal with such
problems.
The difficulty is that predicting the outcome of any pollution is like much in this topic
- very problematic. We can never exactly be sure just how some system will react to
pollution and whether any action we might take will be beneficial or actually make the
problem worse.
The circumstances of the pollution matter too. For example, a large, unplanned oil
spill can be quite devastating for marine life, and can be difficult to deal with because
of our own limited abilities in the marine environment. Whereas pollution of the land
environment is perhaps easier to contain and remedy. Also if the pollution is longterm and largely unnoticed, this can mean that by the time we have responded to it the
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
22
damage has been done. For example - batteries! One of the major components of
many ordinary batteries used to be the material mercury. When the batteries were
thrown out they were not incinerated (because they can explode) but they were buried
in landfill sites. Eventually, rainwater mixing with the wastes produced weak acids
which drew the mercury out of the batteries and into the water system. It was only
when we began to discover large concentrations of mercury in fish that we began to
realise the extent of the problem. In fact, in Japan between 1953 and 1960 in
Minimata Bay, many people died from mercury poisoning after eating fish with high
concentrations of mercury in their bodies. The fish had absorbed this from the water
which had high concentrations of mercury suspended in it.
One of the major difficulties of pollution is that it is not always clearly visible. There
can be pollution of air, sea, water systems or land. Though sometimes the pollutants
are microscopically small, and often can only be discovered using very specialised
equipment. Also, the sources of pollution are not always agreed about, nor indeed are
the possible (or best) ways of dealing with them.
So clearly there is going to be scientific dispute about pollution causes, effects and
solutions. This is likely to make responses to it varied.
Pollution is where materials, or their by-products, or waste, affect other things. It is
most obvious to humans when it is visible. For example, litter is a very obvious
example of pollution, as is land which is spoiled in some way or water which is not
‘clean’ looking. Oil spillages, like the Exxon Valdez oil spillage in Alaska some years
ago are very obvious. We can also see many of the pollutants which go into our
atmosphere - smog is one good example. Edinburgh, in fact, used to be called ‘auld
reekie’ because of its smoke problem. However, the problem with pollution is that it
is not always visible. In March 1998, a river in England became polluted. This
resulted in the deaths of thousands of fish and meant the end for one trout farm. Noone could see the pollution but it was deadly. In Bhopal, India many years ago, a
cloud of gas escaped from a chemical works, killing many and blinding others - it was
invisible. Many of the pollutants which affect the land do not become apparent until
they get into the food chain. High levels of PCBs, dangerous chemicals, were only
discovered to be present at sea, when they were found in high concentrations in the
fatty tissues of fish. Some people believe that substances like this cause brain diseases
in marine life, and are often to blame for the phenomenon known as beaching, where
whales and dolphins sometimes swim ashore, where they die. Of course, these PCBs
can get into fish which we eat too, and so eventually to us at the top of the food chain.
Of course, pollution is sometimes deliberate, but these cases are thankfully few. What
is more difficult is pollution which results from activities which humans have decided
are necessary for our continued survival. For example, when fossil fuels are burned,
they release lots of chemicals which then interact with other chemicals in the
atmosphere. When mining works are done there are a lot of products (the spoil)
which are also produced and not needed. This can be polluting material. Even
everyday activities have their polluting consequences! When cows eat grass they give
off a lot of gas. This gas, know as methane (CH4) can have potentially very damaging
effects on the atmosphere. Even our own breathing can be a cause of pollution! The
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
23
CO2 which we produce, unless balanced out by other factors, can alter the state of the
atmosphere!
Pollution is therefore probably an unavoidable feature of life on Earth - whatever we
do has consequences for the natural world. Just existing produces a certain amount of
pollution. In the production of these support notes there was probably a fair amount
of potential pollutants created. The issue for many environmentalists, is to reduce
pollution to the minimum, by avoiding things which are unnecessary.
But why is pollution such a problem? Well obviously, where pollution is visible it
affects our quality of life. Most people prefer litter-free streets to wading their way
through other people’s rubbish. Where it is invisible it can cause results which we
can’t predict or control and again affect the quality of our lives. It can even be directly
harmful to life on Earth.
For many the big issue surrounding pollution is that it can have more than just local
consequences, it can have global ones. Instead of just affecting the environment of a
particular area it can affect the systems and processes which make our planet work the
way it does, and in particular, in such a way that it enables our planet to support life.
You should take some time to explore more fully the various types of common
pollution there are, what their sources are and what their effects can be. You should
also explore the suggested alternatives to polluting activities and also look at some of
the other suggested ‘solutions’.
