Pragmatism and the Environment Essay Example for Free

Pragmatism and the Environment Essay The environment is at stake. The world we live in is a state of slow death—that the world is dying everyday just as the human body loses body cells every minute. Every natural resource of the world is continually abused without thought of the consequences. In a way, human beings are that of a virus, a systemic biological specie that consumes an abundant and relatively beneficial part, destroys it, moves on to another area, and leaves the consumed, worthless, and decimated. However, human experience teaches us that we cannot always deny the natural law because as intelligible beings capable of understanding, we have the natural ability to adapt to any environment given and finding ways and means to survive. As such, the development of the human race is not possible if not for our natural inclination of adaptability, protection of species, and survival. In the essay Pragmatism and Environmental Thought by Kelly Parker (1996), she mentions â€Å"what we must not try to do is not to master the natural world, but to cultivate meaningful 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 Knowledge 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 other founders of American pragmatism during the start of the century, argued that there 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 â€Å"baseless† knowledge through factual and concrete understanding—that an ideology is only accepted as true if it is to be found practical in application. Human experience 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: â€Å"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 must have 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 later become moral standards for people until they become a â€Å"norm† of living for most. Based from these practical experiences, these social 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, pragmatism’s 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 ecological systems around them. This coincides with the debate on moral pluralism and anthropocentrism. Moral pluralism specifies â€Å"no single moral principle or over-arching theory of what is right can be appropriately applied in all ethically problematic solutions† (Parker, 1996, p. 31). There is no ultimate and essential set of moral laws governing every scenario of moral problems. Because of the subjectivity 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 order 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 dilemma—whether it would be practical or not. Moral pluralism is also related to the problem of anthropocentrism—the prioritization of values for human beings. Human life is placed on greater 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 others 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 want to protect based on our own experiences and judgment. For instance, the advocates of endangered species or an ecological subsystem represent their â€Å"party† to other human being. It is through the advocates that these creatures are represented in the debate over human need. The Global Challenge With the looming threat of global warming, greenhouse gas, and other ecological concerns, what we should do is concentrate more on proper 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 counteract these issues. If left ignored or continually debated upon without any concrete formulas of implementation, these problems 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 legal 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 its 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 may come to a realization that everything that we do may affect the environment in ways that we might not even know. Removing this unconscious reinforcement may well be one of the keys in solving 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 last 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 system, we must learn how to balance our actions and lifestyles in order to build a beneficial relationship. In this way, everybody wins. Reference Parker, K. (1996) Pragmatism and Environmental Thought. In A. Light E. Katz (Eds. ) Environmental Pragmatism. London and New York: Routledge (21-37).