There is no question about, Planet Earth is in such a bad shape and the environmental problem is a great cause for alarm. As a result there are a multitude of “green peace” type crusaders and environmental activist that are coming out to denounce the irresponsible practice of non-sustainable practices and the desire consume manufactured products that take so much from the environment. There has got to be radical measures for desperate times. Thus, many had suggested changing modern day mindset regarding what should comprise the “moral community” and think of including non-humans into the equation.
This paper will take a closer look at some of the current discussions regarding environmental ethics. By doing so the proponent of this study will be able to determine what needs to be included within the “moral community”, specifically if non-humans can be included for the sake of protecting the environment. This can be done by focusing on theorists such as Aldo Leopold and his article entitled, “The Land Ethic.” The second article that will be considered is the one entitled, “Deep Ecology” by Bill Devall and George Sessions.
And these will be supplemented by an equally masterful work by P. Aarne Vesilind and Alastair S. Gunn, entitled, Engineering, Ethics and the Environment.Moral Community Before going any further it is important to define the concept called moral community. According to Vesilind and Gunn, traditional ethics define the moral community as a group of people to whom men and women owe moral consideration. It is implied that only humans belong to this moral community.
And this is because it is only humans who are “…capable of functioning as moral agents” (Vesilind & Gunn, 1998). Human are also able to express their feelings and also able to reciprocate. Traditional View Ever since the beginning of history there is only one principle that governs the moral community.This was described as an “anthropocentric” meaning having a bias towards the human members of the ecosystem. This was clearly explained by Paul Taylor who wrote: From the human-centered standpoint it is to humans and only to humans that all duties are ultimately owed. We may have responsibilities regard to the natural ecosystems and biotic communities of our planet but these responsibilities are in every case based on the contingent fact that our treatment of those ecosystems and communities of life can further the realization of human values and/or human rights.
We have no obligation to promote or protect the good of nonhuman living things, independently of this contingent fact (see VanDeVeer & Pierce, 2003, p. 202).The last statement was an exclamation mark – man has no obligation whatsoever – because life, since the beginning is about human growth and evolution into a better person. One who is knowledgeable about the world he lives in and master of the earth! But there are those who beg to differ.Inclusion of Non-Humans A profound counterargument was provided by Bill Devall and George Sessions who believe that there is more to understanding the earth aside from the use of scientific methods and they advocate a higher level which consequently adds to self-realization and Earth wisdom.
As Devall and Sessions pursued this path they were able to unequivocally conclude that: …all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own individual forms of unfolding and self-realization within the larger Self-realization. This basic intuition is that all organisms and entities in the ecosphere as parts of the interrelated whole, are equal in intrinsic worth (see VanDeVeer & Pierce, 2003, p. 265). At this point it is easy to suddenly feel inspired and with the same urgency declare the vow of the vegetarian – no beef, no killing of innocent animals like poor chickens grown in the poultry houses of Kentucky Fried Chicken Company awaiting slaughter.Doom to all who has the gall to enjoy another piece of delicious french fries from their favorite fast-food joint, not knowing how many hectares of forest areas were stripped bare to plant one single species of high-value crops such as potatoes.
Objections The abovementioned statements can easily stir up emotions but an objective look at the facts will make one realize it is not easy to suddenly join the Green Peace Movement and embark on a journey to protest the use of natural resources because to be honest there will only be a few who will survive if the present system will be regress to Medieval times. Another difficulty according to Vesilind and Gunn is how to know where to draw the line.There are others who are dangerously going over the edge when they asked: “What about viruses, does this non-human organism be accepted into the moral community?” and this is precisely the problem with setting boundaries. Vesilind and Gunn were right on target when they pointed out that “…we must decide whether to agree that the rights of animals are equal to those of humans, or somehow to list and rank the animals are equal to those of humans … In the first instance, killing your neighbor and squashing a cockroach would have equal moral significance” (1998, p. 90).
And it would be a shame if man will be paralyzed and overwhelmed with such arguments. It is true that there is no easy resolution to the problems, the idea of biocentrism is flawed considering that man and animals are not equals in many areas. It would have been easy if the animals from the nearby forest will send their lawyers to argue for them but at this point it is the more superior humans who will have to draft the rules and the discussion goes back to square one which is the anthropocentric view of life. Possible Solution In controversial issues, the most common method of breaking the stand-off is through compromise.