Some Christian viewpoints
Pollution, perhaps more than the other environmental issues raised in this topic, is
something which everyone feels that they can at least grasp, and in many cases see the
direct effect of. When the earth is ‘spoiled’ either by unsightly substances or things
which shouldn’t be there, then this can be observed quite directly. Christianity has
always had a tradition of liking order and structure. The old saying went; ‘cleanliness
is next to Godliness’, and many Christian beliefs are centred on the difference
between ‘purity’ and ‘corruption’. Clearly, if something is polluted it is not pure, but
it has been corrupted.
Christians believe that God made the planet pure, and the actions of humans have
made it impure, or have corrupted it. Pollution is a very good example of this because
by definition pollution is altering the natural pure state of the environment and turning
it into a state which is much less pure.
Perhaps this would be all very well if the only ones to suffer for it were humans
themselves, but this is usually not the case. Pollution affects most seriously those
with the least ability to ‘fight it’. That could mean either other humans without the
ability to respond to pollution or other living things. Either way, in pollution issues,
the responsibility has to be on ‘the strong’ to help ‘the weak’ whether those who are
weak are human or not. Christians believe that their faith is about helping others and
so trying to deal with pollution before it becomes an issue at all would obviously be
the best way to deal with it, for all concerned.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
24
Added to this is the idea that the earth is held in trust by humans. As its ‘guardians’
they have the prime responsibility for its welfare, and for all life on it. Pollution is a
very clear threat to that and so should be guarded against. It is of course probably
even worse that many incidences of pollution can be traced back to human greed
instead of human welfare. For example, oil tankers at sea are getting bigger and
bigger. This is an economic decision - the more oil you can transport in one ship the
cheaper that oil will ultimately be, and so the more successful the company who sells
it. But this is attacked by many as trading off safety for economic gain. Some
Christians would regard this as an example of the corruption of the human species, a
result of the continuation of the effects of the fall.
Also, there have been many recent cases of situations where materials have been
unable to be dumped in the developed west because of strict anti-pollution laws, but
have been dumped in developing countries. These countries, many argue, have been
‘bribed’ into accepting the materials, because the disposal companies involved have
been able to offer them large sums of money. Such pollutants have often been
reported as being dumped without any protection on beaches in complete disregard for
the local people and the natural environment.
The Christian might see this as the inevitable outcome of mankind’s separation from
God. Although we can take action directly to deal with the effects of these pollutants
this is not as effective as dealing with the cause: the inequalities between people, and
mankind’s blatant disregard for the planet on which he lives, forgetting that it belongs
to the creator to whom he owes everything.
Such Christians would want humans to remind themselves of their place on earth.
The most important species, but with a responsibility attached which means that
spoiling the planet with pollution is not an option.
Many Christians again, as in other issues in this topic, might argue that pollution is an
issue outwith the scope of the Christian’s responsibility, and that they could be doing
better things with their time.
In short, pollution is a natural result of life on earth. There is no avoiding it, though
we can try to minimise its impact where possible. The Christian should attend to his
religious life, not get caught up in the grubby world of environmental politics - this
leads nowhere. The Christian responsibility is to make sure that the message of the
Christian gospel gets spread around as much as possible. That is the only real way to
solve environmental issues, because only once enough people have heard and
responded to the message of Christ is there ever likely to be a system on earth which
respects others and also the planet on which we live. That therefore should be the
Christian’s main concern.
This does not mean that the Christian should hide from issues of pollution, or indeed
any other environmental issue, but it does mean that they should channel their efforts
to respond in a different direction.
Pollution is ultimately caused by mankind’s separation from God, because mankind
has put himself at the centre of the living world. The only real way to change this is
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
25
by putting right the relationship with God by accepting the way set out by Jesus during
his time on earth. This will result in a changed ‘status’ for mankind which will result
in the end of pollution as humans take their responsibilities as carers of the natural
world more seriously.
Recent developments
Pollution is also one of the topics about which secular environmental organisations
have been most vocal about. The immediacy of pollution issues means that it serves
as a good platform on which to raise other, more subtle issues like global warming.
Many secular environmental organisations began their lives fighting very obvious
localised issues of pollution and moved into the more complex scientific issues
involved in the wider global issues which we know today. This happened in exactly
the same way that many individuals became aware of wider environmental concerns
through their involvement in concern about more locally obvious forms of pollution.
In short, it takes some of us a lot to get worked up about the ozone layer, but very little
to get worked up about the water in our taps coming out green!
