My Environmental Perspective

Before the discussion about the different environmental ethical perspectives, my first view of the environment is quite simple. I know for a fact that it always provides humans and animals their basic neccessities and commodities in life and it is up to humans to disseminate those resources properly or else we will all have limitations in our resources. I also believe that our relationship towards the environment is that we are only part of it, thus, we all have responsibilities to take care of it and not the other way around since we are also benefiting from the means our environment provides us.

Once in my philosophy class, when we are discussing about Buddhism, which is an Eastern perspective, I have learned that human beings are only a tiny speck compare to the vastness of our world and I agree on that eversince. The world would still revolves even if one of us died yet the world will never revolve without the environment. In my perspective, I view that as correct albeit that fact that we, Filipinos are more influenced by the Western perspective. Our environement is capable of nurturing everyone their needs like providing us shelter, food and oxygen. It mainly gives us everything we need to survive so it really plays a vital role for all human beings. Without the environment there could probably no life or if the environment is being abused we are the ones who will be mainly affected by it because we rely on it the most. So because of that perspective, I think, to somehow return the favor back, we should always care for the environment, even in the littlest ways we know as possible. And also we should always be aware of what is happening on our environment to avoid mishaps and its destruction.

Then, as we go through our discussion, I think all the theories being tackled have their own points which I agree and are acceptable for me. An example of that is in the teleological order in which it says that there is a moral order but that does not necessarily mean that does on top of the hierarchy should destroy those in the lower hierarchy because that will destruct the system and the interaction in an eco-system. In my own point of view, I believe it is right, because everything should participate in order to establish an ecosystem and the presence and participation of those objects which belong in the lower category are important too. However, that moral ethics is debatable because of some of its weak arguments.

Thus, for me, the most acceptable theory would be the ecocentric theory. Its primary focus is the environment although some might criticize it for the lack of emphasis on the human side. But nevertheless, I think, it is holistic enough that it discuss the importance of all living and non-living things and their participation in building a system that promotes interaction and balance among them. As I have mentioned a while ago, there should not be overpowering of those on top of the hierarchy because they tend to abuse those in the lower category as what humans do nowadays to animals, trees, bodies of water etc. I also think there is a hierarchy among the natural objects in an ecosystem because it is not also about equality but balance among them, thus, I agree on this perspective.

Regarding the principles of the organic model, it is right to say that individual species are related to the environment or there is a part-to-whole relationship between the two. One of the main purposes of the two is that they have a mutual and beneficial relationship. The humans are being provided of their needs by the environment and the environment should be taken care of the humans in return for it to be sustained. In an ecosystem model, there is an organization of all the natural objects which are formed in a way that all of them play a role to promote a relatively stable equilibrium.

I do not neccesarily think that it is misanthropic or hating humanity. But it is more on being open not only to the significance of humans but also the value of environment for us. It is just in the matter of balancing human's and nature’s needs. Also, it is not too eco-fascistic if it is practiced in the right manner. It does not say that we should ignore the needs of humans, it is just saying that environment and human being should interact in a serene and a non-abusive way. And lastly, in my perspective, it is not a radical branch of the wildreness preservation and it is apathetic of the needs in societies that suffer from poverty. In fact, I think it is offering ways to maximize resources of a society so limitations of sources will not be minimized. An example of that, is when a poor society started to value their environment even by doing simple acts like using proper waste management and not cutting trees, then that would eventually prevent them to experience calamities in which people will not suffer physically but their economy too.

Therefore, this theory caters to the needs of the whole ecosystem and not only centering the human necessities which tends to be too abusive for the environment. An example of that is on what is happening on the Philippines. We are too concern on the poverty and our own individual wants that most of us tend to neglect the environment and so the result we experience disasters like floods and landslides.