Pollution and Environment Essay - Man Has No Responsibility to the Envi

Man Has No Responsibility to the Environment Since the 1960s, questions concerning surroundingsal clean-livingity substantiate loomed large in the public aw beness. At the heart of solely of these questions is one single issue that has caused confusion among many people conglomerate in this controversy. There has been much debate on this issue, but itty-bitty has been fruitful, and this can in part be blamed on the item that the debate is of a grouchyly low quality. Much of it has been of the name-calling, conclusion-with-no-justification-spewing variety. The central riddle with the environmental debate is that the debaters engaged in attempting to provide solutions to these issues do not agree on the human beingsitys tramp in the natural order. Rather than transaction with this core issue, however, the debaters debate only on incidental issues which proceed promptly from the central problem. This central question is How shall we relate to, or deal with, the environment ? Environmentalists frequently answer that we should, in nigh sense, live in consent with nature, or respect the rights of natural beings, such as trees, birds, mountains, and rivers. In this essay, I present an opposing rack I propose that there are no moral obligations which direct how humans should deal with the environment, because the concept human is an arbitrary class with no real meaning. The problem with this environmentalist viewpoint is that the presupposition that there is some radical difference between humans and different animals is inherent in the position. Environmentalists suppose that there is something that puts us in a privileged position compared to the rest of nature. In fact, there is not. Humans have the same drives as other animals. In this respect, a... ...definition of liberality have to do with how good-will should relate to the environment? The answer is that there is no particular set of rules that humanity should follow in relating to the env ironment. Certainly, there are some things that would be good for humanity, and other things that would be bad, depending upon how you define these concepts of good, bad, and humanity. And certainly, some things would be better for the ecosystem than others, depending upon how you define the good of the ecosystem. But it is impossible to argue that humanity should be responsible for shepherding the ecosystem, or for staying in a certain place in the ecosystem, because there is no natural and proper place for humanity -- humanity is an illusion, an arbitrary group of animals. There are no moral considerations that apply to humanity as a whole.