As in resource depletion, such secular organisations might simply argue that planet
Earth has the right not to be harmed in unnecessary ways by us. Pollution is a very
clear example of the mistreatment of one thing by another.
Now of course, the Earth does a fair amount of ‘pollution’ itself, but these are now
seen as part of the natural cycles of nutrient recycling on earth. For example, erupting
volcanoes throw out many poisonous substances into the atmosphere - some argue, far
more than humans ever have! But these substances are adapted to by the natural
world, in fact they may even be required to continue surviving. The soil around
volcanoes is usually very fertile (that’s why people choose to live in such dangerous
places!), and this fertility is caused by volcanic activity. The Earth’s natural processes
then can be thought of as polluting, but in a controlled way, and in a way which the
living world has had time to adapt to.
What is different about human activity is that it is a relative newcomer and its
pollutants are ‘new’. Because of this the living world has not yet had time to adapt to
them. Until that happens we have to take care, because the Earth’s fine-tuning system
doesn’t work quickly - or in a way that we can always safely predict!
Because of this we have to treat the Earth in a respectful way, perhaps even as if it
were alive. At any rate we should treat it as if it had rights of its own about which we
are all agreed. At least if we do this we all know where we stand, and the results of
our actions might be a little more predictable. Giving something its own rights and
value in itself, not just in relation to how useful it is for us, should hopefully mean that
incidences of pollution should lessen.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
26
This argument is really quite simple. If we pollute the Earth, we ultimately pollute
ourselves. This is the planet on which we depend for all our living needs. If we
mistreat it, then we should not be too surprised if there is some form of ‘payback’.
This again involves the principle of feedback loops.
A good example is the North Sea. Many environmentalists treat the North Sea as a
large lake. It is almost completely surrounded by land. Each of the countries around it
disposes of pollutants to varying extents in it. It takes the North Sea quite a long time
to ‘clean itself out’ by which time more pollutants have added to the problem. The
countries situated around the North Sea have tried to reach agreements about the
amount of pollutants which the North Sea can handle, but they are finding this
difficult to agree. The problem is that many of the countries who do the least
polluting feel that they are most greatly affected by other countries’ pollution.
The Mediterranean is even more ‘closed off’ than the North Sea, and the pollution is
considered by many to be even worse. Here, the ‘Med’ provides not only food, but a
source for waste disposal - and the major part in the important tourist industry. Of
course, if the ‘Med’ becomes severely polluted this will have very serious effects on
many of the countries which ring it and depend upon it for their survival.
Both of these examples could lead to very serious consequences. All the way from
reductions in seafood harvests to major wars as countries’ economies are badly
affected by what is seen as the thoughtless actions of others. Quite clearly pollution
has short-term and long-term consequences, some of which are easily predictable,
others much less so. At any rate, we have to be aware that these consequences are
there and act accordingly.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
27
Student Activities
1. You should make your own report on pollution including:
• what pollution is caused by humans at the moment
• what are the direct environmental consequences of this pollution
• what are the indirect environmental consequences of this pollution
• how might this pollution best be managed.
You should try to include a range of types of pollution including local and more
global.
2. You should also write a short report about the work of one of the environmental
organisations referred to in the support notes in relation to their responses to
pollution. You should include:
• what pollution issues have they taken up
• how successful have they been in their anti-pollution campaigns.
3. Do you think pollution is a problem we can solve?
4. ‘The Christian Church is silent on the issue of pollution.’
How far do you agree with this statement?
5. Should a Christian support opposition to the building of super tankers?
6. Pollution is the most obvious environmental issue for the Christian to become
involved in.
To what extent do you agree?
7. Christians believe that ‘if you sow the wind you shall reap the whirlwind’.
In what way might a Christian use this teaching to support his actions in relation to
pollution?
8. ‘Pollution is a scientific issue, not a moral one.’
To what extent do you agree?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
28
7. THE WORK OF ORGANISATIONS
Many secular organisations believe that resources depletion is an issue because it
involves the possibility of an infringement of the rights of the Earth. Such people,
generally referred to as ‘deep ecologists’, believe that every living system has the right
not to be abused, and that includes the Earth. They would claim that over-exploitation
of the Earth’s resources is no different to abuse of any living thing. Such groups
might say that, whereas we have to use the Earth to satisfy our needs in life (what
other sources do we have?) we have to do this in a wise way, and in a way which
causes the least amount of harm to our source. We are dependent upon the Earth for
our survival, and when you are dependent upon something for your survival it is only
right that you should treat it with respect.
