Essay Sample on Ecological Destruction in the Metaphysical or Religious Assumptions About Reality

Ecological Destruction in the Metaphysical or Religious Assumptions About Reality

Ecological destruction can be explained or analyzed in the metaphysical or religious perspectives. Confronting the current ecological crisis requires a complete assessment of the way individuals think as well as their place in the world. However, while presenting the intellectual and social challenges to humanity, the ecological problems reveal the total insufficiency of the predominant modes of thoughts. Additionally, the environmental problems disclose the nihilistic attitudes which control the modern world. This prompt discusses the ecological destruction in terms of metaphysical or religious assumptions about reality.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The imperviousness of the governments and the people to the palpable irrationalities of the current ecological order as well as their unwillingness to undertake the conservation measures to the ecological problems only escalates the environmental challenges. In other words, there is a lack of long term plans to mitigate the ecological problems that face the environment or the world at large (Handley 502). The present patina of concerns for the ecological or environmental conditions elaborated or advocated for by the opportunistic politicians can rarely be taken seriously (Handley 497). In other words, the politicians often remain committed to the deregulation of the markets, economic growth as well as the consumerist values which increase the ecological destructions.

The ecological destruction can be found in the metaphysical assumptions about reality. First, metaphysics seeks to elaborate universal or inherent elements of reality which are not easily experienced or discovered in daily life. When it comes to the ecological destructions, metaphysics is concerned with the explanation of features of reality that occur beyond the real or physical world as well as the immediate senses. The cause of ecological destruction exists within the nature of space, time, and causality (Handley 501). Additionally, the ecological destruction originates from the human mind while metaphysics involves the definition of human existence within and outside their environment.

In most cases, the ecological perspectives provide the scientific basis for the environmental conservation initiatives, mitigation of pollution, as well as the understanding of sustainability. The above scenario can be perceived in the context of progress in philosophy and science. The logic, in reality, has no issue in accepting the paradoxical nature of the ecological science in terms of going beyond the existing standard disciplines to the totality of nature, inanimate and animate. Philosophers can accept or reject the on-going contradictions in the ecology as a realm that is in itself illogical and unecological when it comes to the standard sense of logic. In Plato's forms, the modern-day ecology is undergoing the conceptual upheaval due to the increase in computational power. The present emphasis on the personal-based models incorporate the methodological individualism, ought to be perceived as the return of the reductionism in the ecology. Other essential development involves in Plato's form on ecological destruction include the widespread curiosity in the spatially explicit models as well as the advent of the Geographical Information Systems. According to religious assumption, the Book of Genesis stresses on the importance of ecological protection.

In conclusion, therefore, the destruction of the environment is often occasioned by human activities that are not in line with God's plans. Plato's metaphysical theory is most helpful in healing the human relationship with the environment or the natural world. The theory explains the human perception and approaches to the physical world; also, the theory elaborates on the whole ecosystem of the interrelated flora and fauna.

Conceptualization of "The Good Life" Today

Today, the good life can be conceptualized by different factors ranging from the ecological state of the environment to the economies and the social life in the society at large. In the philosophical perspective, the good life refers to the kind of life that a person may dream of living either presently or in the future (Cottingham 32). In ancient times, the approaches or concepts of the good life were simple since it only involved having good food, tribal affiliation, family, and proper shelter. In other words, it was a freedom that an individual acquired from the hardships that come with life. This prompt discusses the conceptualization of " The Good Life" and how it requires the ecologically examined life.

According to Aristotle, a good life is a function of an individual in society and the entire ecological perspectives undertaking their human functions effectively. To achieve excellence that human desire in society, there is a need for a good life (Cottingham 17). Having a good life involves the exploration of things and activities that brings satisfaction and joy. In other words, it is all about finding meaning and purpose in one's life as well as drawing happiness from what an individual does.

In the present world, the conservation literature incorporates the concept of good life and well-being as the key factors in the formulating successful policies as well as measuring intervention impacts. In the current world, one of the factors that define good life is attempts to improve biodiversity outcomes. For people to achieve a good life in different societies, there is a need to adhere to the ethical principles of conservations. Protection of the ecological systems is one of the practices that ensure the future of the earth and well-being of the people (Cottingham 37). Through the conservation of the ecological systems, there is always the motivation or interest that enable people to manage the available resources in sustainable approaches. In the philosophical point of view, there is always the link between the conservation and the good life or well-being of people in different environments. Currently, the above scenario has been emphasized in international policies.

