Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Environmental Science and Ethics. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4 page paper examines the relationship between environmental science and ethics. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_HVEnvEth.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
classical ethics to a breaking point" because it doesnt just seek "an appropriate respect for life" analogous to the standards we have applied in law and medicine, for instance; environmental
ethics asks "whether there can be nonhuman objects of duty" (Rolston, 1991). Environmental science is different from all other branches of scientific study in that it is "trying to reform
a science that finds nature value free and an ethics that assumes that only humans count morally" (Rolston, 1991). Environmental science seeks to free itself from the trappings of human
culture and judge nature in two separate states: the nature "that mixes with culture and wild nature" (Rolston, 1991). This requires that the environmental scientist make his approach from a
non-humanistic (human-centered) viewpoint (Rolston, 1991). People often smile about environmental ethics, expecting scientists to be working toward "rights for rocks and chicken liberation, misplaced concern for chipmunks and daisies"
(Rolston, 1991). This attitude arises out of the belief that scientists in other fields are working with "real" issues such as "medical ethics, business ethics, justice in public affairs, questions
of life and death, peace and war" (Rolston, 1991). This, they argue, is a far cry from worrying about the future of the human race and preventing nuclear war (Rolston,
1991). But environmental ethical questions are just as serious: "the degradation of the environment poses as great a threat to life as nuclear war, and a more probable tragedy" (Rolston,
1991). The problem with environmental science and its ethical dimension, as Rolston sees it, is that there is something fundamentally wrong with an ethic that "regards the welfare of
only one of several million species [man] as an object and beneficiary of duty" (Rolston, 1991). He insists that there is something "morally na?ve" about living with a belief system
...