Of course, many people who hold such views might well be called ‘quasi-religious’
because sometimes such a view can merge easily into treating the Earth as something
other than a source of raw materials for life. Also because many native peoples have
had this view throughout history (and still do), preferring to treat the Earth as a spirit
of some sort which should be respected, those people who hold this view are often
painted as just one step away from worshipping the Earth as a ‘god’ (or more usually a
‘goddess’). This has in fact been one of the reasons why many Christians have
avoided this viewpoint, and indeed have treated the whole area of environmental
issues as suspect until quite recently. Ideas like ‘the Gaia hypothesis’ have looked as
if they would cross the bridge between science and religious belief. Other deep
ecologists will claim that they do not stray into this quasi-religious territory because
something can be respected, cared for and attributed rights without having to be
personified. For example, we can treat a favourite toy with care, and even love,
because of its intrinsic value, not because we think it has something which can be
defined as ‘life’ - and we certainly don’t need to turn it into some kind of god to treat
it with respect!
This viewpoint would suggest that we need to take great care when we use the
resources of the Earth, because they are not ‘ours’, they ‘belong’ to something else,
and so when we take from something else we should do so in a fair way - not taking
more than we need and taking it in a way that does the least possible damage.
Many of these deep ecologists have taken a similar approach to environmental issues
as Christians. They say that the major problem is attitudinal. Once we see the Earth
in the right way, only then will we treat it properly. There is no point in
environmental action until you have sorted out in your own mind the right relationship
between mankind and the Earth it depends upon for its survival. Once you get the
relationship right, everything else will follow.
Many secular organisations take what might be termed a utilitarian view. They say
that the idea of rights for the Earth is not as important as the results of our poor
treatment of it. In other words, if we exploit the resources of the Earth, that
exploitation will lead to consequences, some of which are obvious, others of which
might be less predictable. For example, the simplest approach is that if we use up all
the Earth’s resources now, there will be nothing left for future generations - to whom
we ultimately have a responsibility. Unless we re-use what we have, and so reduce
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
29
our need for new raw materials, they will eventually run out - what will we do then?
Also, over-exploitation of the Earth’s resources can have other serious consequences,
like pollution and climate change (which you will examine later), and so we have to
be very careful about how we use the Earth’s resources because we don’t want to
suffer the potential bad side-effects of our use, or pass on problems to our descendants
which we needn’t.
Both of these viewpoints are represented in the following secular environmental
organisations:
World Wide Fund for Nature
This was one of the original conservation groups (previously called the World
Wildlife Fund). Its main aim was to secure environments in which animals might live
their lives in peace. It set up game reserves and fought against hunting, poaching and
other exploitation of wildlife. With time it changed its name and its approach because
it began to realise that the total environment in which wildlife lived had to be
protected as well as the wildlife itself. It takes the view that wildlife is a resource
which can’t last forever. Once the last elephant is dead there can be no others. So it is
conservation in the true sense of the world. Its aim is to conserve the balance of life
on Earth, and it campaigns against any activity which might result in that balance
being thrown out of sorts. WWF would respond to resource depletion by reminding
humans of their powerful position on Earth and by asking them to take that into
account in a whole range of areas - from deciding where you might go on holiday to
how you might behave when refusing to buy certain products which could be linked to
the exploitation of nature.
Friends of the Earth
This too began as a conservation society. In the USA, the Sierra Club was a group
which wanted to safeguard areas of natural beauty. Their activities resulted in the
setting up of the great national parks in the USA like Yellowstone and Yosemite.
Friends of the Earth developed from this. It sees the Earth’s resources as limited and
encourages people to explore their own individual use of materials, and in particular
encourages recycling as an alternative to extracting more raw materials. Its motto
‘Think Globally, Act Locally’ encourages people to take action for themselves by
reducing their own consumption of resources and exploring less environmentally
damaging ways of securing the raw materials we need for life. It encourages local
action on the principle that many little things can add up to much greater outcomes.
FoE would respond to resource depletion by encouraging people to explore their own
lifestyles - explore how they use energy, how they could reduce their consumption and
what alternatives they could use where possible.
Greenpeace
This group takes a slightly different, they would argue more radical, approach. Direct
action here is the key. Whereas Friends of the Earth protest, they usually do so with a
view just to changing attitudes, Greenpeace believe that non-violent direct action is
more effective. So where Friends of the Earth would be likely to encourage people to
use less petrol, Greenpeace will attempt to disrupt drilling activities in the first place.
