Prompt used for Compare and Contrast: http://environmentalethics.tumblr.com/post/16237473021/writing-prompt-10
In this post, the student explicitly takes an ecological ethical position. In support of her argument, she opposes Callicott’s attempt to explain the stratifying aspect of obligation extending outward from the human being to the bigger biotic community witch includes the environment. According to this post, human obligations should not come before that of the environment because we are a part of the community and should, therefore, equalize interests. Not only is the equality of interests ideal for this student, but complete preservation of the beauty, integrity and complexity of the natural world. The student lists the abandonment of modern transportation in an attempt to stop the emission of greenhouse gases. While I agree that modern forms of transportation are extremely harmful to the environment, completely abandoning the idea is completely counterproductive and incoherent in relation to the nature of our humanity. Modern transportation one of the many reasons civilizations is even able to exist. The student then suggests that the common conclusion or criticism that is always made about an environmental ethic is wrong because it does not illustrate fascism. But by the theories expressed within environmental ethics, population control and noninvolvement with the biotic community is ideal. The student even concludes with solutions such as “legislation on family size” and the increased spreading of birth control.
In my prompt, I basically proposed an idea of balance while still respecting nature but valuing the individual inherent worth of individuals as opposed to the whole biotic community. I agree with the student only that an attitude of respect for nature is essential to a moral philosophy concerning the environment. I always mistakenly refer to my position as an approach to environmental ethics because I only use “environmental” as a descriptive term and not the view that ethics concerning the environment should be holistic. Rather, I think that my stance is closer to animal liberation due to my view that each individual in the biotic community posses inherent worth and interests that might override an obligation to preserve the stability, integrity and complexity of the biotic community as a whole. But the defining difference that I think is important, and as Sagoff illustrates, to consider is that those interests are not necessarily and laterally equal. Humanitarian obligations, such as nondiscriminatory attitudes and practices matter more than not stepping on a bug or swatting a fly. By the environmental holistic ethic, we are to equate the moral value of these two instances and attribute the same obligation to both which is inherently conflicting at the least and contradictory at the most.
The stark differences between the student and I embody the basis for the prevailing disputes between ecological ethical positions and animal liberation positions. The interests of the community cannot be achieved while still valuing he interest of the individual simultaneously. Like the Algonquin society as Callicott illustrates, a relationship consisting of compromises is ideal. Satisfying self interests and needs then becomes the paramount obligation. What follows is an outward extension of obligatory moral considerations that are comprehensive. The next logical obligation is the human species and then to the resources and animals that co-exist in the biotic community. Adhering to these obligations is clear until there is a conflict of interest between human beings and another member (or group of members) of the planetary biota. Once there is a conflict of interests, then a balanced compromise is necessary providing incentives or compensations for damage to the environment or exploitation of other animals. While observing a respect for nature, one should only commit these actions if it is necessary to survival, relatively truncated in causing damage to the environment, or possible to prevent the future need for such activities. Ignoring the fact that we need to use the planet for its resources is not problematic because it denies one of the most basic aspects of human nature. We are social and civilization and social behavior is natural and not immoral. Moderation is key and due to the fact that we have produced technology that harms the environment, we can also produce technology to tend to fixable problems and prevent the perpetuation of future ones. Maybe this is too much of an optimistic view, but moderation is not a lesser of other evils.
This is in response to Prompt 11
doomyay 
At the beginning of your post, I thought you were going to agree with the other student’s post which you chose to compare to your own, but then as I reached the middle of your post I felt confused. Are you agreeing with the animal liberation ethics or the holistic approach? You say that the animal liberation ethics are closer to your own views, but then go on to say that you believe that moderation and compromise are needed among members of the biotic community, which seems to me as more holistic. Perhaps you are more in between these two views – you seem to want to value each individual animal as their own being, and yet promote moderation, which I believe is possible. You best embody this when you say “Once there is a conflict of interests, then a balanced compromise is necessary,” because it shows that you do value other species as their own selves but recognize human needs as well. I liked your post overall, and think you have many good ideas, especially when it comes to the idea of moderation. You seem to have a clear grasp on the fact that in order to make realistic change there needs to be a balance in things, and not just an extreme move one way or another.
