The second school of thought contains that “nature has intrinsic value and consequently possess at least the right to exist.” In other words, “the human-nature relationship should be treated as a moral issue.” When this occurs, the natural environment is considered to be capable of moral deliberation. In addition, human beings have a responsibility to articulate and defend the natural environment. In other words, environmental ethics requires people to extend ethics to the environment by exercising concern and self-discipline. This position is often taken by philosophers who are biocentrists, ecological egalitarian and deep ecologists.
Evaluation of Nash
When it comes to the evaluation of Nash’s theory, one needs to understand Nash’s methodology. Nash’s methodology consists of a philosophical historical analysis. A historical analysis is defined as a research method that takes into account “past events and questions by using methods in the social sciences and humanities disciplines to inform the possible outcomes and answers to current events and questions.” There are strengths as well as limitations to this particular type of methodology especially in the study of environmental ethical philosophy.
The strengths of the use of a historical analysis methodology within Nash’s perspective of environmental ethics are that it provides a comprehensive explanation of the evolution of the concept of natural rights. In addition, it discusses the interrelationship between humans and the natural environment.
The limitation in Nash’s historical perspective of environmental ethics is that it does not imply human beings to take action nor whether future generations should perpetuate ethical behaviour toward the natural environment. This is a gap between Nash’s historical analysis of environmental ethics and people acting ethically to the natural environment. The purpose of studying the history environment ethics is to learn from past mistakes and to find a resolution to current environmental ethical issues. Current environmental ethical issues are synonymous with current environmental science issues because ethics are always involved in environmental science. If this gap is perpetuated in other historical environmental ethical works, then these works become less meaningful. In order to fulfill this gap, one needs to turn to literature that looks at the definition of duties that ought to be done and perpetuated by people of future generations. A book that fulfills this gap is Ernest Partridge’s book titled Responsibilities of Future Generations.
Partridge’s book
In order to discuss the relevant relationship between Nash’s book and Partridge’s book, one must understand Partridge’s book on environmental ethics and the responsibilities of future generations. Before examining Partridge’s book, his historical background must be understood. Ernest Partridge is philosophy professor who teaches at several campuses of University of California and at the University of Colorado. His specialty is in moral philosophy (ethics) and environmental ethics. One of his books that are known within the philosophy discipline is his book called Responsibilities of Future Generations.
Although Ernest’s Partridge’s book titled Responsibilities of Future Generations was published before Nash’s book, it offers an aspect that Nash’s book neglects to take into account. This aspect is the definition of duties that ought to be done and perpetuated by people of future generations. Partridge’s book does this by presenting a series of essays that pertain to a “broad scope of opinion concerning the moral and ethical question encompassed by the stewardship idea.” The book does this by splitting the book into five parts:
- “The Duty to Posterity: Issues
The Duty to Posterity: Perspectives
Can future generations be said to have rights
Can we and should we care about future generations
Applications”
The first section of the book serves as a definition section by defining the main theme that will be discussed throughout the book. This main theme is responsibility. Responsibility is defined as “a moral obligation that individuals ought to take action.” Two of the essays that focus on responsibility as being the cornerstone of moral decision-making is Hans Jonas’ essay titled Technology and Responsibility: the Ethics of an Endangered Species and Thomas Sieger Derr’s essay titled The Obligations in the Future. Both essays discuss about the philosophical concept of responsibility and whether or not it serves as a justification to act in a certain way for subsequent situations. However, both have a difference of views. Jonas’ paper argues that “the source of this new responsibility of this generation to the future is unprecedented. The source of this new responsibility is the foresight and the power that have come with our scientific knowledge and with our technology. Therefore, a reconstruction of moral philosophy is needed.” On the other hand, Thomas Derr’s paper argues that “the case for such a duty may be significantly enhanced by viewing the human condition from the transcendent perspective which the religious imagination affords.”
