ENVIRONMENTAL

ETHICS
The field of environmental ethics
concerns the ethical relationship of
man with nature.
It explores the various perspectives
on ethical judgments and decisions,
highlighting the significance of
sustainable production and
consumption, addressing human
population numbers, and
implementing regulations to
protect species, subspecies, and
their ecosystems.
Environmental ethics examines the
morals and ethics involved in dealing
with environmental issues, including
pollution, species and habitat
extinctions, and climate change.
It also analyzes the various social
and political forces involved and
takes into account how different
religions around the world see the
environment.
The task of environmental ethics is to outline our moral obligations
in the face of such concerns. In short, there are two basic questions
that environmental ethics must answer:
What duties do humans have with respect to the environment,
and why?

The latter question must usually be considered before the former. In

order to deal with our responsibilities, it is generally considered
necessary to first consider why we have them.
Although many philosophers have written about this topic
throughout history, environmental ethics did not become a specific
philosophical discipline until the 1970s. This emergence was
undoubtedly due to the increased awareness of the environmental
effects of technology, industry, economic growth and population
growth in the 1960s.
 The emergence of this awareness was helped by the publication of two
important books at that time.

 Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, first published in 1962, warned readers

that the widespread use of chemical pesticides posed a serious threat to
public health and caused the destruction of wildlife.
 Equally important was Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book, The Population
Bomb, which warned of the devastating impact that a growing human
population would have on the planet's natural resources.
In the early 1970s, when environmentalists first encouraged philosophers to consider the
philosophical dimensions of environmental problems, environmental ethics began to take shape.
The 2,000 or so scientists who make up the Union of Concerned Scientists have reached the
indisputable conclusion that climate change is real and is already changing our world.
• To promote human well-being, environmental ethics
expands the concept of ethics to include nature and
consider its sustainability. This course focuses primarily on
an overview of environmental ethics and protecting the
environment from harm. In addition to the separation of
species and the rise of diseases, environmental changes and
extreme weather events are impossible to hide and ignore.
Deterioration of health associated with various
manifestations of these changes still exists. This leads to
considerable difficulties in terms of environmental law
(Laal, 2009).
Many people believe that it is morally wrong for man to pollute and destroy part of the
natural environment and consume a huge part of the Earth's natural resources. If it is false, is
it only because a sustainable environment is necessary for human existence and well-being?
Or is such behavior also wrong because the natural environment and/or its various contents
have their own values, so these values ​should be respected and protected anyway? These are
the questions that environmental ethics investigates. Some are specific problems faced by
individuals in specific circumstances, while others are more global problems faced by groups
and communities. Others are more abstract questions about the value and moral status of the
natural environment and its non-human parts.
 Instrumental Value - the value of things as a means to some other end.
 Intrinsic Value - the value of things as an end in themselves, regardless of whether
they are also useful for other purposes.

For example, certain fruits have instrumental value for bats that eat them because
eating fruit is a way for bats to survive. However, it is not widely believed that fruit has
value in itself. We can also think that a person who teaches others has an instrumental
value for those who want to gain knowledge. But in addition to such value, it is usually
said that man as a person has intrinsic value, that is, his own value independent of his
potential to serve the purposes of others (Jamieson, 2002).
 In another example, a particular wild plant may have instrumental value
because it provides ingredients for medicine or is an aesthetic object for the
human observer. But if a plant also has some value in itself, regardless of its
potential to promote some other goal, such as human health or the enjoyment of
an aesthetic experience, then the plant also has intrinsic value. Since what is
good as an end in itself is intrinsically valuable, it is generally agreed that having
something intrinsically valuable creates a prima facie moral obligation on moral
agents to protect it, or at least to refrain from harming it (O’Neil, 1992).
Anthropocentric
(human – centered)
Either they assign intrinsic value to human
beings alone (what we might call
anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they
assign a significantly greater amount of
intrinsic value to human beings than to any
non-human things such that the protection or
promotion of human interests or well-being
at the expense of non-human things turns out
to be nearly always justified (what we might
call anthropocentric in a weak sense).
For example, Aristotle apparently
affirms that "nature created everything
especially for man". Such intentional or
teleological thinking can encourage the
belief that the value of nonhuman
things in nature is simply instrumental.
Anthropocentric views have difficulty
articulating what is wrong with the
cruel treatment of nonhuman animals,
except to the extent that such treatment
can lead to bad consequences for
humans.
For example, Immanuel Kant ("Duty to Animals and Spirits", in Lectures on Ethics)
suggests that cruelty to a dog can encourage a person to develop a character that is
insensitive to human cruelty. From this perspective, cruelty to nonhuman animals would
be instrumentally wrong rather than intrinsically wrong. Also, anthropocentrism often
misidentifies the nonessential nature of anthropogenic (human-caused) environmental
destruction. Such destruction can harm human well-being both now and in the future,
because our existence and well-being fundamentally depend on a sustainable
environment. This claim was made in the last century (Passmore 1974; Bookchin 1990;
Norton et al., 1995) and seems to have gained widespread public support since then
(Pew, 2018).
 In short, it is the view that all our moral obligations to the environment derive
from our direct obligations to its people. They argue that the practical purpose of
environmental ethics is to provide a moral basis for social policies aimed at protecting
the earth's environment and improving environmental pollution. They argue that
enlightened anthropocentrism is sufficient for this practical purpose, and perhaps
even more effective in shaping policy for pragmatic outcomes than non-
anthropocentric theories, based on the latter's theoretical burden of providing a
rational justification for their more radical view that the non-human environment has
intrinsic value (Norton 1991; de Shalit 1994; Light et al., 1996).
 “The Tragedy of the Commons”
by American ecologist Garret Hardin

