About Environmental Ethics

What would be needed to create it?:

Consequences of modifying nature must be set up to make us think about what benefits and losses will our actions bring to us.

 

What would we have to believe about the environment? How should we see it?

We should believe that it has actual emotion, or rather, treating it as a neighbor, with a life, surrounding us at every corner.

 

How would we act? – give scenarios

For example, a place vibrant with high amounts of fossil fuels discovered, but it’s in the middle of a forest. People can set up a mining facility to extract the contents, but doing so will destroy most of the forest and the habitats the animals of the forest lives. To consequentialists, they might think about what choices bring humans the most benefits. To deontologists, they’ll think about if modifying the forest breaks the rules of nature. To virtue ethicists, they’ll think about what they needed most and if it hurts other creatures’ feelings, assuming they have.

 

What would be different about the world if everyone adopted this ethic of care towards the environment? Benefits and drawbacks?

If that were to happen, then climate problems wouldn’t be as severe as now. Also, endangered animals will have better chances of survival than to go extinct, because we’re protecting them. But then we would have lesser resources to building structures and manufacturing goods, such as paper.

 

Should we adopt an ethic of care towards the environment?

Depends on how an individual thinks about it. If executing the action brings more loss than benefits, e.g., making a particular animal/plant species extinct, then we should exercise care towards the environment. Or ditch the ethics of care if doing so brings humanity to a greater good, like new medical achievements.