HUMAN PERSON AND HIS ENVIRONMENT

In this discussion, you will be made aware on the theories that try to explain the causes 
of environmental crisis. You will learn through these theories how humans value the 
environment and how they treat it. Finally, it is hope that learning these modes of valuation  will
lead you having positive response to the practical ways of becoming a sustainable  and
ecologically responsible person through the development of the virtues of prudence  and
frugality toward the environment. 

I. Human Person in Relation to His or Her Environment

Humans as Masters of the Environment
Lynn White, professor of medieval history at Princeton University, wrote in 1967 that
the source of ecological crisis is primarily due to the Judeo-Christian tradition rooted on
the anthropocentric attitude traced back from the biblical book of Genesis. He believed that this
arrogance toward nature is based on these verses: 
God said, “Let us make man in our own image in the likeness of ourselves, and let them
be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven, the cattle, all the wild beasts and all
the reptiles that crawl upon the earth.” God created man in the image of himself, in the
image of God he created him, male and female, he created them.  God blessed them
saying to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and conquer it. Be masters of the fish
of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth.” 
- Genesis 1:26-28, The Jerusalem Bible  
White claims that what people do about their environment depends on what they
think about themselves in relation to things around them. Human ecology is deeply
conditioned by beliefs about nature and destiny-that is, by religion. Christianity in its Western
form is anthropocentric in nature. It is believed that through Christianity, it was established that
Adam and all humans thereafter are made master over nature because humans are created in
“God's image." As White claims, it is God's will that people exploit nature for their proper ends.
A word of caution, however, because what White refers to here is Western Christianity, which
allowed for the advancement in science and technology that treated nature as subsumed under the
powers of humans. He compares it to Greek East with Christian devotion, which according to
him, seems to have not produced any marked technological innovation compared to the West. 
As an example, White claimed that in the latter part of the 7th century where
agriculture was the occupation in advanced” societies, farmers used a plow using eight oxen
and ravaged the land. This change required that land be distributed based on man's capacity to till
the earth instead on what the family needs because no man owns eight oxen; hence, neighbors
had to pool together their animals to be used. Man's relationship to the soil changed where he
became the exploiter of nature from his previous relationship of being part of it. 
This theory reveals that nature or the environment is valued for its instrumental worth. 
How a human person treats his or her environment is anchored on the capacity to what man
needs. His or her actions to understand nature is directed not as learning what God wanted
creation to reveal but on how the environment can serve people's needs. This treatment of the
environment is not new. Even today when there are already policies to care for the environment,
protect endangered species, and reduce wastes, there are still humans who think that they deserve
to receive what nature offers. How many cases of poaching (tortoises to be sold for food and
decorative purposes, for instance) have been reported? How many trees have been cut to allow
for road widening? How many mountains have been flattened and seas reclaimed to build
buildings and complexes for recreational purposes only? These actions are direct manifestations
of people's concern for themselves as masters rather than their recognition that they are part of
the environment.  
White believed that if his theory of man being master over the environment is
unchanged as it is formed through religious dogmas, then there will not be a way to resolve
the ecological crisis the world is experiencing. Present science and technology is still under the
belief that man has a limitless rule of creation. Hence, nature will be continually exploited. 
In response to the claim of Lynn White, Lewis Moncrief wrote in The Cultural Basis
of Our Environmental Crisis that the ecological crisis is not a religious problem.
Moncrief explained that if you will analyze Lynn White's model, it is a simplistic analysis and
lacks historical or scientific support. He claimed that there are other factors involved that
clearly concern the actions of human beings. 
It will be noticed, however, that the value placed upon nature is still instrumental.
The worth of the environment is evaluated on the basis of how it will benefit and make the life of
humans more comfortable. It is another issue if the comforts brought about by capitalism or
increased wealth will result in human flourishing. You simply have to look at the situation
around you to realize that Moncrief's theory is more plausible compared to that of White. To
such end, consider how Metro Manila and other parts of the country experienced severe flooding
in recent years. Experts claim that such major flooding is due to the combined factors of
increased population, congestion, and urbanization, to name a few. 
What is clear in the perspectives of both White and Moncrief is that the root of
the ecological crisis is man's tendency to take the environment as instrumental or only a means to
a defined end--that is, to use what is in nature without considering its effects in the future or to
the rest of humanity. 
Humans as Stewards of the Environment
Patrick Dobel, in “The Judeo-Christian Stewardship Attitude to Nature,” suggested
that the Judeo-Christian belief that nature exists for the sole purpose of serving human
beings must be put under closer scrutiny as it implies an attitude of antagonism and
the separation of both God and humans from Earth. Instead, he believed that the Judeo-Christian
attitude is an ethics of stewardship. 
In his theory, Dobel explained that Christian ecology is geared toward harmony with
the world without abandoning humanity's commitment to social justice. He believed
that humanity can maintain love and respect toward the environment without eliminating ethical
and technological distinctions and without denying the use of the earth for the benefit of all
humanity. In his analysis, he also cited Bible passages-the same reference used by White in his
own theory-but took into account how the earth is good not because it is instrumentally
beneficial to humanity but that it is independently good and ought to be respected. Here is one
such passage: “God saw that the world was very good.” 
Dobel further suggested to look at the earth differently by responding to the question
of its status, resources, and ownership. “The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." If it is
God's creation, then it is He who owns it. Moreover, Dobel cited Psalm 115:16: “The heavens
belong to the Lord but the earth is given to us.” This passage is a clear indication for this theory
that the ownership of the Earth still belongs to the God who created it, and humanity is entrusted
to take care of it. Since the Earth is given to all of humanity, the theory incorporates the
responsibility of each human being to be a faithful steward of the earth; thus, he or she must not
exhaust nonrenewable resources, must provide accessible replace take greater responsibility in
taking good care of the Earth for the next generation 
In addition, both Dobel and White introduced the virtue of humility to be practice
exercised with regard to how humanity as a species must relate to the Earth. As an alternative
ecological perspective, White suggested that each human being may have to emulate the
character of St. Francis of Assisi whose attitude toward animals and other creation is an attitude
of equality and not of superiority. Dobel mentioned humility as humanity's natural response to
the Judeo-Christian belief of God's ownership, humanity's trusteeship, and the limits in the life of
human beings. 
This new theory suggests a new way of giving value to the Earth and all creations.
The ecological attitude follows from the notion that the Earth is good in itself and has
value beyond the benefits it serves humanity. Hence, the environment has an intrinsic value that
must be respected and cared for. 

