The original final draft can be found here 👉Philosophy 3B

The quote by Joey Comeau and Emily Horne refers to a hypothetical situation where there may have been an Earth with no human inhabitants. It offers readers the opportunity to truly examine the effects of our species' relationship with the Earth and the environments we inhabit. The reference to the Earth being a child's toy alludes to the child's ability to decide the fate of that toy, which resembles the relationship humans have with the Earth. The child can gain abundance of joy from the toy, but at the expense of the toy itself and with a lack of consideration for the effects of this joy. This metaphor embodies the way humans have built societies today, treating each other, other animals, and the environment that nourishes our life. This essay will discuss the ethics and moral principles underlying this mistreatment of our home, understanding why humanity struggles to agree on solutions to our threatened planet and the implications on our relationship with other animals on Earth. Furthermore, it will provide insights into African Environmental ethics and how it can assist Western civilization in fixing our broken relationship with the planet.

Existentially threatened

For generations, Western views have viewed nature as a force to be conquered and owned by man, as he was the only animal capable of doing so. This idea has proliferated for thousands of years into modern culture, academia, and society, leading to a problem that genuinely concerns the existence of Earth. Our climate is less than a generation away from giving in to the predatory nature of human greed. This problem is undoubtedly a global issue that includes every field of study in human knowledge. Of these fields, the key field appears to be ethics, as the ethics of our actions today should be the criteria for any action that human beings, as rational and moral beings, make regarding the interests of other animals and any life and the interests of future generations of humans and animals. Our actions today should be judged heavily based on the moral duties associated with them, as well as the consequences of those actions on the interests of life on Earth or any future life on Earth (Gardiner, 2011).

The actions currently happening against life on Earth and future generations in terms of lack of severity of action by important stakeholders of Earth, with little consideration given to the least vulnerable inhabitants whose rights are being threatened by societal norms. The people who have the ability to begin implementing the change needed to correct these norms are the same people creating these social norms of injustice and are the main contributors to the problem. The question is, who is responsible and what are the reasons for it? It is difficult to blame one person or group because this is a global issue. The causes and effects of climate change are vastly spatially dispersed, making it difficult to establish a clear causal relationship. Greenhouse gases, which contribute to the heating of the planet, are rarely experienced by those causing the heating, making it difficult for people to correlate the two. This dispersion of cause and effect and the fact that climate change is affecting all countries differently simultaneously means that action against climate change taken by governments is fragmented. Many incentives introduced as countermeasures address climate change locally by aiming to influence local effects. There is a lack of a specific institution responsible for the specific allocation of remuneration actions by attributing the relevant scale of contribution to climate change from each country and then using these rankings to allocate proportional severance packages, as well as a local institution responsible for that country's specific actions to adhere to these agreements. These agreements should be binding for each country so they can be held accountable directly if their appropriate severance package or department has not met its proportional remunerations. Since there is no reset option for humanity to restore the Earth to its original condition, like a child would have to accept that their toy has been altered in a negative way due to their actions and be aware of those actions that may have the most impact on the toy's condition.

These institutions, responsible for upholding their agreements to mitigation actions, should be aware of and able to manage any stakeholders who have a vested interest in maintaining the current climate-destroying society. These actors will resist participating, as their values may not align with the moral implications of a society that respects and values the lives and interests of humans, other animals, the environment and those being exploited to maintain the current system.

Denial of others existence

While there are spatial complications for united action against climate change, there also exists a temporal aspect which further complicates the formation of effective solutions (Gardiner, 2011). We are feeling the results of previous generations' climate neglect, which implies that the effects of our actions may only truly be felt once we are gone. This makes climate change a challenge against humans' self-serving nature and implies that action against climate change has to be well-planned for the future to actually be successful for future generations, raising the question of whether current bureaucratic institutions can grasp the idea of the delay that may occur in the appearance of results, sufficiently to act decisively even in the face of a deferral effect that may not give the desired immediate gratification (Gardiner, 2011). The spatial and temporal dimensions of climate change add severe complications to the implementations of theory and policies into real-world situations. In addition to these complications, the theories surrounding climate change alleviation themselves have proved to be problematic, as there is wild dispute and uncertainty around fields such as the allocation of accountability, the rights of non-human animals and the environment, the ability of humans to "own" land and animals, and the ability to predict the effects of our current actions on the rights of the next generation (Gardiner, 2011). The uncertainties in all those areas that pertain to the core issues, causes, scale and breadth of knowledge on climate change have led to people, especially those in power, being able to leverage these uncertainties against those trying to solve them. Whether it's the lack of evidence on the effects on future generations or scientific predictions that vary based on local measurements, etc. The ability created by the theoretical work on climate change is referred to as the moral corruption that Gardiner suggests is inevitable (Gardiner, 2011). This may be equivalent to a child who cannot fully understand nor accept the breadth of the ramifications of their play with their toy, in terms of the ability of the toy to be used by the next person who will inevitably gain responsibility and the consequences of the actions of the previous person. This person may view the state of the toy's condition as a direct reflection of the relationship or a representation of the way that the child before felt about the next person that would inherit the toy, and this may be seen as a disregard for their circumstances.

