Two contrasting views of the environment are offered–William F. Baxter and Holme

Question

Two contrasting views of the environment are offered–William F. Baxter and Holmes Ralston, III. The former offers an “anthropocentric” or human-centered view inferring that nature is “good” only because it benefits humans, while the latter argues for a “naturalistic” perspective that places value on nature independent of human interests. Argue for the better position in a modern business context and use more than one practical example to underscore your view (at least 500 word reply)

Please use the below part of the textbook to answer this question:

The value of nature

A more radical approach to environmental ethics goes beyond the question of our obligations to future generations. It challenges the human-centered approach adopted so far. Implicit in the discussion has been the assumption that preservation of the environment is good solely because it is good for human beings. This reflects a characteristic human attitude that nature has no intrinsic value, that it has value only because people value it. If human nature were different and none of us cared about the beauty of, say, the Grand canyon, then the Grand canyon would be without value.

Many writers on environmental issues do not recognize their anthropocentric, or human-oriented, bias. One who does is William F. Baxter. In discussing his approach to the pollution problem, Baxter mentions the fact that the use of DDt in food production is causing damage to the penguin population. He writes:

My criteria are oriented to people, not penguins. Damage to penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is, without more, simply irrelevant. . . . Penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk about rocks. . . . In short, my observations about environmental problems will be people-oriented. . . . I have no interest in pre- serving penguins for their own sake. . . .

I reject the proposition that we ought to respect the “balance of nature” or to “preserve the environment” unless the reason for doing so, express or implied, is the benefit of man.

contrast Baxter’s position with what holmes rolston III calls the naturalistic ethic. advocates of a naturalistic ethic contend, contrary to Baxter’s view, “that some natural objects, such as whooping cranes, are morally considerable in their own right, apart from human interests, or that some ecosystems, perhaps the Great Smokies, have intrinsic values, such as aesthetic beauty, from which we derive a duty to respect these landscapes.” human beings may value a mountain for a variety of reasons—because they can hike it, build ski lifts on it, mine the ore deep inside it, or simply because they like looking at it. According to a naturalistic ethic, however, the value of the mountain is more than a simple function of these human interests: Nature can have value in and of itself, apart from human beings.*

Proponents of a naturalistic ethic contend that we have a particularly strong obligation to preserve species from extinction. Many environmentalists share this moral conviction, and it’s easy to see why. According to some estimates, every year 3,000 animal and plant species disappear, and the rate of extinction is accelerating so rapidly that over the next hundred years or so the earth could lose half its species.83 Other scientists, however, believe these figures to be exaggerated.84 But regardless of the exact rate of extinction, do species have value above and beyond the individuals that make them up? Scientists have formally identified 1.8 million species (including, for example, 6,700 kinds of starfish, 12,000 species of earthworm, and 400,000 types of beetle), but there are probably 8.7 million species altogether (most of them animals). Species are always coming into and going out of existence.85 how valuable is this diversity of species, and how far are we morally required to go in maintaining it?

Adopting a naturalistic ethic would definitely alter our way of looking at nature and our understanding of our moral obligations to preserve and respect the natural environ- ment. Many philosophers, however, doubt that nature has intrinsic value or that we can be said to have moral duties to nature. Having interests is a precondition, they contend, of something’s having rights or of our having moral duties to that thing. Natural objects, however, have no interests. Can a rock meaningfully be said to have an interest in not being eroded or in not being smashed into smaller pieces?

Of course, plants and trees are different from rocks and streams: they are alive; we can talk intelligibly about what is good or bad for a tree, plant, or vegetable; and they can flourish or do poorly. Even so, philosophers who discuss moral rights generally hold that this is not enough for plants to be said to have rights. To have rights, a thing must have genuine interests, and to have interests, most theorists contend, a thing must have beliefs and desires. Vegetative life, however, lacks any cognitive awareness. Claims to the contrary are biologically unsupportable.

Even if the plant world lacks rights, can it still have intrinsic value? Can we still have a moral obligation to respect that world and not abuse it? Or are the only morally relevant values the various interests of human beings and other sentient creatures? These are difficult questions. Among philosophers there is no consensus on how to answer them.

Explanation / Answer

As mentioned in the above text, human being has been born in mother nature and is reaping all necessary things to survive from nature.

In past 100 years or so, the industrial activity and other commercial activity, which is in interest of human have increased rapidly.

It had a very adverse effect on the nature cycle and balance of mother nature.

Many species of animal and plants have become extinct and many are at the verge of being extinct.

Many anthropologist and social activist have come forward and explained the situation. They have given alarm to the human activity that is having negative effect on the nature, both plants and animals.

But their discussion and argument is centered towards human only. They value the natural species that are useful to the human beings.

At the basis of every discussion they give prime importance and value to the humans and current and future human needs.

This philosophy is not correct as it places human at the center stage.

Nature has its own existence and human is just a part of it.

It makes no sense to give prime importance and think human at the center of whole world.

There are many species which might not be useful to the human or human have yet not found it importance as per his current need, but are very important for the nature and its balance.

The nature is not designed to cater to only human needs. Nature is very complex system where one natural phenomenon depends on the other.

smallest of the natural activity has its own importance of its own.

Thus its a high time to make fundamental change in the human mentality and change the perspective to see the nature.

Our activities must be inclined in such a way that it do not disturb the nature's course of activities and all the species can co-exist.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.