As I read Environmental Ethics
by Joseph R. DesJardins I realized that environmental ethics are much more
complex than I originally thought. It
isn’t just “don’t harm the environment” because sometimes there is no realistic
way to avoid it. Sometimes humans need
to decide which is a lesser evil of two decisions. There are so many different ways that a situation
can be interpreted. For example, the
situation where a farmer must decide whether or not to drain a wetland can be
very complex. If the farmer is desperate
to put food on the table and he views this as his only viable option is it ok
for him to harm the environment?
If we look at the situation from
a religious point of view, specifically a Christian point of view, one might
argue that the farmer should drain the wetland so that he may prosper in a
difficult time. Since he is human, he
has dominion over the other species that inhabit the Earth. God has placed man as stewards on the earth;
they are to take care of the earth. So
while at the moment the farmer’s needs are more important. This does not let the farmer off the hook
though. If he is to harm the environment
in order to prosper, then he should try to undo the damage when he is able, or
help out the environment in some other way.
If he does not act as a steward in some way he is most likely liable to
have some sort of punishment from God later, therefore it is in his best
interest to take care of the earth in some way.
Next we could look at the
situation in a utilitarian way.
Utilitarianism focuses on what is best for the greater good. In other words, it means the greatest amount
of happiness for the greatest number of people.
In this way, the farmer should drain the wetland in order to feed not
only himself, but others who may be in need of food. While it is not good for the earth, it is
good for the farmer, his family, and neighbors.
While this does not bode well for the earth, the greatest number of
people are satisfied.
On another note, one could view
the situation in a teleological way. The
wetland would have an extrinsic finality if it were used for the farmer’s
needs. The farmer is using the wetland
as a means to an end; having more farm land to use. Opposing that would be the wetland’s
intrinsic finality in which the wetland serves its purpose to be a wetland, just
to be a wetland.
Finally, we can look at the
situation with deontology, holistic views, anthropocentric, and non-anthropocentric
views. There are many perspectives that
will argue either for or against draining a wetland for farm use. Which is right? No one really knows, even environmentalists
don’t always know the best approach to certain environmental situations. Personally, I like the deontology view, if
everyone is a good and moral person, he or she will try to make the best and
moral decision, with everyone making good decisions, some improvement is bound
to happen.
