Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Environmental ethics (Define the debate (Context (London (The great stink,…

- - - - The great stink
        
        Where the whole of London had a very bad smell due to there being a lot of garbage and sewage in the Thames river.
      - The great smog
        
        During winter times, where the pollutants led to a thick smog that covered the whole of London.
    - - In 1987 there was an international agreement that agreed to the ban of CFCs which harm the environment.
      - Paris agreement - an agreement to reduce carbon emissions
- - - - This would argue that everything except animals should be destroyed and it would not matter, but destroying animals as well in not the correct thing to do
    - - This would argue that all life, such as plants, animals, bacteria, ecosystems all should be preserved. This means that the last man is wrong in trying to get rid of all life just because humans are gone.
    - - This approach would argue that in the last man thought experiment, the last man is correct in what he is doing. This is as humans are the only ones that have intrinsic value, and so when they're gone the lives of everything else do not matter
    - - The only thing that has intrinsic value is ecosystems. This means that the last man is doing something wrong as he is not preserving ecosystems.
  - - - Genesis 1
        
        Humans are made 'in the image of God' Humans are to 'rule over the fish...birds...and every living creature that moves on the ground'
      - Genesis 2
        
        Animals are seen as human's 'companions'. This is the idea of stewardship.
    - - We should do what God commands.
      - Genesis 1 & 2 can be used in order to figure out what we should do
      - CRITICISMS
        
        1) Euthyphro dilemma
    - - Eschatology... is the belief of the end of time
      - John Shinks argues that the last book, Revelations, would reduce human responsibility for destroying the world. Furthermore, this is also good for Christians as it means that they will go to heaven at the end,
        
        His idea was that God already has a plan for humans and for the Earth, so we do not have to worry about preserving it as it is all a part of God's plan.
      - CRITICISM
        
        1) It is a literalistic view so this would mean that it has internal contradictions and scientific contradictions
        
        2) Even if we were to believe that there is a plan that God has, this does not stop the suffering that not preserving the environment will lead to. This is an issue as if we don't do anything, we won't die... but we will suffer a lot.
    - - Jesus' main teaching of 'love thy neighbour' could be used to figure out what we should do. It would probably tell us that we should try to preserve and save the natural world around us as we do not want our 'neighbours' to be harmed/suffering.
        
        CRITICISM
        
        This idea is at heart anthropocentric. This means that the natural world has intrinsic value. This means it is counter intuitive.
        
        A counter response to this would be the idea that animals are God's creatures. Not some sort of utility for humans. (Andrew Lindsay)
  - - - This is animal centred. This is as it is concerned with maximising the most amount of pleasure. Animals all feel pain and pleasure, meaning that they all have intrinsic value to a utilitarian.
      - CRITICISM
        
        Tyranny of the majority
    - - This is the idea that nature itself is intrinsically valuable.
      - Distinguished between deep ecology and shallow ecology.
        
        Shallow ecology - care for the environment for human benefit
        
        Deep ecology - caring for the environment for it's own sake.
    - - This is the idea that