It describes a situation where common environmental resources are

overused and exploited and then run out, creating risks for all concerned.
Basically, Tragedy of the Commons shows that when something is owned
by a group (rather than privately), it can affect overall sustainability
because no one technically owns or is responsible for it about it. The
tragedy is that when no one owns a resource, everyone is willing to take it,
even if it exceeds their fair share or is not sustainable. The Commons
dilemma was seen long before Hardin, but he gave it widespread attention
and described it in a layman's way that made it easy to understand.
The example Hardin uses to illustrate Tragedy of the Commons is a group of farmers and a common
plot of land. Each farmer must keep his cattle on the land from which he personally benefits, but the
land should be shared collectively or leased by the state. Each additional herd has its own price and
benefits. Costs are caused by cultivation and attrition, while profits relate to the yield that can be
harvested from that livestock. The trick is that when a farmer adds a cow to his herd, he gets all the
benefits of the extra cow and only shares a small portion of the cost in terms of land use. Therefore,
strictly myopic, it makes sense for a farmer to try to grow his herd as much as possible. And in fact,
this position could work quite well if only one farmer adopted it. But since it is an acceptable move, it
can be assumed that all farmers will continue to do this, degrading the land and preventing its use,
and all parties will lose.
 The tragedy of the Commons can also be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In its early days, people were generally wary of socializing with people outside their
immediate family, less likely to leave home, and more likely to work from home.
However, another consequence of the pandemic was that people began to stockpile
food and supplies. People probably assumed that everyone else was hoarding too, so
the only solution was to prevent this scenario and stock up on food before the next
person did.

Again, people thought logically, but not collectively, and therein lies the
meaning of Tragedy. Individuals took advantage of opportunities that benefited
them personally, but spread the harmful effects of their consumption to society.
Retailers responded by limiting the amount of products they could buy, but it was
too late. Entire grocery aisles, were empty, swept clean.
 Hardin argued that if individuals relied only on themselves and not on
society and human relationships, people would treat other people as
resources, which would lead to world population growth and the process
continues.

Understanding the tragedy of the commons benefits both businesses and

individuals so they can make more sustainable and environmentally friendly
choices. Here are five real examples of tragedies of the commons and
solutions to the problem.
5 EXAMPLES OF GENERAL TRAGEDY
• 1. Coffee consumption
• 2. Overfishing
• 3. Fast fashion
• 4. Traffic congestion
• 5. Use of underground water
How would you react if you realized that your consumption habits are depleting
natural resources? You have two main options: to look for alternative sustainable
products and to avoid excessive consumption (Alexander, 2019).
Finding alternative and sustainable products
In order to bring about change and prevent frequent tragedies, it is important to boycott products or
brands that are thought to be harmful and to look for alternatives. Finding sustainable alternatives
instead of continuing with a sustainable business strategy, what Professor Rebecca Henderson calls
"business as usual," directly affects your spending habits.
The tragedy of the commons shows us how, without any regulation or public transparency of public
good choices and actions, individuals have no incentive to refrain from too much. In fact, individuals
may even have a "use it or lose it" mentality; when they realize that the end of the good itself is
inevitable, they may think, "I had better get my share while I still can."
Avoiding excessive consumption
A local grocery store, which has always promoted the use of reusable bags, began
charging for each paper or plastic bag. How likely are you to bring your own bags? No
one wants to pay extra for something they're likely to throw away or use as trash.
Loading grocery bags raises the stakes because it involves a customer outcome. It looks
like this change will make you keep reusable bags in your car in case you need to stop at
the grocery store on the way home. These examples show how people can be motivated
to cooperate with the public good through financial or moral incentives or sanctions.
Avoiding
What is really exciting is that this is also true on a larger scale.
It is easy for individuals and organizations alike to fall prey to the tragedy of the
excessive
commons. However, it doesn't have to be that way. By developing a more sustainable
consumption
mindset, you become more aware of the long-term impact of your short-term choices on
the environment, both in your personal life and at work.
 Environmental philosophy has served as the foundation for environmental ethics. It
has emerged as a result of many scientists adopting the philosophical perspective on
environmental risks. It is currently a top concern for people. Environmental ethics are
very significant because they provide the moral foundation for safeguarding the
environment on our planet and continually reversing the environmental devastation we
have brought about over time.
Science cannot be replaced by moral reasoning, but it does offer a potent
augmentation to our understanding of the world. We are not taught to care by science.
Environmental protection justifications are not necessarily provided by scientific
understanding alone. Knowledge, information, and data are provided by science and
economics. With this knowledge in hand, environmental ethics considers the question of
how we should live. Why should we be concerned? By putting morality, ethics, and better
decision-making into dialogue with science, environmental ethics expands on what is
known about the natural world.
 In the broadest sense, environmental ethics requires us to think
about three essential claims:

1. Earth and its inhabitants have
moral standing, or are deserving of
our ethical consideration.
3. Humans should think about "wholes"
2. Earth and its inhabitants are morally
that incorporate other forms of life and the
valuable just because they exist, independent
environment, relying on the concept of an
of whether or not they serve human needs.
ecosystem.
 In conclusion, environmental ethics serve as a check against
animal cruelty. It offers a serene and lovely living environment
and contributes to the preservation of ecological equilibrium.
Environmental ethics encourages people to act in ways that are
beneficial to nature and the environment rather than harming
the environment, wasting resources, and destroying the world.
THANK
YOU!