Approaches To Environmental Ethics And KantS Principle Essays

Approaches To Environmental Ethics And Kant'S Principle 1. All of the three approaches to environmental ethics use Kants principle to various extents. The differences between them lie in their individual definitions of moral categories. Its like looking at the same slide under three different powers on a microscope. Each approach relies on Kants principle to protect the interest of that which they deem worthy. Baxters anthropocentric approach clearly states that our obligations regarding the environment are to be determined solely on the basis of human interests. Our welfare depends on breathable air, drinkable water and edible food. Thus, polluting the environment to the extent that it damages the air, water and land is unacceptable because it damages public welfare. Animals and plants are considered non-rational beings and are therefore not considered in the same moral category as humans. However, Baxter does not approve of mass destruction of these objects because people do depend on them in many ways and they should be preserved to the degree that humans depend on them. Clean air and water are good for plants and animals, too, so they will benefit from humankinds attention to environmental ethics, but their preservation will in no way take precedence over any human interests. We change the power on the microscope to look at Rollins argument for a sentientist approach. With this view, the moral category includes all sentient beings, not just human beings. Rollins believes that any being possessing an awareness of the senses that does not involve thought or perception has intrinsic value and is an end-in-themselves. He contends that animal interests must also be considered when determining our environmental obligations. Thus, we might have a moral obligation to preserve some natural habitat that is of no value to human beings if its destruction would harm some non-human beings. Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopolds biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. (503) 2. Autonomy and liberty have almost the same definitions and I believe that both Nielson and Hospers were trying to convey the same point, but at the same time have different views of the two shown by the context they used them in. Nielson states, An autonomous person is a person who is able to set her ends for herself and in optimal circumstances is able to pursue those ends. (359) In Hospers explanation of his second classification of human rights, the right to liberty, he states there should be no laws compromising in any way freedom of speechThere should be no censorshipby government. (353) Comparing these two interpretations, we see that both are essentially stating that a person has the right to do anything they please, and in the case of liberty, the right not to have interference by the community or the government. The difference can be seen clearly by using the employee example. Nielson claims that workers have the right to do what they want and Hospers declares that they ha ve the privilege to work and the owners have the final say about what the workers do. Hence, in the eyes of these two authors, autonomy is inherent whereas liberty is earned. Anyone can be autonomous whereas if a person doesnt respect other peoples rights then they will not earn the right to liberty and freedom. The idea of freedom and liberty seem to embody the same principal. Nielson declares Freedom does not only mean being autonomous; it also means the absence of unjustified political and social interference in the pursuit of ones ends. (359) Therefore, if one is autonomous they have the rights to live their lives to their accordance. To have liberty and freedom, however, one can live their life to their choosing, but must not negatively infringe on another persons life. 3.