ecological ethics. a fragile world

According to Mortalla (2012) ecological ethics or also called environmental ethics, is especially concerned with regulating that the actions of human beings do not threaten the development and evolution of natural environments. Men cannot detach themselves from the environment in which they operate, however their aggressive behaviors, the lack of environmental policies and ecocidal activities have been increasing over the years.

Ecological sensitivity has been lost and should be considered as a permanent attitude in order to rescue the diverse ecosystems and persevere humanity.

When speaking of the fragility of the world, I mean how easy it is that human activities can destroy nature, complete ecosystems that include various species of endemic animals and plants.

There is a false idea among human beings that nature is there for our particular use, the Jewish-Christian idea "grow, multiply and rule the earth" continues to prevail. In addition to these ideas, the development of modern science has led humans to believe that they are the owners and lords of nature, regardless of the fact that natural resources are also part of the life of other living beings. It must be taken into account that we naturally are not a direct part of the food chains, but rather we are an extension of them and we have become one of the worst predators, since the excessive hunting of animals does not obey to satisfy a need. primary, but it does this to demonstrate the power it can have over other species.

Considering that technology is only a tool, consequence of the different sciences, the goodness or badness of said technology will depend on the use made of it. The person directly responsible for this is man, since he also becomes a way of life, where what can be done must be done, justifying his actions as a consequence of technological development.

On the other hand, we must be aware that modern technologies have enslaved man: such is the case of the use of the car, smartphones, computers, the Internet, among others. This implies that even when the intention of using some technology is good in the short term, it becomes harmful in the long term and that the global consequences condition the following generations.

I mean that future generations are in need of restricting the use of some technology to preserve or recover some type of natural environment.

Del Castillo (2013), says that there are three attitudes towards technology, which have now been established as models:

Technophilia (Prometheus): in this model the response to the deterioration of the world is to achieve greater technological development in order to have greater control over nature. Technophobia (Frankestein): This model establishes that a hatred towards the creation of technology has been generated and that the uncontaminated world is now a longing. The answer is not to use technology. Hermes: Here it is stated that the key is to strike a balance between hatred and trust in technology. It is giving a responsible response to the care of our world.

Ecological consciousness requires a new attitude or a new ethic. Previously, ethics had taken for granted the continuity of human life without taking into consideration the other living beings with whom we live together. This new ethic speaks of extending compliance with moral standards to the animal and vegetable kingdoms, facing ecological problems and taking responsibility for each of their actions.

Hence a new term follows: Ethics of responsibility (generating a new power, over our power).

According to Florent Marcellesi, who is the coordinator of Ecopolitics and an outstanding member of the Revista Ecología Política, defines the Ecological Crisis as:

It is really alarming you how the models of modern societies are the ones that cause this type of crisis, the society-nature interaction is unbalanced by the high demands of natural resources and the little awareness of people to restore or readjust their way of life. But also due to the lack of responsibility in maintaining and protecting natural environments.

Fostering a “caring attitude” in the new generations is part of these new responsibilities that we have in the present to change and achieve a better future.

"Prudence or practical wisdom is to make the world continue to be more humane", (Hans Jonas, The principle of responsibility). In this regard, I believe that the changes to solve the economic, social and political problems should be aimed at protecting the environment.

On the other hand, Del Castillo (1993), in his article, addresses some aspects of our behavior towards other living beings and defines ethics as the behavior of men in society. Hence, some questions arise such as what to do to include other living species and not only see them as utilitarian products that generate benefits?

In order to answer this question, some situations linked to the destruction of ecosystems arise that must be taken into account:

If this continues, it is considered that by the year 2057, around 100 to 350 thousand species of living beings will have become extinct. Loss of biodiversity in vulnerable areas, such as the deserts and the Arctic. Ecosystems are more stable among greater biodiversity of plants and animals exist. Loss of green areas due to land erosion or anthropogenic activities.

Two aspects emerge from this new ethics of responsibility:

The first one is called Superficial Ecology where natural resources are seen as a valuable resource, only human value counts, plants are a medicinal and food resource. The second is called Deep Ecology, which implies the extension of ethics between humans and other living things. In this we talk about the intrinsic value that the rest of the living beings have, equate the value to that of the human being, the plants must be saved due to their intrinsic value, the resources belong to all living beings and finally man is considered to be cruel, but not necessarily.

Finally and as part of this new paradigm, the non-utilitarian criteria are based on different arguments:

Theological: They are considered of divine origin. For example, the prohibition of the consumption of certain types of meat or other foods according to beliefs.

Evolution: It is considered that the human being is the most evolved being, however throughout history studies show the existence of various evolutionary mechanisms and are supported by fossil evidence. All living things evolve and it is an intrinsic characteristic.

Intelligence: Various studies have been carried out on the intelligence measurement of some species such as whales, dolphins, dogs and chimpanzees.

Ability to feel or suffer pain: Although it is difficult to know, there are already several investigations on the matter for different living beings, especially emphasis is given to mammals.

Deontological: refers to compliance with moral standards out of duty, according to Kant (1724-1804), they are rigid. In fact, at this point it is proposed to extend the norms that defend the right to the value of life to animals and plants. I am especially struck by the fact that the plant kingdom is generally not very privileged, however, I think it should be one of the most protected by the value it adds to human life, I refer specifically to the production of oxygen as result of the photosynthesis process. If people understood what is caused when excessive logging is carried out or the soil is eroded and its sustainable conditions change, then I suppose it would be considered as one of the most important resources.

Finally, the theological criterion , which regulates the severity of our conduct and specifically marks the consequences of our actions, considers that utilitarian and non-utilitarian criteria can be taken into account based on value theories, and they exemplify that killing animals that are not endangered may have less value than if the animal is in danger of ceasing to exist. I do not consider that there should be a distinction of value towards the utilitarian, rather it should be considered to cover the needs of a population or community and preserve the biodiversity of the area and learn to live with other living beings.

It is imperative to consider not endangering environmental conditions at the expense of anthropological development.

I like the principle of responsibility, this of creating awareness and promoting programs that are sympathetic to the protection of ecosystems, this from my point of view can give a situation of greater dignity to the human being.

Finally, a new trend is born that pleases me, it is called "Eco Humanism ", where unity between the human species in society and its relationship with the environment is promoted.

CONCLUSION:

After reviewing the articles, it becomes clear that the economic, industrial, political and social model that we are living is the one that causes ecological deterioration, not only of the environment but also of the perception that one has of it. Man tends to think that he has a right to everything around him and has not realized that resources are finite if they are not given enough time to regenerate.

The climate and ecological crisis will not be reversed unless the foundations of social and cultural models are reinvented, respecting natural cycles and trying to reverse the effects that have been caused by anthropogenic pollution and uncontrolled development.

Our lifestyle must change, each of us must become aware that the excessive use of resources and the generation of waste can lead to an undesirable situation in the future.

Actions must be taken that are radical enough at the global level, generate a commitment on the part of governments to avoid degradation and thus begin with the recovery of vital systems (ecosystems) and nature reserves to achieve an ecological balance.

But above all, that each one of us is willing to change to improve and protect nature, respect its rights, give it an intrinsic value and comply with the established rules to prevent its deterioration.

Bibliographic references: