This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The technical definition of environmental ethics, as we defined it in class and as found on other informational websites, says that it is the “moral relationship of humans to the environment and its nonhuman contents”. It is what we used as a guide for the use of natural resources and whether we recognize the natural environment as having instrumental or intrinsic value (Brennan and Lo, 2008). This area of ethic uses concepts from the entire field of philosophy including the areas of aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology, the philosophy of science, and social and political philosophy (“Environmental Ethics”, 1999). The need for a universal environmental ethic has been making itself apparent in numerous ways and many people are demanding for reform in the way humans view and use the natural world. In the late 1960s and early 1970s many publications warned of a “Population Bomb” that would causes a major environmental crisis. These articles called for a basic change in environmental values (Brennan and Lo, 2008). The “Tragedy of the Commons” is another publication warning of the dangers of continued anthropocentric view (Hardin, 1968). There are a vast number of examples of how antiquated attitudes about the environment have led to unforeseen and undesirable results. Lubchenco elaborates on some specific to the ocean environment which include crashes of important fisheries, habitat destruction, the appearance of “dead zones” with little or no oxygen, harmful algal blooms, bleaching of coral reefs, invasions of...
View Full Document
- Spring '08
- Natural environment, Instrumental value