Environmental Ethics And Pollution

Mai Ngai’s book, Impossible Subjects, powerfully studies the unfortunately understudied period between 1924 and 1965, the lifespan of the national origins quota system. This era begins with the passage of the Johnson-Reed Immigration Act in 1924 and ends with the lifting of national origins quotas through the passage of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. The era from 1924 to 1965 remapped the nation by developing both a particular racial and ethnic identity and a "new sense of territoriality" (Ngai p.3). This period demonstrates the most widespread immigration restriction in U.S. history that literally "remapped the nation" (Ngai p.3). Ngai argues that widespread immigration exclusion created an intensified sense of national borders as well as increased security on those boarders. This helped produce what is now defined as the illegal alien (Ngai). Impossible Subjects primarily concentrates on immigrants categorized as illegal aliens, alien citizens, colonial subjects, and contract laborers. Because these are immigrants whose experiences are not greatly represented in our national narrative, the regulations that have governed them have never greatly been exposed, resulting in a collective oblivion within United States history. Ngai turns her research to important analytical use. Ngai’s most interesting lines of argument lie within her analysis of the creation of illegal immigration from Mexico and her analysis of Japanese internment during World War II.

Growing up in Switzerland and Oregon, I learned that nature is greatly valued and it is necessary to respect the environment to prevent impending environmental collapse. Living in a society whose morals and ethics include

Anthropocentrism are people who have centered view of our relationship with the environment. People who follow this ethic are described as those who deny, or overlook and devalues the notion of nonhuman things. Biocentrism is defined as intrinsic value to certain living things or to biotic realm in general. In this life the human life and nonhuman life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems which consists of living and nonliving elements and their interrelationships (Wihgottt & Laposata, Environment, page

William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the

In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.

While environmental questions are frequently channeled through practical and economic prisms, it is also appropriate to consider our econolgy as a function of morality. The ethical dilemmas which contribute to our policies and our behaviors regarding the use of fossil fuels and our attention to global climate change are frequently overshadowed by more immediate concerns of survival or mere comfort.

In the paper “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal pollution” written by William F. Baxter, Mr. Baxter says that usually what benefits us sometimes also benefits our environment. He says that in a serious outreach to eliminate pollution or to do something, questioning your objective does not support the action you want to take. When someone proposes a solution or something that they want to accomplish it is not educated of us to question their resolution, and amongst everyone it is viewed as imprudent commit such an action. Not everyone comes up with the same ideas, so most of the time there will be conflicts when we are debating over possible solutions. These conflicts inhibit the ideas of each person involved.

"Save the Planet," "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," "Go Green." Quotes like these have become a commonality in today's age. We all are familiar with the large efforts to help preserve the environment. In "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments," Thomas E. Hill Jr. sums up his essay by stating, "The point is not to insinuate that all anti-environmentalists are defective, but to see that those who value such traits as humility, gratitude, and sensitivity to others have reason to promote the love of nature" (688; par. 4) This excerpt provides the thesis behind Hill's argument. The author found that

DesJardins, J. R. (2013). Environmental ethics: An introduction to environmental philosophy (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Baxter's anthropocentric approach clearly states that our obligations regarding the environment are to be determined solely on the basis of human interests. Our welfare depends on breathable air, drinkable water and edible food. Thus, polluting the environment to the extent that it damages the air, water and land is unacceptable

The world consists of many opposing views on how the world should function and how to best interact with it. The first points describes different environmental worldviews and the second point describes the importance of resource conservation.

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

To keep our environment healthy, all these element need to work together. There are no global laws protecting the environment and that is why everyone should practice good ethics when it comes to the environment. Environmental ethics is the part of environment philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from only including hum and to non-humans. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. Humans are been considered of rational agents because they have clear preference, models uncertainty via expected values, and always to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome of itself. The action of the rational agent performs depends on the

These perspectives are anthropocentric or human centered and view all non-human life as less important than humans themselves. Environmental ethics challenges these beliefs by questioning the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on earth (SEP, 2008). Preservation of the environment is essential to the preservation of the human race.

Despite what mankind would like to believe, humans are animals. As multi-celled organisms, we consume other organic matter, change the land for own uses as a beaver would build a dam, and as other mammals, we are all fed breast milk from our mothers when we were young. Yet there is this disconnection and alienation of the human race towards other species. Moreover, through fear of taking action, the convenience provided to us if we simply choose to ignore the environment, and the alienation of other species that are endangered by our actions, the hostile and uncaring attitude of humans towards nature is the core reason for many of the problems in our environment today.