The philosophy here is that media-grabbing ‘stunts’ are more likely to be effective
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
30
nowadays than quiet changes in practice by individuals at home. Greenpeace aims to
bring the activities of those it claims are exploiting the Earth into public attention so
that people can make their minds up for themselves. Many argue that Greenpeace
sometimes goes too far, bringing environmentalism into disrepute, but Greenpeace
respond that the most effective way to combat exploitation of the Earth’s resources is
to tackle those at the beginning of the process - not the consumers, by which time the
damage has been done. Greenpeace would respond to resource depletion by
encouraging people to take direct action and support them in their activities. They
would also encourage civil resistance where necessary - say for example, to the
building of a road - and they would also encourage political lobbying.
All of these organisations have had their successes and failures, but they are likely to
contain those who engage in environmental protection activities because they share
some or all of the viewpoints above.
In short, secular organisations would take the view that as far as the environment is
concerned, only mankind can solve the problems (which he has largely caused
anyway) which the planet faces. Humans have the potential in themselves to either be
part of the problem or part of the solution.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
31
8. THE TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
Humans are the most complex and developed animal on the planet. We are most
definitely ‘in control’ of the earth. Although many other animals are better than
humans at many different things (for example no human so far has been able to swim
as fast as even a slow dolphin!), all in all humans have the greatest number of abilities
which, when combined, make them (for better or worse) masters of the earth. In the
issues you have already studied you will have become aware of this. You will also
have become aware of the ways in which human activity affects other living things on
Earth. This section is designed to look more closely at how human actions more
directly affect the animal world.
Humans are however, acknowledged as the dominant species. Human dominance has
been put down to a number of things:
• human brainpower
• human communication skills
• human ability to develop and use appropriate technology.
Whatever the reasons for the prime position of mankind on earth it is a fact. All other
living things can be affected by mankind for better or worse.
Which leads us to animals. Animal welfare issues have been far more in the public
eye in recent times - from fox hunting to the BSE crisis, humans have been taking
stock of their relationship with the non-human world. Animal welfare does not just
cover obvious cruelty to animals, it involves a whole range of issues where human
power has been wielded over the animal world in a way which many think is wrong harmful to both the animals and to human society too.
What is animal welfare?
This broad title covers a whole range of specific issues. All come under the heading
of how we treat animals. We are concerned here with all kinds of species of animal,
as well as individual animals and local and global ecosystems. Generally speaking,
Animal Welfare issues can be split into the following categories:
Cruelty to animals
• Do we have the right to keep pets in our homes? Most people probably don’t think
very much of this, but is it cruel?
• Are some farming practices cruel? Veal crates are all but outlawed in the UK but
not so in other European countries. There has been a lot of debate recently about
the transport of live animals from the UK to Europe where they are slaughtered.
There are regulations about how often they should stop and be fed and watered, and
about how long they should be driven without a rest. But recent investigations
have shown that these regulations are not always adhered to.
• Blood sports have been in the news recently. Do we have the right to hunt animals
for sport?
• What about zoos? What are they for and can their existence still be justified?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
32
The status of animals
• This includes the idea of using animals to eat. Is this just a normal thing to do?
• It also includes animals being used for their furs or other products, like ivory.
Many of the products which come from animals can make lots of money. For
example, the Musk Ox was widely hunted for its scent gland which was used to
make perfume. But even although this gland is very small, and could be surgically
removed without danger to the Musk Ox, the animals were often killed just for this
small part.
• It also includes the very difficult topics of the use of animals as subjects of
experiment. While far fewer cosmetic experiments take place these days, medical
experiments still go on. Do we have the right to use other living things in this way
for our benefit?
• It also involves things like making sure that animal species do not become extinct.
Animal extinctions have been common throughout history. Do we want to see
even more occur?
There are of course, many people who believe that animals are just things - there to do
with whatever we want. At the other extreme there are people who believe that
animals should have exactly the same rights as humans. Some people go even further
and say that animals should have more rights than humans. For many people, the
welfare of animals is just a passing interest, for others it has become their way of life.
Many people feel so strongly about some of these issues that they have devoted their
entire lives to them. Some have been prepared to go to prison because of their support
for animals. Others have gone so far as to bomb places where they think animals are
not well treated.
People who are interested in animal welfare are keen to show that they are not cranks
or extremists, but that they are simply concerned for the welfare of creatures who
cannot speak for themselves. Animal welfare activists believe that we should all care
about animal welfare for two main reasons:
• every living thing has rights of its own
• when we mistreat anything it does damage to us too.
