rsrevision.com/applied ethics

KS3: Yr7-9 | KS4: GCSE | KS5: A level
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions
Definitions | Issues | Case Studies | Ethical Responses | Christian Responses | Resources | Books | Links | Multimedia | In the News | Quizzes | Exam questions

Issues raised by the environment

small logo

Global warming

According to some experts, global warming could be destroying the rainforests. If the rainforests die, global warming could increase, which would destroy more forests... A lot depends on who you listen to. I remember going up to London as a young child to hear a lecture about CFCs (I was accompanying my older brother's O level group!) and how they were attacking the ozone layer. I remember very clearly that several years passed, and that suddenly there was 'new evidence' that CFCs were harmful. It didn't take long until most aerosols exclaimed that they were CFC free.

I recently threw out a pile of worksheets buried at the back of a filing cabinet. It was full of shocking warnings about what the world would be like in the year 2000 if we didn't do something to reduce global warming soon. In 2007, people are now talking about global warming as though we'd just found out about it. Politicians appear to be taking it seriously. Scientists are no longer being accused of scare-mongering. Al Gore, former US presidential candidate (who got more votes than George 'dubya' Bush) even made a film about the 'inconvenient truth' of the threat of global warming. And the film is just Al Gore showing a PowerPoint presentation. And millions of people paid to see it.

Endangered Species

2007 started with the announcement of the winner of ITV's Extinct series or programmes. Viewers voted for the species they would least like to lose. Once a species is lost, it's lost for good. Some experts estimate that a species is made extinct every 30 seconds.

Ethically, this is a fascinating issue, because it's not immediately obvious why we don't want to lose a species. Hundreds of thousands of people phoned in to vote for one species or other, but why? Is a species intrinsically valuable? Is it that we recognise the importance of biodiversity? The answer may vary according to which ethical theory you apply.

Intrinsic value

A big issue in environmental ethics is whether nature is intrinsically valuable, or merely useful to humans. When people argue about environmental ethics - as with other fields of ethics - they can go round and round in circles because both sides have made different assumptions. One side sees the environment as a tool to provide humans with food, resources etc. The other believes that aspects of the environment have their own interests, and need to be considered in their own right.

Whose responsibility is it?

Environmental ethics attracts a peculiar ethical difficulty. Actually, most people agree about most conclusions in environmental ethics, Whether it is because the environment is intrinsically valuable, or because it is valuable to humans, we should not damage the environment irreparably. We should develop sustainably, recycle where possible, reduce pollution, conserve energy, use renewable sources of energy etc. The difficulty is agreeing about what should be done.

Anyone reading this has access to the internet, so you're high up in the top few percent of consumers of energy and natural resources. If you found out your carbon footprint, you would probably be told we would need at least two worlds to sustain your standard of living, But would you, or I, make real changes to the way we live our lives? Will corporations, out to make as much profit as they can, really make changes that they don't have to in order to save the planet? And could we really expect individual governments to put aside economic growth in favour of doing their bit to make the world greener? In 50 years time, people will be saying "If only we'd acted sooner", but who will they mean by 'we'?

Population Explosion

One of the biggest concerns is that population growth could be far more damaging than anything you or I could do to harm the environment. Imagine if we all cut our consumption by 20% (which clearly won't happen). How much difference would that make if the population of the world doubles over the next generation? It is quite possible that ethics will come up with some very unpalatable suggestions, such as major undemocratic initiatives to reduce populations. What is the alternative?

About Us | Site Map | Contact Us | ©2015 rsrevision.com