Pollution and Environment Essay - Man Has No Responsibility to the Envi

Man Has No Responsibility to the Environment Since the 1960s, questions concerning environmental ethics provoke loomed large in the public awargonness. At the core of all of these questions is one single issue that has caused confusion among many sight involved in this controversy. There has been much debate on this issue, solely little has been fruitful, and this can in part be blamed on the fact that the debate is of a particularly low quality. Much of it has been of the name-calling, conclusion-with-no-justification-spewing variety. The primordial problem with the environmental debate is that the debaters engaged in attempting to provide solutions to these issues do not agree on the humanitys steer in the natural order. quite than pilinging with this core issue, however, the debaters debate only on incidental issues which carry on directly from the central problem. This central question is How shall we relate to, or deal with, the environment? Environmentalists frequently answer that we should, in slightly sense, live in harmony with nature, or respect the rights of natural beings, such as trees, birds, mountains, and rivers. In this essay, I present an opposing viewpoint I propose that in that location are no moral obligations which direct how cosmos should deal with the environment, because the design human is an arbitrary class with no real meaning. The problem with this environmentalist viewpoint is that the presupposition that there is some radical difference between humans and other animals is inherent in the position. Environmentalists suppose that there is something that puts us in a privileged position compared to the rest of nature. In fact, there is not. homo have the same drives as other animals. In this respect, a... ...definition of humanity have to do with how humanity should relate to the environment? The answer is that there is no particular set of rules that humanity should follow in relating to the environment. Certainly, t here are some things that would be good for humanity, and other things that would be bad, depending upon how you define these concepts of good, bad, and humanity. And authoritatively, some things would be better for the ecosystem than others, depending upon how you define the good of the ecosystem. But it is impossible to represent that humanity should be responsible for shepherding the ecosystem, or for staying in a certain place in the ecosystem, because there is no natural and proper place for humanity -- humanity is an illusion, an arbitrary group of animals. There are no moral considerations that apply to humanity as a whole.