Christian viewpoints
For the Christian any form of cruelty has to be looked at with concern. Christians
follow a way of life which is based on the notion of loving others, and care for all life.
Christians are called by their faith to be peaceful - even when someone hits them they
are supposed to, ‘turn the other cheek’ (Matthew 5: 39) in other words meet violence
not with hatred, but with love. Jesus also commanded them to ‘do to others as you
would like them to do to you’ (Luke 4: 31). This means that if you do not want
someone to be violent to you, then you should not be violent to anyone else.
Christians also believe that the strong should protect the weak - not exploit them or
mistreat them. To do so would be a misuse of power. (Matthew 25: 35-37) Christians
believe that God will show them just as much mercy as they have shown themselves
to others.
Of course, some Christians think that this applies only to other humans. But many
believe that it could apply equally well to animals. This is because Christian teaching
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
33
never specifically excludes animals from any of these requirements, and because
animals are a very good example of what might be termed, ‘the weak’. If a Christian
is to live a life which involves peace, non-violence and not being cruel, then that
would have to apply equally to animals as to anything else.
The Christian believes that animals are part of God’s creation and so they should be
free from cruelty. Nobody has the right to be cruel to any of God’s creatures. (Genesis
1: 24-25; 9: 4)
Many Christians believe that as animals are part of God’s creation they should be
given the same rights as any other living thing in that creation. This would mean that
they should not be eaten, used for experiment or treated in any other way which might
be thought of as abusive or undignified. (Deuteronomy 22: 6-7) For such Christians,
animals have rights of their own, not just in relation to how beneficial they are for
humans, but because they are valuable in themselves. (Matthew 6: 26; 10: 29) Jesus
also uses animals in his parables. (Luke 12: 6-7; 13: 15; 15: 14)
On the other hand some Christians might say that animals exist for human use - the
Bible says so, where it puts mankind in charge. The Bible allows humans to eat meat
(Romans 14: 14; 1 Corinthians 10: 25) and to use animals as servants of mankind - so
in a way the Bible says that a certain amount of cruelty is unavoidable and God will
accept it. Perhaps the Christian can make the distinction between individual acts of
cruelty and more general acts where cruelty is not the aim, just a regrettable sideeffect. So, for example, blood sports are cruel in a sense, but they are a good way of
maintaining the balance of species in the countryside.
Some Christians would argue quite strongly that although animals should be treated
well, and do have rights, those rights can be ignored where they come into conflict
with human need. So, for example, carrying out a medical experiment on an animal
would be justified if it could be clearly shown that such an experiment would have
beneficial results for humans. Many Christians believe that humans are of greatest
value to God, and so anything which produces good for them must be a good thing. If
this means occasionally causing harm to animals, then this would have to be accepted.
This does not mean that Christians value animals in themselves any less, it just means
that animals are valued less than humans.
Christianity has always had some contradictory elements when it comes to the
treatment of animals. On the one hand, Christians follow the teachings of the Old
Testament, or Jewish scriptures. These have very detailed rules about caring for
animals. For example, animals should be given a rest on the Jewish holy day. Also
the rules about Jewish holy days may be broken in order to save a life - even that of an
animal. So for Christians it would seem that animal welfare is a priority. However,
this material comes from a time when animal sacrifices were common, and there was
a very elaborate system of food laws which allowed certain animals to be eaten and
others not.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
34
It is probable that Jesus largely followed these Jewish laws about animals. So while
he would have been concerned about their welfare, he would also probably have eaten
them. At any rate, there is very little direct teaching from Jesus about how animals
should be treated, and there is certainly no indication that they should be treated in any
special way, raising their status from mere animals.
As the Christian Church grew, so did its thinking, some argue, not always for the
better. Various ‘Doctors of the Church’ made pronouncements on animals. Various
writers mentioned that in their opinion animals had no souls, did not go to heaven or
hell at death and so how they were treated did not matter. Others went further and
said that animals did not feel pain. Also, many Christians believed that animals do
not have souls and so they could eat them without worrying about meeting them in
heaven!
Some would argue that Christian teaching on animals today is a curious mixture of
Jewish ideas, mediaeval notions and popular myths! This doesn’t make for a very
rigorous approach to animal welfare issues. It has not really been at the forefront of
Christian public concern, though many Christians are now becoming very aware of it.
