How The Idea of Preservation of Nature Can Benefit from Environmental Ethics

Environmental ethics may refer to morals and perceptions of the human race towards maintaining the well-being of the natural biodiversity and making life generally admirable for survival. These notions should be enhanced and promoted in order to ensure that the natural biodiversity is taken care of and protected fully for their existence. The question of “Do you beings have the morals or ethics to look after the other life forms” is critically addressed in terms the world’s perceptions. In fact, the question is subjected to discussion because of differing cultures and views of the human race as the super being.

In reality men should take care of the natural environments and their compositions because of their capability in reasoning and judgment. For instance it does not cost anything to protect the natural environments such as the rain forests on earth. This is a natural resource that should be protected by all means in order to curb the consequences that may be brought forth if it is destroyed. It is very clear that cutting down of the rain forest will translate to inadequacy of rainfall and imbalance in atmospheric gases such as oxygen and carbon-dioxide. Since trees serve as the primary consumers of carbon dioxide, then there is need of protecting the vegetative cover on the earth. Such human activities have heavily impacted on the natural resources hence, leading to their depletion and scarcity. This can be easily met if policies against environmental degradation and pollution will be put up in order to curb the illegal activities by the human race upon the non-human environments.

Further, part two of the assignment answers the question “what do environmental ethics mean to me?” Still in chapter one of ‘Earthcare’ the term environmental ethics is deeply looked into by analyzing the ethical morals needed towards caring the earth natural resources. This may refer to concrete standing people’s morals to facilitate and enhance survival in various societies. Different societies have got different cultures and perceptions upon the natural biodiversity and all it entails. To ease the pressures put on the disappearing natural resources, man must respect and be ready enough to protect the earth resources by all means. People’s moral values and views should be positive towards the environment conservation. They should realize that human life purely relies on the natural earth resources.

Equally, is should be taken into consideration that the impacts of not caring the earth and its compositions are very brutal and they may even result to death if not well managed. For example destruction of the ozone layer due to toxic emissions will pave way for ultra-violet rays which are very dangerous to the human race in terms of global warming. Basically, these environmental ethics are very essential in terms of survival and conservation of the environment. Failure to apply them, then the earth will be subject to lots of challenges hence, making life unbearable and difficult enough to handle.

The interaction between mankind and the environment should be friendly in order to improve and promote survival. However, it has been realized that due to dynamic changes in the world, the core values of long serving traditions have been betrayed by the environmental unique behaviors. Equally, the attributes given to some traditional values is adversely disastrous to the natural biodiversity and even becoming the biggest threat of the future survival. Studies and justifications of ethics are the key to conserving and managing our natural ecosystems without employing the westernized culture such as industrialization that has been the biggest threat ever on the natural earth resources.

According to chapter two of Clowney’s book “Earth care” different world views have been discussed based the Abrahamic religious faiths and the environment. It gives clear concepts on how religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism should be on the forefront to conserve the environment. All these religions are trying their best to promote the concept of environmentalism in order to ensure that the natural biodiversity is not lost. Out of the three religions I would like to critically analyze the concept of environmentalism based on Christianity. Radically, the essence of employing the environmental ethics is to ensure that the scarce natural resources are not completely brought to extinction. Most of the Christian scholars such as medieval theologians and modern philosophers have highly contributed to the respect and conservation of the environmental resources.

In fact, most of them like Brian Walsh and Nik Ansell lay their attitudes on forestry based on the strong Biblical texts which tend to pay respect to God’s creation. They sort to promote it because of the Biblical teachings that all the planet natural resources belong to the Supreme Being and therefore, the environment should be protected by all means. For example according to Genesis chapter one onwards, there comes out a clear narration of the creation story and how humankind was made hence, giving him the power to rule and take care of the other natural resources. But we see the harmony between God and mankind broken because of their fall. The Bible brings out an ideal understanding about what the teachings are supposed to hold in terms of nature.

God himself treasured His creation and all that was within, something that inspired the Rabbis to continue motivating modern environmentalists towards ensuring that the relationship between mankind and the environment is very positive. However, according to these two chapters of the Bible, critics tend to lay their argument that the parochial hierarchy translates to humankind subjugation on nature. For the verses which show God’s blessing to mankind and the authority to rule on all other forms of life and the entire inmate earth resources.

Equally, as per pages 62-71 and 82-90 of chapter two in this book, I would like to compare and contrast on the environmental worldviews based on Christianity and Judaism religions. The two religions have been in support of the environmental ethics but again they tend to differ on some factors that are based on religious affiliations. For instance the brutal treatment to animals is highly corporate in the Jewish rule. Inflicting of pain on living things is highly prohibited in both religions. Multiple Biblical texts like Deuteronomy 22:6 give clear information on how humankind should not inflict pain on other living things. Also this is one of the seven commandments in the Jewish tradition. The two religions are ever on the forefront in condemning the inhumane killings of birds and animals. Instead they tend to consider kindness to animals as being one of the best rewards one will receive in heaven.

However, on the other hand the two religions appear different in terms of vegetarianism whereby Christians do not entail punitive measures on those who eat meat on the basis that meat was permitted after the flood. While the concept of vegetarianism has been taken strict in the Jewish religion to a point whereby they include punitive measures on those who consume meat thus reducing the number of animals taken for meat. In fact, the Jewish community prohibits meat eating as opposed to Christianity hence contributing to the higher number of animals killed for meat. It creates a controversy between the natural biodiversity and mankind.

Equally, the question of “how do you feel about nature” is briefly discussed in this part of the essay paper. The fact remains that nature is own a lot in terms of human survival and therefore there is need to apply the environmental ethics in ensuring the natural ecosystem is protected fully and conserved against depletion. However, it has been a challenge as the western culture has invaded the world’s most virgin traditions and religions that tend to adhere to the principles of respecting nature and all it entails. Further, it is now clear that as technology as advanced, the environmental problems have risen making survival of other non-human living things hell on earth. This is because human beings tend to be more civilized than other living things hence; judgment on the merit of non-human is very poor. In most cases morals of judgment are purely based on deliberation, reasoning and accountability of living things whereby the human race takes an upper hand in brutally controlling the whole world.

In fact, right away from the start mankind has taken advantage of the inmate earthly resources and other non-human living things thus making nature to lose its value. As much as most philosophers and modern scholars are taking the forefront in improving the relationship between mankind and nature, it has been realized that the relationship is even becoming more unfriendly. This is because of the rise in technology and population of the human race. Finally, basing my discussion on chapter four of the essay research the essence of valuing nature in pages 159-184 briefly explains the rationale of mankind paying positive attributes to the natural environment.

In fact, nature serves as the mother of life and actually it is the life bearer of mankind. The inhuman treatment towards no-human should be minimized in order to avoid other species going to extinction. Always some of the environmentalists have employed policies facilitating the conservation of the environment and ensuring that the ethical values are adhered to with the help of religious leaders in curbing the deadly degradation of the natural biodiversity. There should be policies by environmental organizations to control human kind from going beyond the biodiversity’s wellbeing in terms of superiority but instead guide them on the positive moves and strategies to ensure all there available earth resources are protected and their survival looked upon. Interaction paradigms should be set in promoting the way people relate with nature by understanding the impacts that may be experienced upon human encroachment in natural ecosystems. Basically, nature should be handled with care because its impact upon destruction is very detrimental especially to humankind survival and the entire life processes that exist in the natural biodiversities.