Natural Moral Law Situation Ethics Virtue Ethics Animal Rights Euthanasia Abortion Embryo Research Environment Equality
James Lovelock: (1919 -2022)
Arne Naess (1912-2009)
Aristotle (384BC – 322BC)
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225CE – 1274CE)
Joseph Fletcher (1905CE – 1991CE)
Peter Singer (1946-)
Arne Naess (1989) [1976]. Ecology, Community and Lifestyle: Outline of an Ecosophy. (1973). and the article "The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement: a summary"
James Lovelock J (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth
Applied Ethics by Peter Singer
A Companion to Applied Ethics by R.G. Frey
Andrew Linzey Animal Rights: A Christian Perspective (London: SCM Press, 1976)
Aldo Leopold Think like a mountain
Anderson
Lynn White The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis" at the Washington meeting of the AAAS, that was later published in the journal Science.
Environmental ethics refers to the responsibilities that we have to the planet and the rights of non-humans
There are a number of different groups that campaign for environmental ethical issues.
Conservationists are interested in preserving the planet and for the benefit of future human generations.
Libertarian Extensionists believe that animals and the natural world deserve rights like humans
Traditionally Christians do not believe that animals have rights but they do believe in environmentalism and protecting animals. This is because they believe God created the world carefully and gave humans dominion over it and responsibility to look after it.
There are a number of passages in the Bible that support ideas around stewardship:
EXAMPLE: “And God looked at everything he made and saw it was good” (Genesis 1)
EXAMPLE: “God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (Genesis 2)
EXAMPLE: “The earth is the Lords, and everything in it” (Psalm 24)
EXAMPLE: “The land is mine… you are my tenants” (Leviticus 25)
Natural Moral Law can be interpreted in a number of ways but is likely to argue that although animals do not have rights and neither does the environment, humans still have a responsibility to look after the world.
This is because it could be argued that one of the Primary Precepts is to “Serve God” and since God created the world and commanded mankind to look after it, we therefore have a purpose to act as stewards.
For this reason, Natural Moral Law would be closest to the Conservationist position and argue that we must preserve God’s work for future humans.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
Natural Law is very clear that we should look after the environment but the doctrine of double effect can be used to make exceptions.
EXAMPLE: Animal experimentation could be justified under the Doctrine of Double Effect.
Natural Law is relies too heavily on the existence of God.
The main argument for natural law is that God gave everyone a purpose.
However, if there is no God, then Natural law struggles to argue that ‘to serve God’ is a primary precept.Natural Law is relies too heavily on the existence of God.
The main argument for natural law is that God gave everyone a purpose.
However, if there is no God, then Natural law struggles to argue that ‘to serve God’ is a primary precept.
Situation Ethics is more complicated. It is based on the principle of agape but as a relativist theory, the context of the situation changes what is considered right.
Although agape could be applied to animals and therefore give them rights, it is more likely that a situation ethicist would argue that people should be put first.
Therefore, if a situation involves experimenting on an animal to save humans (such as testing medicines), they would likely argue this is a loving act and morally acceptable.
It does promote environmentalism and animals rights within reason
Many feel that Situation Ethics recognises that the environment is important as are animals rights
However, by being relativist, it also recognises that there are times when we must use the environment and animals in ways to save human lives.
Legislation would be problematic
One problem for situation ethics is legislation because Situation Ethics ignores rules when needed
Therefore even if they did legislate against to look after the environment and animals a, a situation ethicist would say that you should ignore the law if love requires.
The Golden Mean seems useful in environmentalism
Aristotle argues that a virtue lies between two vices
Our use of planet could be seen as similar with you arguing it is virtuous to use the environment for what we need but not use more than we need.
The Golden Mean seems useful in environmentalism
Aristotle argues that a virtue lies between two vices
Our use of planet could be seen as similar with you arguing it is virtuous to use the environment for what we need but not use more than we need.
Virtues can be unclear
Virtue Ethics could have conflicting virtues about issues such as animal experimentation and gives no way of resolving these.
The greatest good for the greatest number.
Use the environment for the development of humans.
But, you must think about the humans that will inhabit the earth after you.
Objective moral values and Categorical Imperatives.
Cannot use the environment for as it is morally wrong.
2nd CI concerned with humans not animals.
Deontology can lead to a deep rather than shallow ecological approach is helping thr environment could be a deontological duty.
Its not intuitivly apparent that helping the world (biocentric) is more important than people (Ego-centric view)
Bowie, R. Ethical Studies
Vardy, Peter and Charlotte. Ethics Matters(2013)
Pope Francis- Laudato Si
Attfield Robin, Environmental Ethics: A Very Short Introduction
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-environmental/
https://religious-studies.simplerosites.com/courses/18407/lessons/254907
Panpsycast podcast-
https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode75-p1
https://thepanpsycast.com/panpsycast2/episode75-p2