Singer’s environmental ethics is built on his principle of equal consideration of interests. Throughout this chapter, he uses the example of the destruction of the wilderness to support his position. Before inflicting any sort of acts against nature, or our environment, he wants us to think about the creatures that are living in the environment that we will possibly destroy. Singer wants us to take into consideration their privilege to life. These creatures’ interests are not the only ones that we should take into consideration; he also mentioned the future generations of human beings. In addition to the humans and non-humans that Singer wants us to ponder about he wants us to consider what we are doing to the environment and if the benefits of destroying our wilderness is really of any value.
One of the aspects of destroying nature, or the wilderness, was that we need to take into consideration the animals and creatures that reside in that area. We need to contemplate about the consequences that would result from this type of destruction, such as the extinction of a species. When the wilderness is torn apart for humanity’s pleasure, economy, etc. we are in essence putting the species who occupy that area in danger. As Singer pointed out, the scientists are still exploring the area. There are many things still to be learned about the area, yet if destruction of the place occurs there will not be any species of flowers, plants, animals, etc. left to study. Perhaps the extinction of a species that is unknown to us means nothing. After all, we did not know it was there in the first place; thus not knowing neither harms us, nor does it benefit us. If we put the thought of the possibility of extinction aside, Singer still wants us to consider the creatures’ right to a pleasurable life. We may not know how pleasurable it is, but it will definitely be better than having no home, no food, etc. These animals’ lives should not be dismissed from our decisions. However we decide our choices affect each and every one of their life’s interests. From a utilitarian’s point of view we need to consider these animals’ future existence and future pleasure. If we were to take away their lives, there will be no future. The effects of their deaths will create many repercussions for society in general.
If we do not want to think about the animals and all the non-human creatures that are existent in the wilderness then we need to think about humans and the consequences that we will suffer. Some of the aspects Singer discuss, some people may find trivial, such as aesthetics and genuine nature and history, however he puts these aspects into a context that everyone has to consider because in one way or another we can relate to those examples that he sets forth.
One of the first examples he used was the art museums and this makes perfect sense. People have opened museums that store beautiful art works from a variety of artists. The beauty of these artworks give us pleasure, thus we would not go and set them on fire, or in his case, bulldoze Le Louvre down to the ground. It is simply unthinkable. To put it closer to home, it makes me wonder about the Huntington Library and other gardens around the world that are preserved for humanity’s pleasure. No one would in their right mind go and destroy something as magnificent as those botanical gardens.
As for the genuine nature aspect, if we continue to destroy what wilderness we have left, there will be no genuine nature left for us to enjoy. There will never be another hike through the forest or over the rocky cliffs, etc. Everything that will exist in the world will be man-made.
Then there is history. We have archeologists who are consistently trying to find artifacts from the past to put together a picture of societies from long ago. We take great care to preserve the ones we find. If we were to tear down our wilderness, would we not be committing the same crime our ancestors had done? They had left nothing for us; they had not thought about the future generations. According to Singer’s principle of equal consideration of interests, we need to think about the future generations of humanity. We need to leave them a piece of history and not destroy that link. Furthermore, the gains that we obtain from the destruction of the wilderness are only temporary and short-lived. There may be more employment opportunities fro several decades, however, Singer asked what would happen when new technology is developed and could have bettered the situation? What is done is done. We will have lost a valuable piece of nature at the cost of temporary gains and benefits for humanity. We need to think about the long run, the future. Before actions are taken to tear apart any forests or lands of nature, we need to add up the effects of our actions. The future’s interests, whether animals, humans or plants, all need to be given equal consideration, especially when it is not necessary to ruin nature for our subsistence.
Singer’s plans for the environment according to his ethics are that we need to give interests to the now and the future. We need to think about the animals and human’s future experience and existence. We need to be wary of the materialistic world. Whatever we can do to better the environment, we should take part in. The consequences of not doing so can be seen with the greenhouse effect and the depletion of the ozone layer. By not being cautious, we will have so much pollution that it will only harm us, or at least no doubt it will affect the future generations. We cannot be careless like those from a few decades ago who could care less about the ozone layer, thinking that it will not affect them. We are living a lot longer these days, and it is in our best interest that we live a healthy and happy life. Thus, we need to pay attention to the green consumer guides and the books that contain topics of how we can maintain the livelihood of this planet. We need to save the planet, in order to save ourselves. By monitoring our uses of gas, oil and plastic does not mean that we should not enjoy life. It simply means that we should find better ways to enjoy life. Finding happiness in life does not necessarily mean that we need to give up all the worldly goods that harm the environment. We simply need to monitor our uses.
Perhaps one of the most important reasons why we should act morally in the first place falls in line with the principle Singer has used throughout his book Practical Ethics. It is in our best interest that we act morally: to defend ourselves, to protect those we care about, and to find happiness. If we did not act morally but only on behalf of our own interests, we would soon find our life meaningless. By acting morally, or having morals, we have established a goal in life, or a rule, a doctrine, a guide as to how to live life. If we did not have rules to guide us by, there would be chaos, and we do not want to live in a world where there is no order. Not only would chaos cause us to be unhappy, but we would not have anything to live for because we may do whatever we please. Thus, regardless of our actions there are no negative consequences; how can there be if no one is moral. This is the reason why there are laws; it is a result of society and their rationality. To act ethically would basically promote our well-beings and internal happiness. To do otherwise would to contradict the universal values that society has created. Furthermore, it would lead to condemnation by other members of society and result in the wrong-doers punishment.
In addition to living unethically, or to be presumed to be unethical would be detrimental, as can be seen in Singer’s appendix segment. People perceive Singer along with many other philosophers to be unethical because they contradict the universal standards, or at least their opinions about certain ethical issues contradict those of society. The situations that Singer has set forth in the appendix are real. We have every reason to believe that those who opposed Singer and colleagues like him honestly believe that these spokespeople are bad and that they are promoting something close to Nazism. This is most prevalent in Germany, where the holocaust had taken place, thus they are extremely sensitive on issues such as euthanasia. However, Singer tries to explain to his opponents that his position on euthanasia is not to intimidate those who are disabled or old. Singer states that euthanasia should not be a threat to those who are still conscious and aware; his position is based on those who are non sentient beings.
With the controversies and protests found concerning such ethical topics as euthanasia it is easy to see why it is a sensitive moral issue. People have been threatened before and their lives may have been in danger, thus their trust in morality is not as strong as it should be or as strong as those in other countries. People in Germany are still rebuilding their morals and ethics system, trying to cope and trust those around them, thus when something disturbs their morality system, it threatens their lives and happiness. The opponents of euthanasia fear that if they give the speakers who are pro-euthanasia an opportunity to speak, another Hitler, or something along that same line, will arise. Moral values especially are vulnerable topics because many fear that it will affect their lives and result in their deaths.