II. Humans as Members of Earth's Community

Ecological Land Ethic 
In “Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic,” Aldo Leopold introduced an ethics that enlarges
the human person's attitude toward nature. Aside from recognizing Earth's intrinsic value,
this "land ethic” expands the boundaries of the ecological community to include soils,
waters, plants, and animals (collectively: the land). This theory changes the role of the
human person from conqueror of the land-community to a plain member and citizen of it,
which implies respect for his or her fellow members and respect for the land as a
biotic community. Leopold suggested an "ecological conscience” where the human
person manages the natural environment where he or she is concerned of both the biotic
and economic grounds for the loss of species. For example, under this theory, the human person
will go beyond conserving forests by planting trees through natural reproduction instead of
artificial propagation. 
Respect for Nature
Biocentric egalitarianism is a theory that calls for respect for nature as its central
moral attitude. The general outlook to be taken must be an attitude of respect toward
individual organisms considered as entities having inherent worth. This belief must
determine humanity's moral relation with Earth's wild communities of life. 
Biocentric egalitarianism proposes a life-centered system as opposed to
the anthropocentric view discussed earlier. Through this theory, human actions affecting
the natural environment and its nonhuman inhabitants are determined right on the basis of the
consequences which are favorable (or unfavorable) to human's well-being or they are consistent
(or inconsistent) with the system of norms that protect and implement human rights. What this
implies is a prima facie (at first view before investigation) moral obligation of humans to the
natural environment-wild plants and animals as members of Earth's biotic community. This
means that each human person is bound to protect or promote their good for their sake. 
Paul Taylor, in his article “Biocentric Egalitarianism,” presented the concepts of the
good (well-being/welfare) and inherent worth of an entity as important ideas necessary to having
the attitude of respect for nature as part of an individual's moral outlook.  Accordingly, this
respect entails the acceptance that every organism, species, population, and community of life
has a good of its own which moral agents can intentionally further; in other words, any entity can
be benefited or harmed. It further means that what is good is what enhances or preserves life and
what is bad is detrimental to life. 
By inherent worth, Taylor referred to two general principles-the principle of
moral consideration and the principle of intrinsic value. The principle of moral
consideration states that wild living things deserve the concern and consideration of all moral
agents by virtue of their being members of Earth's community of life. The principle of intrinsic
value states that regardless of what kind of entity it is, if it is a member of the community of
life, the realization of its good is something intrinsically valuable. The well-being of each
entity is judged to have value in and of itself.  
To say that it possesses inherent worth is to say that its good is deserving
and consideration of all moral agents, and that the realization of its good has be pursued
as an end in itself and for the sake of the entity whose good it is. 
- Paul Taylor, “Biocentric Egalitarianism”  
The attitude of respect for nature is drawn from the above principles. This attitude
will then lead to the biocentric outlook where these four main components are espoused: 
(1) Humans are thought of as members of the Earth's community of life, holding
that membership on the same terms apply to all the nonhuman members.  
(2) The Earth's natural ecosystem as a totality is seen as a complex web
of interconnected elements, with the sound biological functioning of each being dependent on the
sound biological functioning of the others.  
 (3) Each organism is conceived as a teleological center of life, pursuing its own good
in its own way.  
(4) The notion that humans by their very nature as superior must be rejected since it is
a groundless claim.  
The perspective discussed removes the anthropocentric view and takes out the arrogance
toward nature because humanity is simply a part of a biotic community his or her functions
depend upon the functions of other organisms as well. This reinforces the virtue of humility
because if people realize the implication of this perspective, they will accept that they are a part
of a complex whole only. To practice the respect for nature is to realize that a person's well-being
is affected by the well-be organisms.