I begin to research data with a plan to write an article on the use of ethics when out in nature. I wanted to outline the do’s and don’ts when dealing with animals in their habitat.
My premise was to explain how to interact with nature without causing harm. Where I ended up, was discovering that in the early 1970s an entirely new discipline of philosophy, “Environmental Ethics” emerged and is now included in many university philosophy curriculums.
Let us look at some of the questions posed by this discipline. “Suppose putting out natural fires, culling feral animals or destroying some individual members of overpopulated indigenous species is necessary for the protection of the integrity of a certain ecosystem. Will these actions be morally permissible or even required? Is it morally acceptable for farmers in non-industrial countries to practise slash and burn techniques to clear areas for agriculture? Consider a mining company which has performed open pit mining in some previously unspoiled area. Does the company have a moral obligation to restore the landform and surface ecology? And what is the value of a humanly restored environment compared with the originally natural environment? It is often said to be morally wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy parts of the natural environment and to consume a huge proportion of the planet’s natural resources. If that is wrong, is it simply because a sustainable environment is essential to (present and future) human well-being? Or is such behaviour also wrong because the natural environment and/or its various contents have certain values in their own right so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any case?”
This relatively new field is devoted to the intense analysis of these and many other inter-related issues and makes my head spin. Further reading can be found at Environmental Ethics
I will still take a stab at my original idea in another post. It is a subject that is still extremely important.