Famine, Affluence By Peter Singer: The Future Of Environmental Ethics

The first place we must begin in a discussion of the future of environmental ethics is to clearly define the terms to be used so as to limit confusion. In this paper we will define environmental ethics to not only include the application of morality to our decisions in regards to the treatment of nature, but also the attempt to extend moral rights and obligations to both living and nonliving aspects of the ecosystem. The extension of moral principles from applying exclusively to humans to include concepts of nature, has been the trend in modern times, and any discussion of the future of environmental ethics should similarly push the discussion forward in this vein. With this definition as the foundation, we can then begin a discussion on what

With this in mind, and evidence being provided in later sections, we can begin to see that a radical shift in our mindset is needed if we ever truly hope to save the environment from the brink of disaster that it now faces at our hands. In this paper I will advocate that the future of environmental ethics ought to be one which combines the fundamental goal of fighting to dismantle the root cause behind the domination of nature that ecofeminism strives to accomplish, with the moral pragmatism of Peter Singer’s moral obligation to prevent evil from his essay entitled “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”. By themselves each theory has certain flaws, however by solving for the fundamental cause of our destruction of nature, and providing a practical way to evaluate moral quandaries in the future, we may finally be able to begin a path of true ethical consideration for all aspects of

Each theory individually would be difficult if not impossible to implement, as they both require radical shifts in mindset and western tradition. The simple fact is that this path would not only ask us to accept that our fundamental view towards the environment and others is mistaken, but that we must also question our basic beliefs of morality in a society that is reluctant to take even small steps towards improving the well-being of the environment such as recycling. Instead of a grandiose plan to solve every instance of environmental harm, we should instead focus on implementing one theory at a time, as this is the only chance we have for any success. Forcing too much upon a population threatens to produce the opposite of the desired effect and will lead to much less progress than either one theory or even the status