There is, as we established in class, some distinction between the consequences of actions for oneself and the consequences of actions for others. But what if there are prominent consequences that come into play without affecting people? We are familiar with the saying “If a tree falls, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” Similarly, if an action dubbed “ethical” does not actually benefit anyone at all, is that action just irrelevant regardless. Environmentalism, I believe, challenges this idea because it is accepted by most as a pretty “ethical” thing to be involved in, but does not outwardly work towards helping human beings firsthand. Can one take the issue of preserving our natural environment outside of the realm of human consequences? Is the naturalistic “beauty” or “significance” of nature so necessary in and of itself that it should be preserved regardless of how it may or may not affect people on Earth. If “going green” had no ultimate promise of stability for the next generation or a cleaner, healthier air supply for us to breathe—namely, if “going green” had just as much affect on the human condition as not “going green”—then would it still be morally upright to preserve the world around us which we at least must admit is beautiful to some extent. Or is the value of the environment given to it by individuals in societies, therefore making the preservation or destruction of the environment irrelevant if humans are taken out of the equation?
The subject of “beauty” has also been debated with similar points. Something is beautiful because it evokes a certain response in oneself. So whether an individual realizes it consciously or not, that person is the determinant factor in any object or idea’s beauty. But perhaps some things do have intrinsic beauty whether witnessed or not. Perhaps there is value in things that exist naturally, specifically, the Earth, without any human opinion.
“How do you act when no one is looking?” When I first heard this as a kid, it made me think a lot about the purity of being a “good person” and actually helped me redefine what it meant for me to be “moral.” So I do not want to tear this provocative statement apart, but one could think about it in consequential terms. Is there anything someone can do that is “immoral” if it has no consequences in regard to other human beings? When a person litters, is that immoral because of how it affects fellow human beings or because of how it dirties up something that transcends the presence of human beings: nature?
• There are many ethical decisions that our population is forced to make in regards to the environment. Should we decrease the rate of clear cutting forests, although it disrupts patterns of human consumption and availability? What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations? Is it right for humans to knowing cause the demise and extinction of a species if it benefits the majority? Aristotle, who relies on the ability to reason, would likely require a set of criteria for moral status. For example, the life of a sentient human places it above the life of a non-sentient tree. The preservation of such a tree would be because of its effect of society, not for the tree itself. This is why some leagues for the preservation of historic trees have been formed, like the Save the Redwoods League. Thus, Aristotle would likely argue that a human littering engages in immoral activity due to the damage he inflicts on his society. Plato, however, would argue that a human littering engages in immoral activity not only for his damage to society, but also the the damage he inflicts on himself for spoiling the beauty of something that surpasses humanity.
ReplyDeleteHumans are always making sure that they get what’s best for them within moral boundaries. The green movement is a great model for that argument. We have many people today who are “going green” these people are motivated to keep the world clean because in a polluted world they’re more likely to die earlier from bad air or water quality.
ReplyDeleteHumans are survivalists and generally want what will help them live. Humans also use each other to help them survive as a society. The green movement wouldn’t be a movement with only one member; they’re all people mutually using each other to help prevent the world from getting polluted and from their life expectancy to go down.
There are those who are immoral and do not contribute to the betterment of society or themselves. They feed the more savage parts of their souls with their actions as Plato might put it. Those are the people who will pollute out of what’s easiest for them or what they think will yields the best consequences for them.
The way people treat the environment has nothing to do with its beauty but with what they think is best for them. People just act in different ways based on what they think is immoral or moral or what moral rules they think are okay to break like throwing a candy wrapper out of a car window or on the more dramatic scale pouring toxic waste into the Mississippi River just to get some sort of personal satisfying consequence to their motive and action.