The environment in the sense of all the ecosystems on Earth, has been polluted, harmed, and put at risk of degradation to some extent. Nevertheless, the mainstream ethical philosophies have found it difficult to assig...The environment in the sense of all the ecosystems on Earth, has been polluted, harmed, and put at risk of degradation to some extent. Nevertheless, the mainstream ethical philosophies have found it difficult to assign an intrinsic value to the environment itself, and most environmental ethics is based on an ＂enlightened＂ anthropocentrism which values environmental protection for the sake of other humans including the future generations. Philosophically speaking, the concept of moral obligations towards generations, who have not been born yet, can be challenged. This vicious circle is a fundamental issue for ＂environmental ethics.＂ The current paper is an attempt to help correct this broken cycle of arguments using three lines of argument： （1） The harmful impact of human activity on the environment does not benefit all humans; the question is not over the selfishness and short-sightedness of humankind regarding the environment as much as it is regarding ＂environmental＂ justice among humans. The pursuit of self-interest and wealth by some humans, but not all, should not lead philosophers to ignore the insufficiencies of our economic and capitalist systems in the delineation of morally correct human-environment interaction. The right to a livable environment is a universal human right and morality has to support it. （2） The moral obligation of humankind toward the environment is similar to any situation where a party, such as a child, does not have the ability to protect itself or defend its rights; this is the principle of ＂due care.＂ Humans have the knowledge to understand the complexity of ecosystem interrelationships and the harm which industrial activity has caused. Therefore they have a moral obligation to exercise due care to prevent it from being harmed irreversibly. （3） The third argument is concerned with human morality and the spirituality of the environment. It can be argued that the natural instinct of the love of the environment, biophilia, is not a cause but a symptom of the grand spiritual value in the environment, even though this spiritual value may not be confined to humans, but be accrued to all life forms that have and/or show a genuine interest in the environment.展开更多
文摘The environment in the sense of all the ecosystems on Earth, has been polluted, harmed, and put at risk of degradation to some extent. Nevertheless, the mainstream ethical philosophies have found it difficult to assign an intrinsic value to the environment itself, and most environmental ethics is based on an ＂enlightened＂ anthropocentrism which values environmental protection for the sake of other humans including the future generations. Philosophically speaking, the concept of moral obligations towards generations, who have not been born yet, can be challenged. This vicious circle is a fundamental issue for ＂environmental ethics.＂ The current paper is an attempt to help correct this broken cycle of arguments using three lines of argument： （1） The harmful impact of human activity on the environment does not benefit all humans; the question is not over the selfishness and short-sightedness of humankind regarding the environment as much as it is regarding ＂environmental＂ justice among humans. The pursuit of self-interest and wealth by some humans, but not all, should not lead philosophers to ignore the insufficiencies of our economic and capitalist systems in the delineation of morally correct human-environment interaction. The right to a livable environment is a universal human right and morality has to support it. （2） The moral obligation of humankind toward the environment is similar to any situation where a party, such as a child, does not have the ability to protect itself or defend its rights; this is the principle of ＂due care.＂ Humans have the knowledge to understand the complexity of ecosystem interrelationships and the harm which industrial activity has caused. Therefore they have a moral obligation to exercise due care to prevent it from being harmed irreversibly. （3） The third argument is concerned with human morality and the spirituality of the environment. It can be argued that the natural instinct of the love of the environment, biophilia, is not a cause but a symptom of the grand spiritual value in the environment, even though this spiritual value may not be confined to humans, but be accrued to all life forms that have and/or show a genuine interest in the environment.