There are a growing number of Christians who are becoming very active in animal
welfare issues. They see animals as having rights in themselves, and so being part of
God’s creation and therefore intrinsically good. They think that the human treatment
of animals is a symbol of our own arrogance, and a product of our soured relationship
with God. Many of these Christians are active vegetarians and campaign against all
bad treatment of animals. They believe that how we treat animals says a lot about
own our attitudes towards ourselves and God’s world in which we live. If we start to
treat animals properly then we will be more likely to become worthy of God’s favour
than his condemnation.
Secular developments and organisations
Animal welfare, or more specifically animal rights, issues have become far more
prominent in recent history. There are probably many reasons for this. One of the
most significant changes was the work of Charles Darwin. For many people, Darwin
showed conclusively that the relationship between humans and animals was far closer
than we had imagined. From this point on a lot of people began to look at the animal
world differently. Previously their ideas had been informed by the Christian Church
which largely gave a fairly low status to animals. Darwin not only raised the status of
animals but suggested that we were related to them. Because of this, people began to
think more seriously about the rights animals should have.
It is probably true to say that most of the organisations concerned with animal rights
had their roots in secular thinking as opposed to religious. That doesn’t mean that
religious people were (and are) not closely involved, but it does mean that the
motivation for examining the welfare of animals was more probably based more on a
Darwinian world-view than on a purely religious one.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
35
Humanity’s place in the evolutionary system gives us responsibility:
The theory of evolution by natural selection shows that humans are just another form
of animal. Our biological, physical and chemical make-up are really not very different
from the majority of the animal kingdom. This means that we should be concerned
for animals in the same way that we would be concerned for any other of our relatives.
Our responsibility for looking after animals comes not from some divine appointment,
but because we are the most successful species on the planet. This evolutionary edge
involves a certain amount of responsibility. It is up to humans to use their power
wisely - anything else would be a misuse of our naturally acquired power. Humans
need to do all they can to survive, but they needn’t go any further than that.
Of course, the problem with this is that as soon as you get into talking about
evolution, you introduce ideas of competition and the notion that some species will
inevitably suffer at the hands of others. This viewpoint runs into inevitable
difficulties when humans and animals are in conflict. Here, if evolution were to take
its course, we would simply have to accept extinction of one species by another.
Exactly this has happened (many times) since the arrival of humans on the scene. So
although we have responsibilities towards animals these are secondary to our
responsibilities towards other humans, and where our responsibility towards other
humans is in conflict with animal welfare.
We disregard animal welfare issues at our own cost:
Again this view might be seen as somewhat utilitarian. Even if animals have no
intrinsic rights of their own, instead having to take their chance in the evolutionary
lottery, their continued good-fortune will have positive benefits for us.
In other words, this view is based on the idea that the animal kingdom is of value
because of its usefulness to humans. This could be for all sorts of reasons, from use in
experiments to companionship. But what is certain is that the animal kingdom is of
use because without it, human life would be less pleasant.
Some who hold this kind of view take a very practical approach to it. For example, if
there were no more dogs around then a great many people would be very unhappy.
This might result in social unrest and a general rise in global grumpiness. This could
have all sorts of consequences. Others might take a more ‘esoteric’ view - by
claiming that the loss of animal species, or cruelty done to animals has some effect on
the human personality which is overall negative. For example, many people believe
that those who find it easy to be cruel to animals are more likely to find it easy to be
cruel to other people. Those who have a disregard of any living thing will eventually
have a disregard for other people. This means that by maintaining our respect for
animals we will be keeping alive our respect for other people, with all the benefits that
brings.
Again, like many issues in this topic, and in Ecology and Environment generally, the
question of predictability of outcome is important. How we treat animals has
implications for human life. However, those implications are unpredictable. It is this
unpredictability which is the key issue for this viewpoint. Nature is in balance,
animals and humans are part of that balance. If we upset that balance then we have no
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
36
way of knowing what the likely outcomes could be. This has obvious implications for
human life.
So the best thing to do obviously is maintain the balance, and the best way to do this is
to pay attention to the welfare of animals.
WWF has already been mentioned as an organisation with a particular interest in
animal welfare issues. Greenpeace and FoE are also involved in animal welfare
interests. Reference to these organisations is in section 7.
Compassion in World Farming
This organisation was set up to explore farming practice to ensure that it was as
humane as possible. As intensive farming practices have gained in ‘popularity’, so
too have people’s concerns about their effects on the animals concerned and also on
the quality of the product which people eventually eat. CIWF aims to improve the
lives of farm animals so that they suffer as little as possible. Their argument is that
this is good for the animals of course, but also good for us, because meat will be better
from animals who have not suffered a bad life. CIWF looks into all sorts of farming
practices. It was instrumental for example in the eventual banning of veal crates in the
UK and is close, it believes, to a similar agreement on the use of sow stalls.