Today, a good life involves living to achieve economic sustainability, i.e., being economically stable, living in a healthy environment, ensuring the positive morals in society and living in harmony with the people. Therefore, living a good life in the present world requires an ecologically examined life. In society, everyone always depends on the natural ecosystem to provide important life-supporting services such as climate regulations, feeding habitats as well as the maintenance of the entire ecosystems. In the modern world, ecological disruption has negatively impacted human life. Thus individuals cannot achieve the good life that they require. Lack of a healthy and well-defined ecological system often results in severe social poverty due to the spread of diseases.

In conclusion, Poor environments or ineffective ecological systems poses a bad life for the people. Therefore, a good life requires ecologically examined life. The increased interaction of people with the natural environment leads to the ecological problems that deny people opportunities to have a good life. Understanding the concept of ecosystem and the concepts of ecology implies the intricate interaction between the people and their relation to their environment.

My Thoughts about Who And/or What Is Deserving of Moral Consideration

In moral consideration, there is a moral claim that only some beings can recognize such claims. In the philosophical point of view, a morally considerable being refers to every being who can be wronged. In many cases, it is thought that only human beings can recognize moral claims; in other words, only humans usually become considerable (Coeckelbergh 213). On the other hand, if a question is raised on why are the only types of beings who can be morally wronged, we begin to realize that there is a class of beings that recognizes moral claims as well as those who often suffer moral wrongs are not co-extensive. The prompt discusses who or what deserves moral consideration.

In some cases, one might respond that membership in the biological category does not matter morally; rather, what matters is the social meaning of the categories. Therefore what constitutes a moral society are the structures, not only the institutions that one operates within but how they conceptualize themselves and the world. For a long time and in every society, humans have developed the moral systems and other valuable practices, as a result, through creating the above systems, there is always the separation of humans from the rest of the animals (Coeckelbergh 213). However, the category of human is morally contested. For instance, some people would argue that the act of racism is not primarily about prejudice and discrimination, but a tool for dehumanizing blackness in an attempt to provide a condition that makes humans white. In line with the above thought, speciesism is not focused on prejudice or discrimination; it is the main tool for developing human supremacy.

In the ecosystem or ecological setup, humans deserve moral consideration. Just like speciesism, human moral status can be perceived in different ways. In other words, human exceptionalism can be understood in various ways. One of the most common ways of understanding the idea of human moral consideration suggests that there is a distinctly human capacity; and it is through these capacities that human showcase the moral status compared to other animals. In humans, moral consideration is observable in expressing emotions, developing family ties, thinking abstractly, solving social problems, among other factors (Coeckelbergh 210).

From the deontological perspective, human possess the right to know, and this comes with the responsibility to communicate all the ecological risks as well as the consideration of the principles of prevention, environmental justice, and precautions. The above scenario, therefore, indicates that human controls the moral community; it is on this basis that ecosystems, land, trees, animals be excluded from the moral community. In society, animals are not equal to human beings because human possess the properties, and these are some of the factors that confer an equal and a full moral status that human being possesses. In the deontological perspective, only human beings have the rights; they are also autonomous, rational, and self-conscious; humans are the only creatures that can act morally and become part of the community.

According to land ethics, land with all the organisms that live within it, possess intrinsic values. These values can only be realized in the ecological view or systems. And even though the ecological system is important in the definition of the moral society, they do not contribute to the moral status of the community (Coeckelbergh 212). Therefore, according to the land ethics, land, ecosystems, trees, animals can be excluded from the moral community.

In conclusion, the only human should be included in an attempt to achieve the moral society or community. Similarly, the deontological approach considers human as the main driver of moral rights and the right ecological status of the environment. The above scenario, therefore, indicates that do not apply or relate to the non-human animals. Animals do not have rationality like human beings; in this regards, non-humans do not possess the rights or contribute to the moral of the community.