According to the book of Genesis, humans have been given ‘dominion’ over the natural world. This entails an attitude of benevolent stewardship on the part of Christians: God is the creator and therefore the ‘owner’ of everything that he has made. Human beings are therefore only looking after the world for him. Implicit in this view is that we should behave responsibly and attempt to preserve the environment for the benefit of ourselves and future generations. So, in theory, Christians would be supportive of the concept of sustainability, in the sense that they might recycle (which relates to waste management), and limit their carbon footprint in order to maintain the earth’s capability to support life. They might also support organisations like Greenpeace that oppose the dumping of toxic waste and plastic in the oceans.
However, the problem with this is that although most Christian churches endorse this type of stewardship, not all do. So-called ‘end timer’ Christians in the USA are depicted in Mark Dowd’s documentary ‘God is Green’ as readily indulging in practices like Mountaintop removal mining and justify doing so because they interpret the word ‘dominion’ to mean that the earth’s resources have been given to them by God to do with as they please. Additionally, they are unconcerned about sustainability because they believe that if fossil fuels are eventually used up and the natural world becomes degraded and polluted, this will hasten the second coming of Jesus.
This inconsistency is mirrored elsewhere in the Bible. For example, many animals die in the Flood (even if Noah’s Ark can be seen as an ancient attempt to ‘sustain’ some kind of animal population), Genesis 9 informs humans that ‘The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.’ This sounds like an instruction to terrorise animals. And even Jesus curses a fig tree causing it to wither in the New Testament.
So perhaps a secular approach might be more effective e.g. perhaps we should become ‘oikophiles’ who care about our local environment as recommended by Roger Scruton, or embrace the implications of Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis which sees the earth as a living organism that will eradicate us if we fail to treat it well. And with regard to waste management, perhaps we should adopt the attitude recommended by Slavoj Zizek. Instead of avoiding contact with all the garbage that we generate, Zizek argues that we should learn to love it, to not shy away from acknowledging it, rather in the manner that we come to accept the imperfections of a loved one.
2 Assess the weaknesses of religious approaches to environmental issues. (12) 2017 AS Q
2 Assess the credibility of the claim animal wealfare is not a signficant area of ethical concern. (12)
2 Assess the work of a signficant figure within the enviornmental movement (12)
INTRODUCTION: The principle of stewardship is at the heart of religious ethical approaches to conservation; humans have responsibility for taking care of what God has provided for their benefit (instrumentally good) and which is good in itself (intrinsically good). Non-religious ethical perspectives such as Deep Ecology or Gaia recognise the value of the natural world as worthy of respect and protection.
THESIS Religious and ethical perspectives can be both be useful in promoting stewardship of the natural world in a number of ways.
ARGUMENT Religious and ethical perspectives can provide a sense of moral obligation. Many religions teach that humans have a responsibility to care for the Earth and its creatures. Pope Francis, in Laudato Si' argues "The Earth is a gift from God, and we are called to be good stewards of it." meaning degradation of the environment is the responsibility of religious people who should work towards a vision of restoring the environment to the perfection it had at creation. Religious teaching can be a powerful motivator for people to take action to protect the environment. For example in the United States, the Quakers have a long history of environmental activism. They have been involved in a number of campaigns to protect forests, wildlife, and water resources. Further in India, the Chipko Movement is a grassroots movement that was started by women in the 1970s to protect trees from being cut down. The movement is based on the Hindu belief that trees are sacred. Lastly in the Philippines, the Church of England has been involved in a number of projects to help protect the environment. These projects include reforestation, sustainable agriculture, and waste management. Other religions develop environmental arguments for example Thich Nhat Hanh, in his The World We Have Lost and the World We Have Found says "We must learn to live in harmony with nature, not in conflict with it.". and Rabbi Michael Lerner, in his The Covenant of the Earth says "The environment is a sacred trust, and we have a moral obligation to protect it.".Similarly secular ethical approaches such as James Lovelock's, in his Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth say "We are all part of one interconnected web of life, and we have a responsibility to care for each other and for the planet." Moreover Arne Naess, in his "The Ecology of Wisdom" (1989) says "The deepest values are those that concern the total well-being of the Earth and all its inhabitants." -
