-
Home
- Business, government, and society
- Environmental and social justice
- Approaches in environmental
- The flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth has intrinsic value. The value of nonhuman life-forms is independent of the usefulness these may have for narrow human purposes.
- Richness and diversity of life-forms are values in themselves and contribute to the flourishing of human and nonhuman life on earth.
- Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
- Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
- The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
- Significant change of life conditions for the better requires change in policies. These affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures.
- The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating
life quality (dwelling in situations of intrinsic value) rather than adhering to a high standard of living. there will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
- Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes. This Deep Ecology Platform was developed by Naess and Sessions and quoted in Des Jardins, p. 217.
Conflicts between goods: a schema for their analysis and resolution
|
Human Goods/Non-Human Goods |
Basic Non-Human Good |
Non-Basic, Non-Human Good |
|
Basic Human Good |
Basic human good has priority because of right of survival. (Humans need to clear wilderness to grow food) |
Basic human good has priority because a basic good has priority over a non basic good. Cutting back branches on a tree to prevent them from breaking off and killing school children |
|
Non-Basic Human Good |
The basic, non-human good has priority because a basic good has priority over a non-basic good. Ex: I ought not cut down my trees to pave over my backyard and park my car. |
Toss-up. Some non-basic goods have priority over others. I may, for example, have the right to deprive a non-human of some good in order to preserve an important (but not basic) cultural or historical good. |
Trade offs between human and non-human, basic and non-basic goods.
Notes on table two
- Sacrificing one good for another is always a last resort. This requires that you do the following first:
- That you have first looked hard for ways to harmonize or integrate the conflicting goods. Chances are, you can design a value-integrating solution.
- That the conflict between goods can only be resolved by the sacrifice of one to the other.
- That if you do--as a last resort--find it necessary to sacrifice one good, that you find a way to offset this. For example, AES planted trees in Costa Rica to sequester the carbon that it produced in its co-generation plants in the US.
- That the sacrifice of the basic non-human good be only for the short term. That preventive measures be taken now to prevent such a sacrifice in the future.
Source:
OpenStax, Business, government, and society. OpenStax CNX. Mar 04, 2014 Download for free at http://legacy.cnx.org/content/col10560/1.6
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.
