|
|
We all live on a planet. This hunk of rock that is hurdling through the universe has a immense ecosystem on its surface. It is an ever-evolving system of biological entities that all co-exist amongst one another while living off of other biological entities. So what does all this have to do with philosophy? People are constantly doing things that hurt the environment. Cutting down the rain forest. Contaminating ground water. Radioactive waste. Over -hunting and -fishing areas. Man is doing man things that nature did not mean to have happen naturally. Or at least it appears so. It could be viewed from the point of view that all things done on this planet come from nature. All things done by living things originate from nature through its inherent ability to force evolution upon living things on this planet. So if something was not meant to happen nature would find a way to stop it from happening. So in actuality, it is perfectly fine to hurt the environment since nature would stop us in some way. Look at global warming. Nature is going to make us stop, either from our own volition or by killing us through skin cancer or flooding us when the polar ice caps melt. So nature is telling us that she does not like what we are doing and that if we don't stop she will make us. So that would make any act on the environment okay as long as nature does not strike back at you. But many people would disagree with this view. Do we really have a right to destroy an entire species? That is destroying thousands of individual biological entities for our own benefit. Is superfluous acts like cutting down the reinforces for cattle okay when we destroy whole species in the act? It could be argued no. We have no right to destroy any living thing for no good reason. They have a natural right like any other living thing to exist and continue on its existence. But is that right extended to even bacteria or beetles? Some would say no. Beetles and other living things that have a highly simplistic nervous system have no feelings or knowledge of right or wrong. They show no compassion or remorse for any act that they perform. So if they are not willing (i.e. not able) to show the ability to tell right from wrong, then they should not be included in this equation of protection. PETA might now agree with this. PETA would probably say that it is not far-reaching enough. I suspect that the animal-rights group would probably say that any organism that can feel pain has a right to environmental protection of their habitat. So that leaves out bacteria and beetles, but covers all animals, regardless of whether they know compassion. The issue comes down to what rights to humans have in affecting the lives of other living things. It all depends on to what extent you extend living things rights in this world in regards to our rights. |