morality and environment. Application of morality in environmental issues

Author

Tutor

Course

Date

Group A: Environmental Topics

Application of morality in environmental issues

The importance of environmental conservation cannot be gainsaid as far as sustenance of human beings is concerned. For many people, conservation is a moral issue, or rather, quite a large number of moral issues are applicable to it. Morality concerns itself with actions that are deemed acceptable or faulty when put against secular or religious principles. It is noteworthy that such principles include implicit or explicit responsibility of environmental custodianship, especially compassion towards all species. Every form of life on the surface of the earth needs certain conditions so as to enhance the continuation of its species. However, in the existence process, all life persistently modifies its environment. Studies show that, a long time ago, numerous species were rendered extinct by the excretion of oxygen into the atmosphere by organisms known as cyanobacteria (Fllatau 45). While this may be imply a natural process, it underlines the notion that the surface of the earth and every living thing is affected significantly and continuously by the operations of the inhabitants. Human beings have not been left behind as far as shaping life on planet earth is concerned. Their impact has been compounded by modern technologies. There are scholars who opine that these activities will lead to human beings’ extinction. Nevertheless, some moral issues emerge from the issue of the impact of human activity on the environment.

One of the key moral issues is the human being’s welfare, as well as that of the sentient organisms. The simple fact that the actions of a human being affect the welfare of other organisms makes environmental conservation a moral issue. Of course, questions have been raised as to how human welfare may be justified as a moral objective when it is not tantamount to affluence. It is noteworthy, however, that the process of evolution has never respected any species. In essence, unless species are sufficiently equipped to withstand modification of their environment, they would be wiped out. Studies show that humanity came as a result of evolutionary processes where some species were eliminated from the face of the earth leading to the emergence of human beings. The extinction of these species resulted from their activities, which affected the environmental balance. In essence, it would be proper to expect that human beings will modify the environment to their own extinction. There are common thoughts to the effect that human beings will emerge in enhanced forms. However, the intelligence and emotions of human beings may hinder their capacity to evolve (Gillroy and Bowersox 67).

Everyone would agree that the prevention of severe harm or destruction of humanity is a crucial moral consideration. It would not be far-off to regard prudence as more morally preferable than decadence (Fllatau 78).

In applying morality to environmental conservation, it is noteworthy that the continuation of the earth as a planet depends on the other components of the universe. The universe carves out its own consequences, sometimes to the detriment of some species. Having in mind that the condition of the universe is of utmost importance to the wellbeing and existence of all species, its operation in a manner that is conducive to the human being’s continued existence is a moral issue (Gillroy and Bowersox 89).

In addition, the welfare of other species is a moral issue thanks to the interdependence that exists between human beings and other species. In addition, many people justify the welfare of other species due to their ability to have emotions and feel pain. In essence, they have a right to be treated in a fair and human manner and be able to gratify their innate urges and feelings. In essence, if these animals are treated in an inhuman manner, it would be a moral issue. This includes endangering their environment in a manner that threatens their existence.

Quite a large number of people feel that they have a God-given right to run over other living things. This is justified as the natural order, in which case the actions of human beings are explained as part of this natural order. Unfortunately, this explanation is also given in the case of fellow human beings who are or a relatively lower status. However, it is imperative that human beings acknowledge that every living thing is charged with a responsibility in maintaining the balance of the universe. However, it is imperative that people use common sense, as well as judgment to determine the aspects of the environment that they should protect (Gillroy and Bowersox 98).

In conclusion, morality is intertwined in all aspects that pertain to the environment. This is because it determines what an individual considers wrong according to secular or religious principles. The moral nature emanates from the fact that every living thing would be affected by the actions of human beings. In essence, human beings have a moral obligation not to deprive them of the only planet they know. In addition, irrespective of the lowly nature of some species, it is noteworthy that they play a significant or key role in enhancing the balance of the universe. However, it is imperative that human beings determine which species to save depending on their usefulness to them.