COUNTER ARGUMENT: Of course, religious and ethical perspectives are not always consistent with each other. For example, some religions teach that humans have dominion over the Earth, while others teach that humans are stewards of the Earth. These different perspectives can lead to different approaches to environmental stewardship. Religious approaches to environmental issues may appear to be archaic and therefore fail to take into account paradigm shifts in understanding of the environment. Lynn White Jr.'s, in his "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis": argues that "The roots of our ecologic crisis are so deeply buried in history and in our cultural traditions that we cannot even see them without great effort." and that "The Judeo-Christian tradition has not only assumed man's right to dominate nature but has taught that nature is subordinate to man's purposes. Nature, in the Judeo-Christian view, is fallen and sinful." For white it is "The Christian dogma of man's limitless control over nature, which has encouraged technological development for centuries, is no longer adequate to the realities of the ecologic crisis." Moreover religious approaches draw on sacred texts, however some feel these need to be interpreted relevantly in the modern world, in the light of changing cultural differences as Lynn White Jr.'s argues "We must learn to live with nature, in nature, not as conquerors and exploiters, but as members and fellow workers." Further Rapture Theology can lead to a sense of apathy about environmental problems. If Christians believe that they will be taken up to heaven before the Earth is destroyed, they may be less motivated to take action to address climate change, pollution, and other environmental problems. John Frame, Systematic Theology (2013) says "The Rapture is a wonderful event for Christians, but it could have a negative impact on the environment. If all the Christians are taken up to heaven, who will be left to care for the Earth?" and David Orr, Earth in Mind (2004) says "We need to be careful not to use the Rapture as an excuse to neglect our environmental responsibilities. We are called to care for the Earth, whether or not we believe in the Rapture." -
Yet White argues that Secular ethical perspectives are also at fault as "The central fact about the ecologic crisis is the fact of man-made devastation of the environment. This devastation is not the result of overpopulation as such; but of the impact of an industrial civilization on a finite world." Moreover Secular ethical approaches may be unrealistic because they demand too much of humanity to lay aside economic and technological advances in favour of protecting the environment for its own sake. Sagoff, Mark. The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press, 1988 argues "The problem of environmental ethics is that it requires us to make a choice between two goods: economic development and environmental protection. These two goods are often in conflict, and it is difficult to know how to balance them." and Paul. Wapner, in his Environmental Ethics and International Relations. argues that "The environmental movement has been criticized for being unrealistic in its demands. Critics argue that it is impossible to expect people to give up their cars, their homes, and their lifestyles in order to protect the environment.". Thus secular ethics struggles with the need to balance the needs of the environment with the needs of human beings, the difficulty of convincing people to change their lifestyles in order to protect the environment amd the fact that environmental problems are often global in scope, making it difficult to find solutions that will be acceptable to all nations.
COUNTER COUNTER ARGUMENT ARGUMENT However, religious approaches to the environment may encourage humans to conserve the environment because it is seen as a creation ordinance and a duty to be done in obedience to God, whilst secular ethical approaches encourage a recognition of the interdependence of humanity and the natural world. The Jewish view is based on the Torah which says "The Earth is the Lord's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it." (Psalm 24:1) and that "God has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart, yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end." (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and Christians read Paul who uses metaphors of God good creation when he said "We are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building." (1 Corinthians 3:9). Further secular ethical perspectives also can and do provide a framework for decision-making. Arne Naess, in his "The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Overview" (1990) argues "We must learn to see ourselves as part of nature, not apart from it." and that "We need a new ethic, a new religion, a new way of living in harmony with nature." (Arne Naess, "Life's Philosophy: An Introduction to the Deep Ecology Movement" (1995)). When faced with choices about how to use the Earth's resources, religious and ethical principles can help us to weigh the costs and benefits of different options as they can help to build community. When people share a common belief in the importance of stewardship, they are more likely to work together to protect the environment.
CONCLUSION Despite these differences, religious and ethical perspectives can play an important role in promoting stewardship of the natural world. By providing a sense of moral obligation, a framework for decision-making, and a way to build community, religious and ethical perspectives can help us to live more sustainably and protect the Earth for future generations. Examples of how religious and ethical perspectives can be used to promote stewardship of the natural world show that by working together, people of all faiths and none can make a difference in protecting our planet for future generations.
References
Frame, John. (2013) Systematic Theology. Zondervan.
White, Lynn Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science 155.3766 (1967): 1203-1207.
Pope Francis, Laudato Si': On Care for Our Common Home (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2015).
Thich Nhat Hanh, The World We Have Lost and the World We Have Found (New York: HarperCollins, 1991).
Rabbi Michael Lerner, The Covenant of the Earth: A Spiritual Declaration of Interdependence (Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books, 2006).
James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).
Naess, Arne. "The Ecology of Wisdom." Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1989.
Naess, Arne. "Life's Philosophy: An Introduction to the Deep Ecology Movement." Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Naess, Arne. "The Deep Ecology Movement: An Introductory Overview." In Deep Ecology for the 21st Century, edited by George Sessions, 25-41. Boston: Shambhala, 1990
Sagoff, Mark. (1988) The Economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press.
Wapner, Paul. (1996) Environmental Ethics and International Relations. Routledge.
Orr, David W. ( 2004) Earth in Mind: On the Crisis to Our Planet and Our Role in Healing It. Oxford University Press,.
Climate change is the rise in average surface temperature on Earth due to the release of greenhouse gases into the air. Arne Naees developed the term deep ecology, the approach that values the environment for its own sake, states that the environment should be preserved regardless of its benefits for humanity. Deep ecologists work to improve the climate against global warming, as it was influenced by the ideas Gandhi, with the core belief being ‘the preservation of the integrity of the biosphere’. Therefore, their approach to climate change would be of one that recognises the dangers of climate change and finding ways to prevent further global warming. Deep ecology is strengthened by the popularity of the movement, and the fact that it has led to real and pragmatic solutions to climate change and changes in government policy, such as the successful campaigns against power plants in Norway. However, this strength is weakened because, taken to the extreme, deep ecology could lead to the destruction of humanity – Luc Ferry, a French scholar, called this eco-fascism. Nevertheless, this weakness is hyperbolic, so the strength of deep ecology being popular and practical is a good one. Furthermore, many people will argue that is virtuous and selfless to not see humans as more important than the rest of nature, so that the emission of greenhouse gases for human selfishness is prevented and discouraged. Though, rather than being eco-centric, deep ecology is arguable misanthropic, human-hating, and discourages a growing population by restricting the resources humans can use for the sake of the environment. Still, deep ecologists would argue that, by decreasing the population, the value of each individual increases, so the fact that the approach isn’t very anthropocentric is a credible strength. Moreover, it is clear that treating the environment as if it were intrinsically valuable will be beneficial to all of nature, as climate change effects all sects of the environment and issues pertaining to it. Yet, Peter Singer argues that it is only justifiable to give intrinsic value to sentient life forms, as plants and other organisms can’t be said to flourish or have human experience, so fighting climate change has no value in and of itself. Therefore, the beneficial nature of giving the environment intrinsic value cannot be a credible strength because, for something to have rights, it must have reasons for existence – do plants have their own reason for existence? Even so, deep ecology is a strong approach to climate change, as it has shown pragmatic solutions to global warming, and presents practical and beneficial ways in which humanity can tackle the issue of climate change.