Milestone 4 cont'd.
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
363
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by MinisterSardine3121
Drawing conclusions about the ethical theories applied, environmental justice and deep ecology, involves considering their strengths, weaknesses, and suitability for assessing the moral harms and wrongdoings of the 2019 Amazon wildfires. Here are some conclusions that can be drawn:
1. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses: Environmental justice theory brings attention to social inequalities, power dynamics, and procedural fairness, while deep ecology theory emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature, ecological interconnections, and long-term sustainability. Both theories offer valuable insights into the moral dimensions of the wildfires but
have limitations in addressing certain aspects.
2. No theory is inherently superior: It is challenging to determine the superiority of one theory over the other, as their approaches and perspectives differ. Environmental justice theory focuses more on social equity and inclusivity, while deep ecology theory emphasizes the ecological interdependencies and intrinsic value of nature. The superiority of a theory may depend on the specific context and the ethical priorities one emphasizes.
3. Integration can provide a more comprehensive analysis: Integrating multiple ethical theories, such as environmental justice and deep ecology, can provide a more holistic understanding of the
moral harms and wrongdoings of the wildfires. By combining different perspectives, a more comprehensive analysis can be achieved, addressing both social injustices and ecological considerations.
4. The choice of theory depends on the event and desired focus: The suitability of a theory for application to a specific event, like the 2019 Amazon wildfires, depends on the desired focus and
the particular aspects to be assessed. Environmental justice theory is well-suited for analyzing social injustices, power dynamics, and disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities. Deep ecology theory offers insights into the intrinsic value of nature, ecological interconnections, and long-term sustainability. The choice of theory depends on the specific questions and concerns under examination.
In conclusion, neither theory is inherently superior, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. The choice of theory or the integration of multiple theories depends on the specific event, the desired focus, and the ethical considerations being addressed. By considering the
unique insights of each theory and their limitations, a more comprehensive analysis of the moral dimensions of the 2019 Amazon wildfires can be achieved.
Environmental justice theory highlights the disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities whereas deep ecology theory emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature and the interconnectedness of all beings. In terms of the moral harms and wrongdoings of the 2019 Amazon wildfires, both environmental justice and deep ecology perspectives contribute valuable insights. Environmental
justice theory highlights the disproportionate impacts on marginalized communities and the need for equitable distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Deep Ecology theory emphasizes the intrinsic value of nature and the interconnectedness of all beings, shedding light on the broader ecological implications of the fires.
Deep Ecology may provide a more holistic and ecologically grounded understanding of the moral wrongdoing and harm caused by the fires, highlighting the destruction of ecosystems and the intrinsic value of the rainforest.
•
“In this action, the plaintiffs contended that the current deforestation rates and their destructive consequences were violating their future right to a healthy environment. They further submitted that climate change is and (more importantly) will continue to be a direct threat to their fundamental rights to life, health, food and water, which would continue to diminish due to the damage that is likely to occur and the effects of business-
as-usual activities in the near future.” (Pelizzon, 2020) The presiding judge, Justice Tolosa ruled in the plaintiff’s favor and stated, “Our community is much wider and more diverse than what we used to think. Earth does not belong to human beings. On the contrary, human beings are the ones who belong to the Earth.”
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