Yeah. While I was writing I realized that. I am in between but I lean way more towards animal liberation. In fact, the only aspect of an ecological ethic that I agree with is an attitude for respect of nature. Only with this notion in mind can moderation be genuine and still emphasize the importance of inherent worth without being utilitarian. I think of it as evaluating each case of using resources or exploiting animals in and of itself instead of trying to ensure happiness for the majority of the individuals involved in this discussion.
I agree with your reasoning stated in your final paragraph which argues that once there is a question between the biotic community and the human community, land ethics hits a stand still. But I claim that this is not reason to abandon the holistic approach but rather make amendments to it. The discussion of natural resources is one of these areas that makes us question the practicality of land ethics. But land ethics offers a solution. We can compromise with the environment by using renewable resources. This solution fulfills human need for energy and power and other products that are not as harmful to the environment. Thus we are respecting nature while solving our own energy and consumption problems. Decisions we make do not only have to benefit humanity only or only benefit the biotic community but create a balance as Dom discusses. This balance is a holistic idea. As for humanity not being able to adjust to these compromises; well look at other nations who have had to adjust for economic reasons but end up benefiting the environment too. Europe has had to shift its car industries to smaller cars due to the price of oil which has not only reduced cost for people but a smaller car means fewer pollutants produced. Europe has also adopted bike paths that allow people to safely move about without the use of cars which again benefits the environment and humanity. The pace of society follows transportation, so if transportation methods were shifted in the United States slowly, then society would follow, benefiting the biotic community as well as humanity.
Interesting take on my analysis. I did intake take more of on an ecological ethical position in my last prompt. However, there were several things that I might not have been clean on. Though I do agree with a more holistic approach when it comes to environmental treatment, I do not explicitly think that humanitarian obligations are second to our environmental duties. In fact, I applaud Callicott for bringing up the discrepancy between the human moral community and the biotic moral community. I rejected his argument because I felt that his solution was too broad. Although I’m sure Callicott meant for us to satisfy our duties to our own man in the most moral way possible, others might take advantage of his lack of a definition. They might state that building over important ecosystems or depleting the world of its natural resources is a humanitarian obligation, and thus, they are justified to do so. You stated in your post, “once there is a conflict of interests, then a balanced comprise is necessary providing incentives or compensations for damage to the environment or exploitation of other animals.” I whole heartedly agree with this statement! I believe that humans are bound by their individual moral duties to their human community, but these duties must be built around the treatment of our biotic system. Though I may lean more towards the ecological position and you to the animal liberation position, I see that we both agree that one must live life with a combination of both. This is why I suggested possible solutions of birth control or legislation on family size. These things may sound absurd but they may be the necessary resolutions to the world’s overpopulation problem instead of resorting to mass genocide. As I’m sure you know, China has the “one child policy” where each family is only allowed to have one child. If they wish to have a second or third child, they must pay a huge tax. Although many have reacted to this policy with distaste, this piece of legislation has kept China’s population problem from exploding any further.
You said moderation is key, but moderation is key to what, specifically? I got a general sense of your position, but it would have been great for you to say what moderation is key to in the end as a summary of where you ultimately stand. In the end, you suggest a resolution for people to only commit actions toward nature that are necessary for survival. When I read your concluding sentences about people only committing actions toward nature that are necessary for survival, I could not help but reflect on the beginning of your post. In the beginning of your post, you mentioned how the other student would support abandoning modern transportation all together. Then you responded by saying that it would be unrealistic to abandon modern transportation all together, because modern transportation is what makes our society modern. Coming back to your concluding sentences, I could not help but think that humans have different definitions of what is necessary for survival. In your case, you did not support the complete abandonment of modern transportation, but you did support humans only committing actions toward nature that are necessary for survival. To myself, modern transportation is not necessary for survival, but seemingly from your post, modern transportation is necessary for survival for you if you would not abandon modern transportation in the fact of committing actions toward nature that are necessary for survival.