11/1/2017 0 Comments Ethics and environmental ethicsEthics, law, religion and etiquette are behavioral norms that I would personally arrange in the same order for their necessity to be followed. All four of them can be placed on a linear scale and one can argue that they are extensions of each other. Unless there is a belief of a higher entity determining their detailed rules, all of them are related to and derived from the worldly affairs.
Ethics constitute higher-level values that may not be practical to be followed in every task. Their importance is understood in the times of moral crisis. However, to ensure an ordered social behavior in day-to-day life, certain rules in the name of law can be followed with collective conscience. The nature of laws and the guidelines for their implementation are defined by legislative body. In addition to law, there are religion and etiquettes, which define certain social norms to be followed. Religion is believed to take commands or at least inspiration from a supernatural entity. Hence, the consequences for adherence or non-adherence to religious principles are supposed to be in the hand of the same supernatural entity. This is different from law where the imposed set of rules are monitored and violation of them is punished by the society itself. Etiquettes are the simple form of behavioral guidelines among the four and they are there to ensure polite behavior from everyone. Their enforcement in not as strict as compared to religion or law. I personally think that neither of the law, religion or etiquette are superior to morality when it comes to guiding human actions. This is because of the variable nature of these three entities across places and times. Whereas the moral or ethical principles are more likely to be common across all the contexts, as they are inherent to the human nature. Ethics surpass all three of them in being major factors those uphold the values that we have adopted to distinguish good from bad. Note: Although ethics and morals are used interchangeably in this answer, they are slightly different in their meaning. Ethics come from an outside source, like workplace; whereas the morals are inherent to one's character. Our understanding of morality is largely based on human-human interactions. It guides us to act in such a way as not to hurt other human beings. We follow it because we feel that harming other humans is not ethically acceptable. As an extension of this thought, some people also believe that eating or harming other animals is against the ethical principles. The environment that encompasses human as well as other animals is perceived as a different entity with this understanding of morality. It is considered more as a pool of resources rather than as a living being. However, logically our concerns should indeed extend to protecting environment as well. Our environmental concerns are primarily important because human activities affect environmental health. The degradation of environment affects ecosystems and hence animals dependent on them. Human beings are largely dependent on animals as well as plants for their living. Hence, it is not difficult to see that actions of a large population of human beings affect wellbeing of other living creatures including humans themselves. Environmental deterioration also makes the future population on earth vulnerable to natural disasters. In conclusion, I think that the environmental concerns force us to extend our understanding of morality and include the thoughts for other living creatures, as well as the future generations in our circle of concern. This is because the existing definitions of morality are better understood by majority of the population and institutions, however inefficient their implementation may be. This morality suggests having a sense of care and concern for someone, following precaution in one’s action so as not to harm others and ensuring equal distribution of resources and rights. The same sense of morality can make everyone care about environment too. For example, the knowledge of marine species dying due to plastic pollution in the oceans will lead to questions about morality in the use of plastics. This is possible because natural sense of morality is enough to instigate a feeling of concern regarding death. Extending it further to other species or environment in general, provides the much-needed broader sense of inclusiveness. The religious traditions are sometimes rooted in the culture that is followed or upheld from generation to generation. They tend to be dictated by someone having a higher authority on religious matters and any variation in them is frowned upon. However, their primary purpose is noble: To guide human actions by providing a moral reasoning for them. If one can make the traditions more personal instead of them coming from external source, the element of authority can be done away with. I think that it is possible for religious traditions to guide human actions in becoming more ethical and not practice any authority. This is likely to happen if religious traditions are inspired from the 'morality questions' faced by people in daily lives. The traditions will make a believer align her actions with the moral values those need to be inculcated. At the same time, the traditions should also be flexible to suit the local context. This way, the followers of a tradition will have a role in deciding their detailed nature. It will avoid their stubbornness and bring them closer to being one’s personal choice. Having said that, it is also important to consider that the religious or spiritual traditions play a major role in defining a sect or a culture. Going too much away from a tradition might be disapproved. This disapproval may not necessarily come from the authority dictating those traditions. It will instead be from the members of the society who collectively identify someone to be a part of their conglomerate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorVivek loves nature. He feels one with it. He wants to share his story. ArchivesCategories |