Ethics and the environment.

Today the effect upon the environment have moral implications. In order to establish a list of priorities for human conduct, it is necessary to understand the value of our own human lives and the value of our ecosystem. Different schools of thought have different priorities that they each try to support. The technocratic individualist (TI) believes that the end of progress and economic expansion, justifies any means. This attitude leads to the exploitation of the earth and violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It leaves the planet bare and lifeless. Current methods employed by the TIs are based on consumptive methods that extract what is needed without any concern for the future. the TIs' methods result in the tragedy of the commons, in which the common people are exploited for the benefit of an elite few. The environmental holist (EH) claims that we must abandon the anthropocentric ethics of the TIs; however, the EHs suffer from both scientific and ethical problems. If we do as the EHS say and respect all life, we can not eat, fight disease, or build shelter. Further, if we value ourselves equally with the rest of the ecosystem, then we could easily justify violating human rights and decent conduct in an effort of avoid doing harm in the ecosystem. The best compromise between these 2 extremes lies in contract ethics. Because we benefited from the people of the past, we have an obligation, through a social contract, to the people of the future. The last element of an acceptable list of priorities of conduct lies in the distinction between strong and weak rights. Strong rights are those necessary for our survival, weak rights are those that give our lives meaning. Thus our ethical priorities should be: (1) duty to recognize strong human rights: (2) duty to protect environmental interests; (3) duty to recognize weak human rights.