The second section contains papers whose purpose was to pose moral questions concerning the duty to the future generation. The fundamental moral questions regarding the duty to the future generation are the following: who is the future generation and what is the current moral reasoning? The future generation refers to a population of human beings whose existence depends on current reproductive decisions. When it comes to deciding whether or not they should be included in moral decision-making, there are implications that need to be considered. These implications are that “persons who will never come into being cannot conceivably occasion social conflict, so merely possible persons need not enter into our moral thinking at all.” Furthermore, this means that “there is no such thing as a right to come into being or a right to be born.”
The third and fourth section consists of five papers that discuss the disputed topic of whether or not future generations can be said to have rights. A right means to have “a claim to something and against someone, the recognition of which is called for by legal rules or, in the case of moral rights, by principles of an enlightened conscience.” The three authors who argue that future generations do have rights are Joel Feinberg, Galen Pletcher and Annette Baier. The two authors with the opposing views are Richard T. De George and Ruth Macklin. Feinberg, Pletcher and Baier argue that current human beings have the ability to make the world a better or worse place. Because this is the case, current human beings are to be responsible for future generations because any actions that are committed presently will affect the future generation. This argument is true when harmful actions committed in the present will harm the future generation. On the other hand, De George and Macklin argue against Feinberg, Pletcher and Baier. Instead they argue that the existence of future generations is contingent and therefore should not be given rights.
The final section serves as an application component for the complex philosophical question of whether or not future generations should have rights to three case studies. The three case studies that were discussed in the final section were from the following articles:
- Famine vs. Food for Future Generations by Michael D. Bayles
Genetic Endowments and Obligations to Future Generations by Hardy Jones
Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future by Richard and Val Routley
Bayles’ article titled Famine vs. Food, Bayles argues that “if food aid is given now, more people will starve later, and that consequences in future generations must be weighted equally with famine deaths which would occur now with food aid withheld.” Jones article titled Genetic Endowment and Obligations to Future Generations argues that “human beings have a fundamental right to live among persons who will respect their rights. If the members of a future generation have morally defective genetic traits, each can claim that they should not have been produced even though none can claim that his having been produced is a violation of his right.” In Richard and Val’s Routley’s article titled Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future, argues that the continuing use of nuclear energy is a “crime against the future is inevitable…on the basis of its effects on the future alone, the nuclear option is morally unacceptable.” Therefore one can see that in each of the examined case studies, the authors support the idea that actions done in the present do affect future generations. When this occurs, people are responsible for future generations.
Evaluation of Ernest Partridge’s book
When it comes to the evaluation of Ernest Partridge’s book, one has to question whether or not Nash’s book is relevant to Partridge’s book. Since Nash’s book did not take into account the responsibilities of future generations, Partridge’s book does fulfill this gap. Partridge’s book fulfills the gap by Partridge addressing the issue of whether or not moral decisions should be justified to benefit future generations through a series of complex case study analyses. At the same time, Nash’s book provides a practical opportunity to apply Partridge’s philosophical theories of moral responsibilities to future generations. Environmental ethics encompasses many natural environmental issues. Each natural environmental issue involves the philosophical question of whether or not the lives of future generations matter.
Application of Nash’s book and Partridge’s book into my research project
When it comes to the application of Nash’s book and Partridge’s book into my research project, there are three aspects of my research project that need to be considered. The aspects are: the topic of my research project, the case studies that will be involved and the definitions of key terms. In order to address the three aspects, this section will be split into three parts: My Research Project, Nash’s theory in my research project and Partridge’s book in my research project. The aspects of my research project will all be addressed in the My Research Project part.
My Research Project
The topic of my research project revolves around the moral impermissibility of public indifference in relation to environmental harm caused by nuclear waste water. Public indifference is defined as “human beings deliberately ignoring a situation known to exist.” Environmental harm focuses on the detrimental attributes involving nature and/or natural elements such as: water, air, and so on. One example of an extremely dangerous natural environmental harm is nuclear waste water pollution. Human beings require water for their survival and for their well-being. When the drinking water is contaminated with nuclear waste water pollution, health problems and the death toll will increase. Therefore nuclear waste water pollution is a topic that should not be taken lightly.
