Environmental Ethics (Conservation ethics/Shallow ecology (Their…
Conservation ethics/Shallow ecology
Basically saying anything that is not humans are not important but is useful for achieving something (a tool for humans)
"A means to an end"
Does not matter whether or not the environment is being damaged, as long as it benefits humans it is fine. Due to the idea that if humans are part of natural creation, then anything that has been environmentally disrupted by humans are still part of the natural process.
Humans shoulld not be responsible for extinctions of species as this is a part of a natural process of evolution
Raises a solid point that everything is part of a natural process
Could be linked with
where everything is determined through the basis of the start of creation of the universe.
Could argue that the extinction of species are due to its weakness and thus only the strong. useful ones who could adapt with the evolving world should survive.
The idea that species are allowed to be died out completely is not rational as there could possibly be benefits for certain species to survive for the sake of our own survival.e.g (disrupting food chain)
Key philosophers who agrees with this theory
Michael La Bossiere
(including Gaia hypothesis)
Important philosophers arguing for this theory
ways to evaluate each environmental perspective
Effects on future generations
Effects suffered by people directly as a result of pollution/damage to the environment
Effects related to non-animal eg Trees, flowers, plants
Effects suffered by animal species eg Building a Dam but destroying habitat of birds, apes, living species
Libertarian extension/deep ecology
promote the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs, plus a restructuring of modern human societies in accordance with such ideas.