Economic Development and National Sovereignty Topics

Globalization is a threat to the sovereignty of poor countries

Issues pertaining to national sovereignty and self-determination have been controversial since time immemorial. It refers to the quality of having an independent and supreme authority over a certain geographical area. The importance of this concept lies in its interconnectedness to a country’s ability to offer its citizens the best as far as meeting their interests is concerned. In the recent times, debate has been raging as to the effect of globalization on the sovereignty of nations, and especially poor nations. Theories suggest that when a country surrenders some of its sovereignty and submits to the global rules, that country stands to gain as global commerce will be unshackled from the unpleasant national interventions. Unfortunately, this has not been actualized in real life. What has been experienced is a split of countries into warring factions that accuse each other of foul faith. It is noteworthy that, quite a large number of governments and countries have doubts as far as being integrated into the global economy while retaining their national sovereignty is concerned (Streeten 78). This is exhibited by the failure of governments to conclude a number of multilateral agreements. Are poor countries right to take globalization with a pinch of salt? In my opinion, globalization or liberalization will do more harm than fair to poor nations.

There are two areas that show the negative effects of globalization as far as economic relations are concerned. These are trade and finance. While there are theorists who argue that it is OK for countries to open their economies to allow the benefits of investment to flow into their economies, evidence calls for caution. There has been no quantitatively significant proof that financial liberalization enhances economic growth. In fact, researchers admit that liberalization of capital account heightens the vulnerability of poor countries and increases risks by magnifying the impact of shocks. These shocks are transmitted extremely fast across national borders thanks to globalization (Streeten 89).

In addition, there exists a hot debate as to whether liberalization is appropriate for trade. Studies have shown that countries that have become globalized have enjoyed fast, economic growth. However, this reasoning has fundamental flaws. It is noteworthy that most of these reports quote the tremendous growth that China has had. However, China is one of the world’s least open economies. In fact, it has always maintained a high degree of national sovereignty. Studies have shown that globalization has had adverse effects on poor countries. According to the World Bank Report 2003, the share that poor countries enjoyed as far as the world trade is concerned declined during the liberalizations period. Anyone would acknowledge that the decline in the share of world trade owned by poor countries is not in the best interests of the citizens of poor countries. In essence, it means that poor countries would be losing their sovereignty to developed countries as far as self-determinism in trade is concerned. The question that emerges from these studies is, “who is benefiting from globalization?” Evidently, developed countries stand to gain from the failings of poor countries in which case they would have the capacity to threaten their sovereignty. After all, economic power is everything as far as national sovereignty is concerned (Streeten 95).

Individuals who support globalization would argue that as much as financial and trade liberalization may not enhance the growth and capital access capacity of a country, it comes with some advantages. They would argue that globalization locks governments into policies that are market-oriented in their home economies. This, therefore, hinders distortion of policies by distinct interests. Unfortunately, they are still unable to provide factual and country-specific evidence to ascertain these claims (Karliner 89).

It is noteworthy that, evidence pertaining to financial and trade liberalization does not in any way suggest that liberalization or globalization is entirely laden with negative effects in all countries. Instead, it underlines the importance of managing globalization in a different manner so that all countries can benefit. It is imperative that before governments or countries surrender their sovereignty or national autonomy, they ascertain the effectiveness of the global institutions and rules that are replacing the national policies. In addition, they should ensure that the institutions and rules work to enhance fair distribution of the benefits that accrue to globalization, as well as the costs pertaining to new vulnerabilities. This is essentially the only way for these countries to safeguard their sovereignty in the face of globalization and ensure that liberalization is still in the best interests of their citizens (Karliner 8).

In conclusion, globalization has a bearing on the autonomy of a country or its national sovereignty. As much as it has been said to enhance economic growth of poor countries, it not only threatens the autonomy of poor countries but also their share in the world market. It is noteworthy that the rules governing international finance and trade heavily reflect the vested and peculiar interests of industrialized countries (Karliner 68). In essence, globalization is a threat to the autonomy and national sovereignty of poor countries. It should, therefore, be adopted only in cases here it allows for fair distribution of the benefits and costs of globalization.

Works cited

Karliner, Joshua. 1997. The corporate planet: ecology and politics in the age of globalization. Chicago: Sierra Club Books.1997. Print

Streeten, Paul. “Globalization: Threat or Opportunity”. New York: John Wiley & Sons. (1999). Print

Flattau, Edward. Green Morality. New York: Way Things Are Publications, 2010. Print

Gillroy, John Martin and Bowersox, Joe, The Moral Austerity of Environmental Decision Making: Sustainability, Democracy, and Normative Argument in Policy and Law. London: Duke University Press, 2002. Print