My thesis consists of a comparative historical analysis between the amount of public indifference of the 1952 Case of Chalk River Laboratories and the amount of public indifference 2011 Fukushima Daiichi case. The 1952 case of Chalk River Laboratories shows that public indifference leads to multiple deaths by contracting fatal diseases. This is demonstrated when the NRX-nuclear reactor of Chalk River Laboratories overheated and resulted in a nuclear meltdown. As a result, “thousands of curies of fission products were released into the atmosphere, and a million gallons of radioactively contaminated water had to be pumped out of the basement and disposed of in shallow trenches not far from the Ottawa River.” As indicated in the case, public indifference from the 1952 Chalk River Laboratories case lead to the careless clean-up method from the government. The careless clean-up method was that the reactor core and liquid wastes were buried in shallow trenches. The method was careless because the people responsible for it neglect to take into account many outstanding factors. Some factors include: ignoring the possibility that the nuclear radioactive wastes being leaked into a body of water and taking into account the negative consequences from simple clean-up methods for a complex energy source. In addition to the careless clean-up method, on April 2, 2011, “the former federal nuclear safety watchdog was fired for refusing to bow to political pressure and order the restart of the Chalk River reactor because of the unsafe production of medical isotopes.” As a result of both public indifference and political indifference, the residents of Ottawa and surrounding area are at risk of death from contracting diseases due to contaminated water. On the other hand the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi case shows how public non-indifference results in policy changes to energy use. Currently, Japan is having a debate on whether or not the use of nuclear energy is necessary. As indicated in both case studies, one can see the amount of public indifference between the Canadian public and the Japanese public are at opposite spectrums.
Nash’s theory in my research project
Nash’s historical analysis within his book The Rights of Nature: a History of Environmental Ethics will be appropriate for my research project because it provides a comprehensive philosophical understanding of environmental ethics to my comparative historical case study analysis. This is done by incorporating Nash’s historical analysis into my case studies. For example, in the 1952 Chalk River Laboratories case, Nash’s historical analysis will be appropriate. This is demonstrated when Nash discussed his first school of thought where “some people believe that it is right to protect and wrong to abuse nature (or certain of its components) from the standpoint of human interest.” When this school of thought is applied to the 1952 Chalk River Laboratories case, one can see that public indifference to environmental harm caused by nuclear waste water pollution is going against human interest. Public indifference is working against human interest because human beings are interested in maintaining their health. Human health is dependant on the status of the natural environment, especially when it deals with water. If the natural environment consists of clean water, human beings would live healthier lifestyle. In contrast if the natural environment is harmed by nuclear waste water pollution, human health is more endangered.
At the same time, Nash’s historical analysis is applicable to the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi case. This is demonstrated again when Nash’s first school of thought is applied to the case. However, the difference between the 1952 Chalk River Case and the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Case is that there is less public indifference in the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi case than the 1952 Chalk River Case. When this occurs, environmental policy changes occurs, this is working towards human interest. Environmental policy changes works toward human interest by allowing humans to cooperate with one another and find a solution that will benefit both the natural environment and the human health.
Partridge’s book in my research project
The application of Partridge’s book Responsibilities of Future Generations will be useful and will add insight for my definitions of public indifference and civic duty. Partridge’s book demonstrates this by looking at Richard and Val Routley’s article titled Nuclear Energy and the Obligations to Future Generations located at the end of Partridge’s book. This article not only is directly related to my research project but it also adds to my argument against public indifference. This is demonstrated when the Routleys argue that the continued use of nuclear energy is a “crime against the future is inevitable…on the basis of its effects on the future alone, the nuclear option is morally unacceptable.” When applied to the definition of public indifference, one can see that the Routley article gives an underlying reason to explain how public indifference to the negative effects of environmental harm caused by nuclear waste water pollution is not only immoral but a crime. Public indifference to nuclear waste water pollution is a crime because it causes people to not only to become indirect killers of current human beings. They also cause people to become indirect killers of future generations, which can constitute potential unintended manslaughter. At the same time the Routley article also promotes the notion of civic duty, a concept that is also discussed in my research project. This is demonstrated when Routley said “on the basis of its effects on the future alone, the nuclear option is morally unacceptable.” Here, Routley exemplifies that if public indifference is perpetuated, it is morally unacceptable. In order to be moral in the case of environmental harm caused by nuclear waste water pollution, people must invest in the idea of civic duty. Civic duty is a concept where everyone is responsible for one another. When people begin to take action against public indifference, it will benefit future generations by people finding resolutions to nuclear waste water pollution.
