Something that stood out to me while reading Hopkins & Mckeown's (2000) Education for sustainable development: an international perspective that I related to a previous ethics course.
There are generally two ways of viewing the environment.
a utilitarian anthropocentric view
&
an intrinsically valued ecocentric view
Both have historical roots and are fine in their own right.
Extremists, however, can be repelling and can sometimes extremely counter-productive in sustainability measure.
Although there are complications for the two to consolidate their views, realistically most people are not extremists and can, with dedication and time, come to an understanding. Rationally both sides may see that the lifestyles of the contemporary world cannot maintain human life and its supporting systems because they are simply unsustainable, but also that people value life (like any species) and quality lifestyles (at least basic needs and happiness).
There are various approaches to an argument that can show importance of humans and nature to anthropocentric and ecocentric moral bases.
For instance:
In order to convince an anthropocentric moral base of the importance of nature one needs to highlight its' crucial role in sustaining and bettering human life.
In order to convince an ecocentric moral base of the importance of humanity one needs to highlight its role to appreciate and admire the intrinsic value of ecology. Also, one could point out that human species are also a part of nature, thus, having the same intrinsic value and right to life as Earth's creatures.
To do this it is necessary to be able to appeal to private morality rather than
public morality, because the later is ridden with superficial layers supporting subconscious social constructs and the true manifestos of patrons. The private morality strikes the very core of any human being because it addresses uninhibited basic values, such as the desire of a happy, healthy life for oneself and loved ones, and the conscious wrong in damaging what is not ones own, stealing, and killing.
In an ideal world the appropriate setting to access private morality would be easily accessible, there would be educators with infinite time and dedication to consolidate everyones values, and everyone would have infinite time and dedication to listen, collaborate, and learn.
Right now this seems so far from reality, but only because the system that socio-economic factors are constrained to does not encourage sustainable development (SD). A system in which SD would flourish would symbiotically be supported by emitting embedded values of sustainability and being surrounded by them.
Alternative to creating a new system, option two is to be faced with the ramifications of our tragedy of the commons. We have reached the peak of this global dilemma where shared limited resources are becoming unintentionally destroyed and depleted because of multiple individuals having acted independently while rationally consulting only their own self interest. In this future human existence is grim. Neither the ecocentric nor anthropocentric moral based views would likely dominate, because there would be more important worries of survival on hand.
___Cite___
There are generally two ways of viewing the environment.
a utilitarian anthropocentric view
- The natural environment is rightfully used by mankind and has no value otherwise.
- It prioritizes "sustainable economic growth"
- It emphasizes technological and economic tools in shifting individual, group and industry activities towards a more sustainable path of economic development.
- The Brundtland Report (WCED, 1987) is an example of this because it does not "support transformation of current social or economic system (Tillbury & Fein 2000 pg.3)."
- Reinforces our tendencies towards a more efficient globalized technological use and continuation along our present path of development.
&
an intrinsically valued ecocentric view
- The natural environment is has an intrinsic value that human beings should respect.
- It prioritizes "sustainable human development" to thrive with the Earth.
- It provokes fundamental challenges to established interests, by questioning unlimited economic growth because it focuses on issues of social equity and ecological limits.
- Beyond the Limits: Global Collapse of a Sustainable Future (Meadows et al 1992) is an example of this because it demands radical departures from our current system.
- Requires a rejuvenation of civic culture and the rise of an ecologically literate &competent citizenry who understand global issues.
Both have historical roots and are fine in their own right.
Extremists, however, can be repelling and can sometimes extremely counter-productive in sustainability measure.
An example of an extreme utilitarian/anthropogenic
view by Milton Friedman.
An example extreme ecocentric views from Earth First.
Although there are complications for the two to consolidate their views, realistically most people are not extremists and can, with dedication and time, come to an understanding. Rationally both sides may see that the lifestyles of the contemporary world cannot maintain human life and its supporting systems because they are simply unsustainable, but also that people value life (like any species) and quality lifestyles (at least basic needs and happiness).
There are various approaches to an argument that can show importance of humans and nature to anthropocentric and ecocentric moral bases.
For instance:
In order to convince an anthropocentric moral base of the importance of nature one needs to highlight its' crucial role in sustaining and bettering human life.
In order to convince an ecocentric moral base of the importance of humanity one needs to highlight its role to appreciate and admire the intrinsic value of ecology. Also, one could point out that human species are also a part of nature, thus, having the same intrinsic value and right to life as Earth's creatures.
To do this it is necessary to be able to appeal to private morality rather than
public morality, because the later is ridden with superficial layers supporting subconscious social constructs and the true manifestos of patrons. The private morality strikes the very core of any human being because it addresses uninhibited basic values, such as the desire of a happy, healthy life for oneself and loved ones, and the conscious wrong in damaging what is not ones own, stealing, and killing.
In an ideal world the appropriate setting to access private morality would be easily accessible, there would be educators with infinite time and dedication to consolidate everyones values, and everyone would have infinite time and dedication to listen, collaborate, and learn.
Right now this seems so far from reality, but only because the system that socio-economic factors are constrained to does not encourage sustainable development (SD). A system in which SD would flourish would symbiotically be supported by emitting embedded values of sustainability and being surrounded by them.
Alternative to creating a new system, option two is to be faced with the ramifications of our tragedy of the commons. We have reached the peak of this global dilemma where shared limited resources are becoming unintentionally destroyed and depleted because of multiple individuals having acted independently while rationally consulting only their own self interest. In this future human existence is grim. Neither the ecocentric nor anthropocentric moral based views would likely dominate, because there would be more important worries of survival on hand.
___Cite___
Tilbury, D. & Fien 2000, Education and Sustainability: Responding to a Global Challenge, IUCN Commission on Education and Communication
Hardin, G., 1968, 'The Tragedy of the Commons', Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859, pp. 1243 - 1248
Hopkins, C. & McKeown, R. 2000, 'Chapter 2, Ecucation for sustainable development: an international perspective', in Tilbury, D. & Fien Education and Sustainability: Responding to a Global Challenge, IUCN Commision on Education and Communication, pp.13-24
WCED, 1987, 'Our Common Future: Brundtland Report', UN Documents - Gathering a body of global agreements, 12/08/11, <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.html#I.3>
WCED, 1987, 'Our Common Future: Brundtland Report', UN Documents - Gathering a body of global agreements, 12/08/11, <http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-ov.html#I.3>
No comments:
Post a Comment