I have to responds to 2 discussions each discussion is a paragraph long or one page.
Considering this weeks reading titled “All animals are equal” by Peter Singer I would agree that the habitats for animal are equally important as their lives. However, utilitarianism and humanism are human centered theories. According to both theories are based on fulfill their needs and there is no moral obligation to the environment. Since we are the dominant species that seems like a lose lose situation for the environment and non-human species throughout the world. I mean with out a natural habitat how can their non-human species thrive and provide to us the means to survive. Both land ethics and levels of embeddness operate on the same principle as disproportionality. We as a people can use the land as we see fit, but a level of respect must exist to function in harmony with nature. For example, let say some company wanted to build homes on top of acres of wetland. Now for us what is the value for those acres because for me I could perceive this in a couple of ways. Our population is continually growing, and new homes are essential to giving a family a place to call home. However, these wetlands serve as natures own little personnel filter for our local bodies of water. When chemicals or any unnatural substance get into the wetland areas it prevents damage to plants, humans, and animals alike. I mean non-point pollution has been a fundamental problem ever since the clean water act was created. At some point we must show some restraint and clean up our act. This raises the question is this a need or luxury because you could justify build these houses on wetlands simple to provide housing for your fellow man. In according to the levels of embeddness, and land ethics it’s okay to use the land to fulfill a need for us or others. Or is it just a luxury an to make money in exchange bartering the land off like it’s a good/service. The earth is one big level organism that provides us the means to survive by destroy habitats we destroy multiple food chains. These food chains both grow plants and house animals that are an important part of our lifestyles. To say that animals and habitats don’t have value because it is hear just to provide. We even think we can build structure like a dam to redirect nature and grow new life, but that has fail on several occasions to sustain life for aquatic life (i.e. salmon). When do we exercise some disproportionality respect the land as much as we do our fellow man.
Boylan, E. M. (2014). Environmental Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publisher
On the surface, the destruction of a habitat may seem victimless if we take the view that living things that feel no pain should not be considered when discussing moral implications. What harm could come from bulldozing trees, rocks, soil, and other objects with no sense of self, consciousness, or feelings? Evidently, the harm can be tremendous. Within the habitat are hundreds or thousands of animals that do feel pain and will suffer from the loss of their habitat. Although we are not causing direct physical harm to any such animals while clearing land, they are indirectly impacted by these actions. Peter Singer supposes that although animals, such as pigs, horses, etc. have different levels of needs and interests than humans, it is morally right to consider the quality of their lives when making decisions since they can suffer as humans do (Boylan, 2014, 280). Clearing land for the use of human activities takes away an animal’s home and food supply. I would definitely equate lacking adequate living space and food a form of suffering. If the suffering of these animals is found to be more profound than the positive outcomes of demolishing habitats, it would be unethical to proceed.
From an anthropocentric point of view, destroying habitats also indirectly impact humans. The loss of biodiversity in plants and animals due to stripping the land and a reduction of trees (natural CO₂ sponges) will ultimately make life harder for the human species. Another way human beings can be impacted is by erosion. By removing vegetation, the ground can become unstable and erode away, creating landslide hazards (Tarbuck, Lutgens, & Tasa, 2014). For these reasons, it is a moral obligation for human beings to ensure a balance of clearing land and preserving it; if the majority would suffer, then the minority in favor of destroying habitats should not do so.
References
Boylan, M. (Ed.). (2014). Environmental ethics (2nd ed.). (pp. 280). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son, Inc.
Tarbuck, E., Lutgens, F., & Tasa, D. (2014). Earth: an introduction to physical geology (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.