An approach to environmental ethics using kants principle

How Would Kant Approach This? Bowen Jul 15, The philosopher Immanuel Kant developed a rational approach to ethical decision making that can help guide healthcare leaders as they find themselves struggling to respond in a changing marketplace. A hypothetical hospital is considering closing a service line that is having trouble meeting budgeted revenues due to low volumes and difficulty recruiting needed physicians.

An approach to environmental ethics using kants principle

The differences between them lie in their individual definitions of moral categories. Our welfare depends on breathable air, drinkable water and edible food.

Thus, polluting the environment to the extent that it damages the air, water and land is unacceptable because it damages public welfare. Animals and plants are considered non-rational beings and are therefore not considered in the same moral category as humans.

However, Baxter does not approve of mass destruction of these objects because people do depend on them in many ways and they should be preserved to the degree that humans depend on them.

With this view, the moral category includes all sentient beings, not just human beings. Rollins believes that any being possessing an awareness of the senses that does not involve thought or perception has intrinsic value and is an end-in-themselves.

He contends that animal interests must also be considered when determining our environmental obligations. Thus, we might have a moral obligation to preserve some natural habitat that is of no value to human beings if its destruction would harm some non-human beings.

His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology.

These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes. Autonomy and liberty have almost the same definitions and I believe that both Nielson and Hospers were trying to convey the same point, but at the same time have different views of the two shown by the context they used them in.

The difference can be seen clearly by using the employee example. Nielson claims that workers have the right to do what they want and Hospers declares that they have the privilege to work and the owners have the final say about what the workers do.

Hence, in the eyes of these two authors, autonomy is inherent whereas liberty is earned. The idea of freedom and liberty seem to embody the same principal. These are three rights society has that should not be able to be taken away. Government laws for society can be classified into three categories.

They feel that this is a paternalistic law and all people should assume responsibility for themselves.

Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Approach to Environmental Ethics - PhilPapers

Libertarians also reject the third law because no one in society should be forced to help another. According to Libertarians the second law is the only law that should exist. If these fundamental requirements for life are not met, then higher level needs seem almost to be luxuries and unimportant.

Huge armies and advanced warfare technology are only the tip of the iceberg when describing national security. All nations need to work together and help each other to achieve an equality of the most fundamental human rights for life, which should eventually lead to economic development and stability.

With such a concerted effort, the security of our nation and, in fact, the world could be a reality. Allowing developing nations to starve to death is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Garret Hardin is opposed to the creation of a World Food Bank, labeling it the new commons.

It is certain that there would be nothing to protect the commons if it is used by all of society. He feels that each organization should be responsible for its own well being. He goes on to say that some may endure suffering but they will learn from these experiences.

A wise country should save production in good years to be used in those less plentiful. However, the majority of governments do not attempt this and they will suffer. With a food bank, these countries will never be motivated to take on responsibility because others will bail them out whenever they are in trouble.

The dependence that is obtained from the bank brings the thought that there is no reason to produce food if people will give it away.

This ties into the tragedy of the commons. Hardin goes on to describe the ratchet effect that would occur with the implementation of the World Food Bank. It is this demographic cycle that keeps the population under control.

An approach to environmental ethics using kants principle

Without the emergency portion, allowing a decrease, the population would continue to grow, leading to different sorts of astronomical problems. After a while, a lack of food will reoccur and again the food bank will provide.

However, this time the supply of resources will have to be larger. Overall, the problem of hunger will not be solved; a Band-Aid will just be applied until the wound resurfaces again.To analyze an issue using the utilitarian approach, we first identify the various courses of action available to us.

Back-and-Forth Communication

Second, we ask who will be affected by each action and what benefits or harms will be derived from each. The second important approach to ethics has its roots in the philosophy of the 18th-century thinker Immanuel Kant and.

DUTIES REGARDING NATURE: A KANTIAN APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS A Dissertation in Philosophy by equilibrium that I use in making the case for a Kantian approach to environmental ethics, Kant’s works (Immanuel Kant, Kants Gesammelte Schriften, ed.

Königlich Preußische (later Deutsche). The Principles Approach is designed to navigate a course between the Scylla of incomprehensible abstraction and the Charybdis of unstructured intuitionism to arrive at an ethics pedagogy that is both principled and practicable.

Kant's Principle and Environmental Ethics 1. All of the three approaches to environmental ethics use Kant's principle to various extents. The differences between them lie in their individual definitions of moral categories. Each approach relies on Kant's principle to protect the .

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory ascribed to the Kant formulated the categorical imperative in various ways.

His principle of universalizability requires that, for an rather than specific acts; many of its proponents have criticised Kant's deontological approach .

Popular Posts

How does Lynn White view the Christian approach to environmental ethics and in which book? From a purely utilitarian principle how should humans respond? Extends Kants idea of the respect due to humans to every living organism, sentient or non sentient.

Environmental Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)