Assignment One - Madysen Early - Phil 225
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Nebraska, Lincoln *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
225
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by PrivateZebraPerson217
Madysen Early
Environmental Ethics
Assignment One
Due: 09/21/2023
The ethical approach that seems the most correct to me is anthropocentric consequentialism. Consequentialism is focused on the idea that if an action, in any capacity, is good, then that action must also have good consequences. This approach is end or value based, and the definition of good is basic. What one ought to do is determined in terms of how one acts accordingly to a situation. So, do the “good” action and in turn, you are maximizing the moral good. The reason that I feel this approach is the closest to being “correct” is because every single action has a consequence. No matter the person/people involved or the situation, no matter how serious or insignificant an action is, there will always be a consequence either good, bad or neutral. Now because consequentialism puts an emphasis on doing the good action to get the good consequence, I feel that this would allow for the simplest evaluation of ethical dilemmas for humans. Additionally, I think that consequentialism works best for humans and our relationship dynamic. In other duty-based approaches (take deontology for example), one is expected to complete actions regardless of what the consequence is, because there are strict “rules” that are in place to eliminate the debate of deciding if an act is good or not. However, consequentialism views these rule-based variants as problematic. I would agree with this conclusion. With consequentialism, one is thinking about the consequences each act has and wanting them to be good, which means that intentions are taken into consideration. Each situation and circumstance is just as unique as the person/people involved in it. Therefore, it seems irrational to suggest we apply the same logic and rules to every circumstance and justify that as morally correct simply because we have completed a consistent duty.
Madysen Early
Environmental Ethics
Assignment One
Due: 09/21/2023
The ethical approach that seems the second closest to correct to me is virtue theory. Virtue theory is a character-based account of ethics. Virtue Theory suggests that the correct thing to do is simply the same thing that a virtuous person would do. This entails that with this approach, there are general rules that exist as truths for what is to be considered good, right or just. However, these rules do not constitute as determinates for deciding what is the good, right
or just thing to do, but rather they exist in the background of these decisions as rules of thumb to take into consideration. The only rule that should be applied without exception is that one should become a virtuous person first, then act. This approach is said to be closely aligned with happiness. This is because if one is to execute this approach, meaning that ethical dilemmas are handled by simply acting as a virtuous person would act, that would then place one in the position to be virtuous. With virtue theory, there is a balance that exists much more prominently than with other approaches (consider utilitarianism, where one is more focused on
the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, rather than doing the good thing, as it is good on its own). This balance serves as an equalizer between how we view ourselves and how we view others. If one is to view others as virtuous for their acts, then execute virtue theory by acting the same way as the others, then one can conclude that they are a virtuous person as well. The goal is to do the right or correct thing, and if you continue to do what you believe a virtuous person would do, then you have become a virtuous person.
Madysen Early
Environmental Ethics
Assignment One
Due: 09/21/2023
I believe that if you were to combine both consequentialism and virtue theory, you would have a new position that is coherent. Both approaches seem to avoid the strict implication of rules as a means of determining what the right or just thing for one to do is. Additionally, both approaches seem to be centered around the idea that situations and circumstances can vary, and there is no universal rule that will lead us to the most correct, just or right thing to do. Instead, these approaches join together to suggest that whether it is a virtuous person one uses as an example of correct behavior, or a correct consequence that one strives to accomplish, each circumstance is different. I also believe that these approaches share common ground when analyzing the mental and emotional impact that accompanies an ethical dilemma. Both approaches offer a straightforward and simultaneously compassionate process that can be applied to any situation, which I believe in turn will give one the maximum amount of mental clarity following an ethical dilemma. There is no need to weigh out what is just or not just, because with both of these approaches one has an example to follow. However, unlike other approaches that may offer a straightforward process, you may take the process and apply it to any and every circumstance. This eliminates the issue that I believe can occur with other approaches, that is, doing what is right simply to be consistent, but not feeling like it was right for the circumstance you applied it to.
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
Madysen Early
Environmental Ethics
Assignment One
Due: 09/21/2023
I believe that the most prominent implication for the moral treatment of the environment is that we as humans forget we are sharing the environment and all of its resources with all living things, not just other humans. I feel that often a lot of the justification we as humans use is that it will enhance our lives or the way we live, but we should always be keeping in mind the lives of those who are not human because this is their home as well. Another implication I feel is related to the moral treatment of the environment is that we are entirely responsible for the deterioration of the environment around us. We as a species have done so many, in my opinion, morally incorrect acts and those acts have resulted in many of the environmental issues we face now, such as climate change, air and water pollution, and habitat degradation.