One of the current campaigns of CIWF is the attempt to ban the export of live animals
abroad for slaughter. This is a complicated issue, but CIWF say that the practice
involves the animals in a great deal of suffering and distress and should end. There
have been large demonstrations associated with this at UK ports - though CIWF
members may be involved, their practices do not normally involve such direct action.
CIWF believes that farming is acceptable and that many of the practices, although we
may not like them are just part of nature. What they aim to do is to make them as low
impact as possible, seeing this as good for the animals and for the consumers of the
meat.
There are of course a very great variety of organisations in this area. We use animals
in an incredible number of ways. Each of the organisations is committed to animal
welfare though their theories and practices may differ. You should refer to Section 9
for further information and reading.
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
37
Student Activities
1. You should make your own report on animal welfare including:
• what animal welfare issues there are
• the ways in which organisations try to deal with them
• the implications of treating animals well or badly
• what possible solutions to animal welfare issues there are and how successful
they have been
• your own conclusions on the animal welfare issues you have looked at.
2. You should also write a short report about the work of one of the organisations
referred to in the support notes as involved in animal welfare issues. You should
include:
• some brief historical notes about the origins and development of the
organisation
• the philosophy of the organisation and your own analysis/evaluation of it
• the activities of the organisation and how effective it has been/is
• the extent to which animal welfare issues are central to its activities.
3. In your opinion, do you think Christians have been successful in responding to
animal welfare issues?
4. Choose one of the issues you looked at in your report for activity 1. You should
now explore this topic in more detail, and in particular look at Christian responses
to it.
5. To what extent do you agree that the treatment of animals has implications for our
own existence? Write your own response to this question, including whatever
information you think is relevant.
6. Set up and run the following class debate:
‘This house believes that the animal rights movement has gone too far.’
7. ‘The Christian Bible is silent on the issue of animal welfare.’
How far do you agree with this statement?
8. Should a Christian join an animal rights organisation?
9. ‘The Christian Church has been slow to respond to issues of animal welfare.’
To what extent do you agree?
10. ‘Animal experimentation is a necessary evil.’
How would a Christian respond to this statement?
11. What should human power over animals involve?
12. To what extent are the views of secular organisations on animal welfare based on
the work of Charles Darwin?
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
38
9. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
General environmental issues
1. Ecology Facts: Michael Allaby. Hamlyn 1986 ISBN 0 600 39723 0
2. Turning the Tide: Bellamy & Quayle. Collins 1986 ISBN 0 00 219368 X
3. The State of the Environment OECD 1985
Religion and environment
5. *Green Christianity: Tim Cooper. Spire 1990 ISBN 0 340 52339 5
6. Tending the Garden: Granberg-Michaelson (Ed). Eerdmans 1990
ISBN 0 8028 0230 3
7. *Greenhouse Theology: Ron Elsdon. Monarch 1992 ISBN 1 85424 153 2
8. Christianity & Ecology: Breuilly & Palmer (Ed) Cassell 1992 ISBN 0 304 32374 8
9. Christianity, Ecology and the Environment: Ruth Page, in Christianity for the
Twenty-First Century ed Philip Esler
* = particularly good for Biblical responses to the issues involved
Climate change
10. JT Houghton, J Jenkins & J Ephraums (1990): Climate change: the IPCC
scientific assessment, Cambridge Univ Press.
11. J Gribbin: Hothouse Earth: greenhouse effect & Gaia. Bantam Press 1990
12. L Dotto & H Shiff (1978) : The Ozone War, New York Doubleday
13. J Gribbin: The Hole in the Sky, New York Bantam 1988
14. Living in the Greenhouse : M Allaby - Thorsons London 1993
Pollution
15. Turning the Tide: Bellamy & Quayle - Collins London 1986
16. The Gaia Atlas of planet management: N Myers (Ed) Pan 1986
17. The State of the Environment, 1985 OECD
Animals
18. The Status of Animals: Paterson & Palmer (Ed). CAB 1989 ISBN 0 85198 650 1
19. Animal Theology: A Linzey. SCM 1994 ISBN 0334 00005 X
20. In Defence of Animals: P Singer (Ed) Blackwell 1985 ISBN 0 631 13897 8
RMPS Support Materials: Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
39