However, another Christian view of the world is stewardship, which is the idea that God has given humans the responsibility to care and look after the planet, this is shown in the creation story within Genesis as it emphasises the protection and preservation of God’s creation. Therefore, we have to care for the planet and we are responsible for it. In Matthew 25:14, the parable of the talents suggests that we will be judged for the amount of responsibility that we give to the environment, which means that we are morally responsible for it. Therefore, this shows that we do have an individual moral responsibility over the environment because God has lent us the earth so we can care for it. This means that we are responsible for it because God wants us to care for and protect his creation.
Shallow ecology is a theory that believes that the environment’s importance is related to its usefulness for humanity. Therefore, you should only help the environment when it benefits humans. This means that preserving and protecting the environment is treating it as an means to an end because doing it benefits the well being of humans. This theory believes animals and plants only have instrumental value, as their own value is benefitting humans. Therefore, this approach is anthropocentric because it is centred around humans and believe that we have intrinsic value, meaning that humans hare valuable in themselves, La Bossiere believes that an anthropocentric view can be justified as part of the natural order of evolution. Therefore, if an animal becomes extinct because of human activity, this can be seen as natural. Therefore, this approach believes that we don’t have a moral responsibility towards the environment because the environment is there for our own needs, so we should only be responsible for it if it aids our survival.
The opposing view is deep ecology, which is an approach that believes that all life forms have intrinsic value and the theory rejects anthropocentric viewpoints. Leopold believes that humans shouldn’t see themselves as the ‘dominators’ of the land and should exist as part of a moral community with animals and plants. Naess argues that the environment has inherent worth and intrinsic value and he refers to this approach as ‘ecosophy’, this is the idea that all living things have rights. He believes that humans should preserve the environment for its own sake and not for the sake of humans. Also, he believes that no specific species has the right to claim dominance. Thus, to avoid any environmental crisis, humans should reduce the population, abandon any goals for economic growth, preserve species, live in small communities and ‘touch the earth lightly’.
Lovelock developed the Gaia hypothesis to suggest that the planet is a self-regulating biological organism. He believed that the planet regulated itself in favour of life and has a sense of intelligence that enables life to survive in some form. This shows that if we harm the environment, then there will be consequences that affect our survival as the earth, which he calls Gaia, doesn’t owe us anything and we owe her our very existence. Therefore, deep ecologists believe that we do have a moral responsibility to the environment because every living thing has intrinsic value e.g. animals, plants and human, so we are morally obliged to preserve and protect the environment from harm for its own sake.
In conclusion, we do have a moral responsibility over the environment because every living thing has intrinsic value, which includes humans animals and plants and if we damage the earth in some way, there will be consequences for our actions as it may affect our own survival.
by
millyy6 (student)
