The Pros And Cons Of The Endangered Species Act

Superior Essays
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was passed when the U.S. Congress acknowledged that “various species of fish, wildlife, and plants in the United States have been rendered extinct as a consequence of economic growth and development” (“Endangered Species Act of 1973”). This congressional action has made the killing and eradication of any species illegal across the United States and its territories if said species is protected by the U.S. Federal Government. The Endangered Species Act has certainly been effective in the sense that it prevented many species from going extinct, but that does not mean it is above scrutiny or refinement. There are a few ethical flaws which are reflected in the limitations of protection status offered by the Endangered …show more content…
This includes the basic natural givens: air, soil, water, functioning ecosystems, hydrologic cycles and so on. These could previously be taken for granted. But now the right must be made explicit and defended. Note that is not any claim against or for nature itself; rather it is a claim made against other humans who might deprive us of such nature (Rolston 519-520)”
Many would take that quote and say it opens the door to environmental fascism. Protecting the natural world at all cost, regardless of what humans might want may seem extreme and possibly violate individual rights, but considering what has been allowed to occur in the past, that actually just seem like necessary precaution. Having the U.S. government create regulations so that it is illegal for citizens to essentially ruin the lives of future generations is by no means
…show more content…
Kant believes that “other animals are mere means, and may therefore be used for human purposes” (Korsgaard 97); while it may be true that animals are means from a Kantian perspective, humans cannot actually do whatever they want to them and still be ethical. Looking at the situation deeply, the impact you will have on the ecosystem by contributing to the removal a species will eventually causes problems for other humans, who you have an obligation not to treat as means. Although we have done much to separate human society from the natural world, the fate of our society has always been bound to the natural world:
Environmental quality is necessary for quality of human life. Humans dramatically rebuild their environments; still, their lives, filled with artifacts, are lived in a natural ecology where resources—soil, air, water, photosynthesis, climate—are matters of life and death. Culture and nature have entwined destinies, similar to (and related to) the way minds are inseparable from bodies. So ethics needs to be applied to the environment (Rolston

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    However, the points that Attfield criticizes makes it so Rolston’s argument for policies is not perfect and leaves things vague like his definition for development and what should be done about the humans’ overpopulation. (Attfield 465-466). Overall, both sides of the argument are agreeable and can be combined to advocate limiting development and maybe replenish the natural world. However, nothing will change unless action is taken to potentially save what wilderness is left and preserve a balance between the environment and human…

    • 1006 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Animals would suffer tremendously from a lack of food and that individual suffering would be a violation of their moral code. Callicott would find this answer disturbing, he views the environment to have intrinsic value. He would not feel strongly about the suffering of the animals because their suffering can be integral to the integrity and sustainability of an ecosystem. To have intrinsic value in Singer’s world you would need to be able to feel pain. Whether plants feel pain is scientifically vague, plants seem to have a nervous system that responds to stimuli, but we cannot measure to see if the plants can feel pain.…

    • 1062 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Many have challenged legitimacy of laws that are not imposed by those in power, but the advantage to natural law theory is the fact that it protects the rights of those under the law, which would be everyone on the earth since it universal. And it relies on morality to help form…

    • 916 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal rights is an idea that non-human animals should be entitled to their own lives, and that they should be afforded similar consideration as human. I will argue that it is a better option for humans not to accept animal rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal rights is limiting to the advancement in human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal rights. Finally, Animal rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining ecosystems and the environment.…

    • 937 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    We must assume our beliefs are innocent until proven guilty by Good Reason, and that most of our beliefs are probably close enough to the truth, otherwise they would not have aided in the survival and been selected for by evolution. The best argument against moral realism does not even need evolution to make us rightfully worry, but the inclusion of evolution weakens the argument, leading to skepticism again. Our disposition to make a distinction without a difference is a serious moral dilemma, but has no bearing on the current discussion since we are addressing the problem of evolution in relation to realism. The problem here is not in the content of the argument itself, but in the very…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The beginning of state of nature meaning war. Hobbes wants the society to work together meaning giving some rights up in exchange for protection. “This equality of ability produces equality of hope for the attaining of our goals” (Thomas Hobbes). For example, if two people want something they both can’t enjoy or use then they quickly become enemies. Hobbes view, “A law of nature is a command or general rule, discovered by reason, which forbids a man to do anything that is destructive of his life or takes away his means for preserving his life, and forbids him to omit anything by which he thinks his life can best be preserved” (Leviathan, Chapter 14).…

    • 1796 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Ethics In Architecture

    • 2412 Words
    • 10 Pages

    I am aware my actions and decision could have negative impact toward the environment, therefore I am environmentally conscious. This means that my decision are guided by my set of belief for the environment. I believe that for the eco-system to exist in harmony, the decision such as architect like myself must be guided be sensitive to the environmental concerns. This include making efforts of protecting the environment during my work…

    • 2412 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Singer’s showing that there are inevitable reasons when we can’t treat the subgroups in a big group the same with each other and grants them the same right due to distinct differences. Singer introduces Betham’s view on the aspect of most people look down on animals just because they are not humans. Singer believes that we are privileged humans and that is what we only know and what we are comfortable…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The environmental laws and regulations are set in place to protect and clean up the earth except they defeated those laws and regulations. Any one that truly cares about the world would understand why laws and regulations is a must but not PharmaCARE. Also their pledge “We CARE about YOUR world” says…

    • 1008 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, this is done by the government in order to ensure the safety of the nation. It is not explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution that its citizens have the natural right to privacy; it is only implied. “According to Hobbes ' account, the right of nature is defined in chapter 14 as the right of self-preservation (14:189). ' This "right" is contrasted immediately with the "law" of nature, whereby individuals are forbidden to do anything destructive of their lives or to omit the means of self-preservation” (jstor). By applying this idea of Hobbes’, one may see that by protesting the government’s surveillance of an individual’s internet history, he or she is causing destruction to the lives of those around them.…

    • 841 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays