chidiebereol_3327145_PHIL375_Assignment_2_Five_Journal_Entries_Name_Chidiebere_Emmanuel_Oleh
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Athabasca University, Athabasca *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
375
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by oleh1man
Name: Chidiebere Emmanuel Oleh
School: Athabasca University
Tutor: Wolfgang Blaine
Assignment: Two
Course: PHIL 375
Journal 1:
In the Article, Peter Singer argued that non-human animals have the same right not to suffer as
humans. In the article, he stated that to deny equal moral consideration to non-human animals is
a form of prejudice which he said is Speciesism. He argues that the capacity to suffer is the key
to determining our moral concern. The critical argument rests on ideas regarding non-
discrimination, equality, and scope of interest. He argues that it is unjust that we exclude non-
human animals from moral communities based on their species. He also presented that the desire
to avoid suffering and experience pleasure is not limited to humans but non-human animals.
Singer illustrated how the defenders of humans think prejudicially when selecting who should be
chosen in the moral community. The capacity for suffering and pleasure in non-human animals,
when recognized that, should be considered as human. He highlights the concept of interest,
which includes the desire to avoid suffering and stay alive, as the basis for moral consideration.
He further argues that the capacity for suffering is not unique to humans but also to non-human
animals.
Singer contends that this arbitrary exclusion of non-human animals from moral consideration is
unjust and inconsistent with equal respect for interests. By failing to extend similar ethical care
to non-human animals, we perpetuate a system where their interests are disregarded, and their
suffering goes unrecognized. This exclusion is not based on any inherent characteristic or trait
distinguishing humans from animals but on a biased and discriminatory belief system.
Journal 3:
Briefly characterize the dispute between White and Moncrief. What precisely is at issue?
How different are their ideas in fact? Begin to sketch your own views on the extent to which
Christianity is a root of the ecological crisis we face.
The dispute between White and Moncrief was around the role of religion in how Christianity has
contributed to and mitigated the ecological crisis. White argues that Christian doctrine
emphasizes that human is over nature and that they have a negative effect on the environment. At
the same time, Moncrief has a different view from White and argues that Christianity can provide
a bright and positive aspect or view on environmental supervision. Moncrief recognized that they
had been a situation where Christianity has been linked with environmental exploitation and
argued that this is not inherited from the Christian teachings.
"Stated that technology, urbanization, increasing individual wealth, and aggressive attitude
towards nature seem to be related to the environmental crisis, which Christianity tradition has
influenced the character of each of these forces. However, to isolate religious tradition as the
historical root of our ecological crisis" is a bold affirmation for which there is little historical
proof or support" (Moncrief,2002, p.511). In the Article, Moncrief advised that Christianity
tradition can be seen to promote ecological care.
From my own view, Christianity can be seen in a separate way by non-Christians, or Chrisitan
teaches itself. Looking at both arguments, I do understand their views and where they come from
with their perspective. Whites' argument showed that Christianity teachings could be used as the
basis for the exploitation of nature. Then this depends on how the person interprets the readings
by stating that the argument does not mean at all Christianity as a whole is responsible for the
ecological crisis. Like Moncrief stated that Soley blaming Christianity for the responsibility of
the ecosystem could not be proven, some interpretations of the scriptures or theology can
highlight that humans are more important than nature, which can be broken down as not caring
for the ecosystem. In the same theology, Christianity can be interpreted as a protector of our
ecosystem. Both scholars have different views on how Christianity has changed how humans
treat the ecosystem, while White attributes the ecological crisis to Christianity's emphasis on
human dominion over nature.
"Stated that our present science and our present technology are so tinctured with orthodox
Christian arrogance towards nature that no solution for our ecologic crisis can be expected from
them alone and the root of our problem is Soley on religion" (White,2002, p.1207).
Moncrief argues that Christian teaches have affected the environment indirectly, which can be
categorized from Christian tradition to Capitalism followed by Increased population to
Environmental desertion, and there is no proof that religion is only directly affecting our
ecosystem. In conclusion, while Christianity has been critiqued for its role in human exploitation
of nature and the ecological crisis, there are varying interpretations and applications of
Christianity that can either promote or inhibit ecological care and responsibility.
Reference:
W
hite, Lynn, Jr. 2002. The historical roots of our ecological crisis. In Environmental ethics:
Moncrief, Lewis W. 2002. The cultural basis of our environmental crisis. In Environmental
ethics: Readings in theory and application.
