Most environmental theories on environmental ethics have been regarded as individualist or deontological owing to the fact that the two qualities reject consequentialism. A number of significant issues such as hunting and biodiversity have attracted global debates. One of the most controversial issue pertaining environmental ethics is on whether humans should be considered as part of nature or apart from nature in order to develop environmental ethics. It is important to note that it is quite difficult to set human nature apart because of the role they play in the environment (Taylor, 2011). Although the world’s environment can be viewed to support fighting for survival between animals and people in terms if basis of the available habitat, the two are related, complement each other and are inseparable. Though the upcoming technology has given human nature much power to an extent that it has caused unacceptable practices such as acid rain, smog, ozone depletion and climate change, the benefits are far much rewarding that a stoppage of human all or some of the services will have adverse effect on the environment. The problems caused by man out of technology cannot be resolved without the employment of global technological interventions. These are necessary and therefore an accepted code of behaviour must be adopted (Keller, 2010). It is important to note that man is both part and a part of the environmentSchweitzer acknowledges destruction and injury to biodiversity as evil. In fact, no rule can forgive such a doing but still everyone should be wary of how much disservice he or she causes to the environment and remedy the negative aspects (Kernohan, 2012). However, this has contributed to heated debates with authors accepting the inherency of human diversity as part of managing environmental ethics (Pojman & Pojman, 2011). Like Schweitzer, several authors have acknowledged the important need of environmental conservation based on the view that destruction or any slight injury to animal or plant life is unacceptable (Pojman & Pojman, 2011). To overcome this discrepancy, there is need to address such effects on the environment. In addition, the correlation between nature and man owe to be redefined. As earlier mentioned, the relationship of a human environment is an object. Those who play conservation is practises are faced by a number of challenges and mainly conflicts. Beginning with Aristotle and
Clowney, D., & Mosto, P. (2009). Earthcare: An anthology in environmental ethics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Derr, P. G., & McNamara, E. M. (2003). Case studies in environmental ethics. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.
DesJardins, J. R. (2012). Environmental ethics. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth.
Elliot, R. (2004). Environmental ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keller, D. R. (2010). Environmental ethics: The big questions. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell.
Kernohan, A. (2012). Environmental ethics: An interactive introduction.
Palmer, C. (1997). Environmental ethics. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
Pojman, L. P. (1998). Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Pojman, L. P., & Pojman, P. (2011). Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application. Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Taylor, P. W. (2011). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (25th Anniversary Edition). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples