Pragmatism and the Environment Essay Example for Free

Pragmatism and the Environment Es judgeThe environment is at stake. The world we live in is a state of slow deaththat the world is anxious(p) everyday notwithstanding as the mankind body loses body cells every minute. Every infixed resource of the world is continually abused without eyeshot of the consequences. In a way, clement beings are that of a virus, a systemic biological specie that consumes an vast and relatively beneficial part, destroys it, moves on to an early(a) area, and leaves the consumed, worthless, and decimated. However, human dumbfound teaches us that we skunknot always deny the intrinsic law be face as intelligible beings capable of understanding, we fox the natural ability to adapt to any environment given and finding ways and means to survive. As such(prenominal), the development of the human race is not viable if not for our natural inclination of adaptability, protection of species, and survival. In the essay Pragmatism and Environmental Thou ght by Kelly Parker (1996), she mentions what we moldiness not try to do is not to master the natural world, but to cultivate meaning(prenominal) lives within various environments. This coincides with the natural law of adaptability, in which human beings need not defy standards as defined by nature but to harness it and provide necessary means of survival. Pragmatic intimacy and Environmental Issues Pragmatism heavily relies on factual understanding rather than the complete belief in the innate ideas of the human mind. William James, John Dewey, Charles Pierce, among some other founders of American pragmatism during the start of the century, argued that at that place are no innate beliefs in which knowledge is based.This means that knowledge is not innately transposed upon the human mind. Rather, experience confirms this baseless knowledge done factual and concrete understandingthat an ideology is only accepted as true if it is to be found practical in application. Human exper ience is then the basis of such practicality and its truthfulness is defined through practical solutions. The environment is not detached from the pragmatist or any other being. The environment is part of the experience, that there is a symbiotic relationship between the two biological systems as well as other life systems.Parker (1996) emphasized this point in her essay environment, in the most basic sense, is the field where experience occurs, where my life and the lives of others arise and take place (p. 29). Every circle mustiness concord definite bounds in which it interacts and from that interaction is where experience revolves. Through these experiences, there have been developments in the field concerning the environment, especially on ethics. The development of environmental ethics is based on the pragmatic movement. more specifically, the interaction between the two different world views of nature leads to the eventual development of these ethics. These ethics subsequen tly gravel moral standards for people until they become a norm of living for most. Based from these practical experiences, these affable norms transform into methods of newer forms of social responsibility and enhance environmental awareness such as new laws and legislations concerning the environment, grassroots activism, among others. The Ethical/Global Problem As inferred by the pragmatic view, pragmatisms role with the environment is more on application rather than theorization.In a more general perspective, human beings have the natural tendency to abuse their surrounding and not to take into account their own actions against different ecologic systems around them. This coincides with the debate on moral pluralism and anthropocentrism. Moral pluralism specifies no single moral principle or over-arching theory of what is right can be appropriately applied in all ethically subtle solutions (Parker, 1996, p. 31). There is no ultimate and essential set of moral laws governing every scenario of moral problems.Because of the subjectiveness of experience, it cannot be applied to any moral problem because of the lack of objectivity. In relation to environmental cases, there are different moral standards (i. e. , culture, geographical location) that must be taken into account in ramble for a set of moral/environmental laws to be applied. These different subjective inquiries on what should be protected, allowed, or banned come into a moral dilemmawhether it would be practical or not. Moral pluralism is to a fault related to the problem of anthropocentrismthe prioritization of values for human beings.Human life is placed on great importance rather than other outside factors. In her article, Parker (1996) further explains this line of reasoning Again, this is not to say that human whim is the measure of all things, only that humans are in fact the measurers. This must be a factor in all our deliberation in all environmental issues. We can and should speak on o thers behalf when appropriate, but we cannot speak from their experience (p. 2). The essay proposes that we create standards and laws by speaking for ourselves and for the things that we indirect request to protect based on our own experiences and judgment.For instance, the advocates of endangered species or an ecological subsystem represent their party to other human being. It is through the advocates that these creatures are represented in the debate over human need. The Global dispute With the looming threat of global warming, greenhouse gas, and other ecological concerns, what we should do is concentrate more on kosher action and proper representation of all the numerous aspects of the environment. We have already identified several problems that cause environmental distress recently and from these problems, there should be a formulation of steps to quickly cave these issues.If left ignored or continually debated upon without any concrete formulas of implementation, these pr oblems will continue to grow until they become uncontrollable. The proper need of identifying these problems will help in creating different strategies as well as formulating sound actions that will help protect and preserve environmental issues. The factual and general perspective is the world is dying and it continues to deteriorate as the number of human population increases. The matter of proper action comes into play through the environmental advocacies all around the world that supports of revitalizing planet earth.However, there remains the fact that human beings generally view the environment as something that can be planted, created, destroyed, and recreated again. This cycle implies that even with human intervention, the natural law of nature will still take its place. Society, especially today, should learn to adapt and live harmoniously with the environment in order to create a symbiotic relationship between the two. We also have to address the apathy of humans towards i ts environment.We should remove from the human mindset that the ecological system that we live in is not infinite and it will soon vanish if we are to let our actions not reflected upon. By examining our actions, we whitethorn come to a realization that everything that we do may affect the environment in ways that we mightiness not even know. Removing this unconscious reinforcement may well be one of the keys in resolving our environmental problem. The depletion of our natural resources, the unnatural effects of greenhouses gases and the growing number of human population are just a few of many environmental issues that should be given importance.Although these problems are already experiencing drastic developments for the put up six years, we already have the initiative and the technology to somehow lessen its steady increase and may eventually, although not essentially eradicate, balance the gap between human state of living and the environment. Living with an ecological syste m, we must learn how to balance our actions and lifestyles in order to build a beneficial relationship. In this way, everybody wins. prolongationParker, K. (1996) Pragmatism and Environmental Thought. In A. Light E. Katz (Eds. ) Environmental Pragmatism. London and New York Routledge (21-37).