Conclusion
Both Nash and Partridge’s works will be useful in my research project by adding insight and another perspective. Nash’s work offers a philosophical historical analysis similar to my historical case study analysis by providing a view of environmental ethics that corresponds to my case studies. Partridge’s work offers a new perspective on how to define public indifference and gives an underlying reason to explain the moral impermissibility of public indifference and promotes the idea of civic duty.
Bibliography
Brennan, Andrew and Lo, Yeuk-Sze, "Environmental Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental/>.
Buckthought, Mike.“Tritium on Tap: Keep Radioactive Tritium Out Of Our Tap Water,” Sierra Club Canada Publications 2009, 15, . (Accessed April 11, 2011).
Funk, Rebekah. “Ex-Nuclear Safety Boss Goes Green,” The Chronicle Herald, B4. April 2, 2011
Hardy Jones. “Genetic Endowments and Obligations to Future Generations.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 247-259. Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980
Holmes Rolston III. “The Land Ethic at the Turn of the Millennium.” Biodiversity and Conservation 9, (accessed November 15, 2011).
Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. “The Debate on Historical Sociology: Rational Choice Theory and Its Critics.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104 Issue 3 (1998): 785-816
Michael D. Bayles. “Famine vs. Food for Future Generations.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 239-245. Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980
Nash, Roderick Frazier. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989
Oxford English Dictionary, 7th ed., s.v. “Indifference”
Partridge, Ernest. Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980
Richard and Val Routley. “Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future by Richard” In to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 277-299. Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980
Thomas Derr. “The Obligations in the Future.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 37-43. Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980.
Brennan, Andrew and Lo, Yeuk-Sze, "Environmental Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental/>.
Brennan, Andrew and Lo, Yeuk-Sze, "Environmental Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental/>.
Rolston III, Holmes. “The Land Ethic at the Turn of the Millennium.” Biodiversity and Conservation 9,
(accessed November 15, 2011).
Roderick Frazier Nash. The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics.(Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), 3
Nash, The Rights of Nature, 5
Kiser, E. & Hechter, M. “The Debate on Historical Sociology: Rational Choice Theory and Its Critics.” American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104 Issue 3 (1998): 785-816
Partridge, Ernest. Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 1
Thomas Derr. “The Obligations in the Future.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 37-43. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 38.
Jonas Hans. “Technology and Responsibility: the Ethics of an Endangered Species”. In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 25-37. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 26.
Derr, Responsibilities to Future Generations, 42.
Partridge, Ernest. Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics, 135
Michael D. Bayles, “Famine vs. Food for Future Generations.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 239-245. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 240
Hardy Jones. “Genetic Endowments and Obligations to Future Generations.” In Responsibilities to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 247-259. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 248
Richard and Val Routley. “Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future by Richard” In to Future Generations Environmental Ethics edited by Ernest Partridge. 277-299. (Buffalo, NY: Promethus Books, 1980), 277
Oxford English Dictionary , 7th ed., s.v. “Indifference”
Mike Buckthought., “Tritium on Tap: Keep Radioactive Tritium Out Of Our Tap Water,” Sierra Club Canada Publications 2009, 15, . (Accessed April 11, 2011).
Rebekah Funk, “Ex-Nuclear Safety Boss Goes Green,” The Chronicle Herald, April 2, 2011, B4.
Nash, The Rights of Nature, 11
Richard and Val Routley. Responsibilities of Future Generations, 277