Journal 4:
How do you interpret Hughes' explanation of the more fundamental cause of the
environmental crisis? What is his solution? It is not straightforward, so be careful to
formulate his solution with some subtlety.
Hughes explains more about the fundamental causes of the environmental crisis. He believes that
a human community's relationship with the natural environment influences their knowledge and
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
understanding of nature's balance and structure and their use of technology. He identifies
animism, Judaism, Christianity, Greek, and Roma ideology as influencing the Western world. He
stated the fundamental cause of the environmental crisis is that human behavior is the leading
environmental problem we currently face. He noted that the human attitude toward nature was a
departure from the animism made by the Greek philosophers. Hughes suggests that this mindset
has allowed humans to prioritize their needs and desires at the planet's expense, leading to
extensive environmental degradation. Hughes' solution to this crisis is to understand better what
the natural environment will have and develop a diverse human community for people to come
together and see the necessity of caring for the earth in order to preserve life. He stated the
importance of technological abilities that human communities can use to minimize the
destructive impact of our civilization upon the natural environment and to enhance our
environment. It is to learn more from what humankind has experienced through interaction with
nature into the ecological relationship of past human societies.
Hughes, J. Donald. 1998. The ancient roots of our ecological crisis. In Environmental ethics:
Journal 6:
Try to map Aquinas's views onto the ancient Greek cosmology, the divided line and the
Ptolemaic conception of the universe. Once you do this, you will begin to see the
relationship to other animals and the environment as those of this culture and era saw it.
Try to identify the key concepts that Aquinas uses and compare them to those found in the
other readings.
In St. Thomas Aquinas' view, there is a clear distinction between humans and other creatures
based on their rationality. Aquinas argues that humans possess a unique capacity for reason,
which sets them apart from other creatures. This distinction is grounded in the belief that humans
have been endowed with a rational soul, allowing them to engage in intellectual and moral
pursuits. While other creatures are directed by their natural instincts, humans can use reason to
make choices and exercise free will. “He stated that to be a rational creature must have dominion
over its action and should be bestowed on it for its own sake” (Aquina,1993, p.278).
Aquinas views and their relation to ancient Greek cosmology, the divided line, and the Ptolemaic
conception of the universe, we can identify several key concepts that are present in both. Firstly,
he believed in the existence of a hierarchical order in the universe, with God at the highest level.
This concept aligns with the ancient Greek cosmology, where the universe was seen as an
ordered system with a divine hierarchy. Aquinas discussed the intellectual substance that they are
directed by the divine providence for their own sake, he sees intellectual and rationality as a
direct factor from the divine providence.
In summary, Aquina believes that human's responsibility is to care for the animals, and
environment. He sees humans above animals due to the lack of rationality that they here to serve
human. He refuted that the killing of animals is not sinful but provided by the God for us humans
to use them.
]
Journal 22:
Explain how the language of globalization serves the interests of large corporations and how
it allows the economic and decision-making powers to ignore the real sources of responsibility
for environmental degradation. How then is this used to impose a Northern perspective and
values onto developing nations and communities? Are you convinced by Shiva's argument?
.
The language of globalization has often been used to sever the interest of large corporations, and
they have neglected their responsibility for the environment. Large corporations often focus on
profitability over the environment, and globalization has been used to control developing
countries. Globalization has emerged as the principal weapon to facilitate the North's worldwide
access to natural resources and raw materials and enforce a global sharing for environmental
costs (Shiva,1993, p.154). Developing nations and communities are often pressured into
adopting the economic policies and practices dictated by powerful global corporations.
Globalization leads to exploiting raw materials and resources from local communities without
understanding or caring about the environment and its long-term effects. The language of
globalization also plays a role in environmental degradation. In moving industries from the south
to the North or from the developed to the underdeveloped countries, larger companies aim to
maximize profit for several reasons. The burden of a Northern perspective not only preserves the
unequal power dynamics between developed and developing nations but also disregards the local
communities' values and knowledge of their environment and sustainability.
Yes, I agree with Shiva's argument that globalization often benefits the interests of large
corporations and allows them to disregard their responsibilities for environmental degradation.
The Northern views and values of globalization undermine their ability to direct their
Environmental concern in a way that aligns with their culture.