Knowing fully well that the inclusion of non-humans is impractical and that forcing the issue will simply result in a farce, pretending to be embrace flora and fauna into the protective embrace of the moral community and yet unable to continue doing so in the long run because the same people who welcome this radical transformation will sooner or later realize they cannot live without the good life. One compromise would be to adopt a higher standard when it comes to dealing with non-human members of the ecosystem.In short the book of ethics regarding environmental issues has to be re-written. A good example according to Aldo Leopold is to change man’s perspective concerning the use of land and he calls it the “land ethic”, which in essence, “…changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also respect for the community as such” (see VanDeVeer & Pierce, 2003, p.
216). Notice that man did not give up his rights and privileges, he is in fact master but he adds the idea of respect into the equation. Implications If it is easy to include non-humans into the moral community then it should have been done much earlier. But there is a reason why the debate rages on and it is because of the major implications that will be the expected after changing the traditional view of barring non-humans from entry. Now, that the restrictions for entry has already been relaxed there are new implications that will result from the new belief system.The inclusion of non-humans will slowly alter the belief that this world should be man-centered.
Humans will become more sensitive to the environment and will increase effort to protect the planet. Another implication would be the ratification of laws that will make it more difficult to exploit the earth’s natural resources without having the correct system of recovery such as in the case of mining etc. Conclusion What is all the fuss about knowing the moral community and extending its boundaries to include non-humans?There are already so many environmental problems plaguing this world that to spend precious moments arguing about something as abstract as moral community is an unjustifiable waste of time. But as was shown in the preceding pages it is the precisely this environmental problems that the discussion of moral community seeks to address. And so going deeper into the issues one will encounter a proposition that may come across as bizarre unless one is committed to saving the planet, in the hope of sustaining the current way of life enjoyed by all humans – a perfectly working natural environment, which will soon be a thing of the past if drastic steps are not taken today.
Thus, there are those who are advocating a rather radical step to solve some of the major issues that are haunting 21st century mankind. It is the modification or one can even say an improvement on the age old conception about what comprises moral community.And so the argument begins by suggesting that it is wrong to limit inclusion into the moral community by a rather high standard called “reciprocity”, meaning that only those who can exhibit morality can be considered as members. This standard excludes everything except humans and therefore non-living things including flora and fauna will never be able to enjoy the privileges of membership into the moral community. Not having that “member status” into the moral community means being at the mercy of humans.
If there are those who fancy animal experiments, cutting trees for export, or the transformation of grasslands and nature parks into subdivisions then the flora and fauna living in the said location will simply have to move out of the way. If not these species of plants and animals – some are near extinct levels have to find a way to defend themselves in court. Since everyone knows that this is only possible in animated movies then there are those who propose that it is the humans who must go to their aid and defend them against destruction. This is possible by including the poor creatures into the protective embrace of the moral community. Now, this is easier said than done. As mentioned earlier the move to include non-humans into the moral community will have serious repercussions.
First of all there is no scientific evidence to show that man can live on plants alone. If this is so, then how can one declare that non-humans should be included in the moral community and yet continue to eat hamburgers at McDonalds? This is a very simple illustration, to drive home the complexity of the issue. How can man be sincere in welcoming non-humans into the fold of the “moral community” when there is one set of rules for humans and there is also another biased set of rules for non-humans? There is no restaurants offering human carcass as their specialty of the day and so in the same line of reasoning, the adoption of an honest-to-goodness modified moral community standard dictates man cannot eat beef, pork, chicken, and fish forever. As everyone knows that this is impossible there is now a need to break the dead-lock. There must be a compromise.
And the incentive would be the promise of a better life for all concern.One can begin by exploring Leopold’s idea called “land ethic” a mindset that still allows human in the drive seat but instead of having the mind of a ruthless conqueror, this time man sees the environment through the perspective of sustainability and preservation of what is good. And he does it by extending consideration and respect not only to fellow humans but also to non-humans who are equally beautiful and majestic. And if there are those who may find it hard to believe, then he or she must spend time with nature and hope to see a spectacular vision of a solitary eagle in flight or the awe inspiring wonder of cascading waterfalls.
In the end man will agree because by helping animals and plant species he is ultimately helping himself achieve the zenith of self-realization.