The uncertainties pertaining to the spatial, theoretical, and temporal dimensions of climate change may have strong connections with the epistemological distinctions related to humans and their place in this reality. A main epistemological assumption that has been held by humans for a few generations is that humans are removed from nature. This classification of nature as separate from the moral and ethical considerations attributed to humankind when considering actions directed towards either supposedly separate entities, has seen human relationships with other life on Earth evolve into more of a hierarchical dimension, where humans placed themselves atop all life. Once this superficial superiority was established as a societal norm, humans began to believe that it is their natural right to take ownership and utilize the other inhabitants as a means to human ends.

Bill McKibben recognized this false hierarchical assumption of humans and took it further by stating that this assumption had led to the divorcing of humans and nature. He asserts that nature's main characteristic is its independence in functioning, but he claims humans have interfered with its independence to the extent that there remains no part of nature that is not impacted by human activity (McKibben, 1989). McKibben believes this has stripped nature of its main characteristic and therefore it ceases to exist, what remains is merely man-made or artificial environments (McKibben, 2006). McKibben's above assertions that further the gap between nature and humans may form part of the problem statement, but it pits humans against the natural world in a way that makes any effort to conserve nature as part of the issue (McKibben, 1989). Thus, supporting the first assumption of hierarchical superiority or separation from nature, in my opinion, worsening the issue.

Vogel is opposite to McKibben's assertion in that he states that to overcome the complex issues that come along with climate change, the relationship between humans and nature should be reevaluated (Vogel, 2011:83-86). Firstly, by understanding that humans and every activity should be considered as natural, as they originate from a being that is natural, and man-made products that seem to be artificial to McKibben also share natural origins in terms of materials. Secondly, by including humans and nature as one, Vogel opens the door for a type of climate change incentives that recognize that solutions must include human-made environments when referring to climate change activities and theories (Vogel, 2011:83-86). This will change how people think about solutions so they can help transcend the division and fragmentation of climate change incentives that is created by the complexities generated by the global, intergenerational, and epistemological nature of the causes and current solutions of climate change. Vogel suggests that the child and the toy's relationship should be evaluated to determine what are the values or beliefs of the child that are leading to these unthoughtful actions towards the toy. If the child can recognize the true future consequences of the beliefs and actions, there would be ultimately positive consequences.

In discussing human beings and their relationship with non-human life in nature, it is important to address the way non-human animals are treated by humans, as this is where humanity's strongest action against its own kind. The generations before, that placed all animals as assets for human ends, have imprinted the dichotomy of the so-called difference between human and animal experience (Singer, 1974:104-110). Animals were seen as having no qualities that qualify them as sentient beings that could experience suffering or joy, and this structured how we treat animals today (Singer, 1974:104-110). If humans had ceased to exist, animals could have avoided a lot of mistreatment over centuries by humans. But seen as humans have existed and mistreated animals for our own pleasure, there must be prejudices against other animals that should be reevaluated. Peter Singer provides guidance that should be used to recognize animals' ability to experience suffering, this requires a widening of our moral distinctions and principles. Once this occurs at all levels of society, the ways that animals share sentience with humans will be understood and acted upon. Just as people realized all humans are equal, then equality of life will become a core belief of everyone. This will save any animal capable of feeling suffering from such suffering at the hands of their peers (Singer, 1974:104-110).

Although current moral perceptions do not recognize the scale of animal suffering for human pleasure as a true issue that needs to be addressed, traditional African ethics has had considerations and moral principles that lend themselves directly to the conservation of the environment and to the respect and ethical considerations towards the life of animals. African environmental ethics contributors like Kelbessa stress the wholeness of the community that all beings belong to and are intrinsically connected to for survival (Kelbessa, 2015: 387-391). This interconnectedness stresses the need for a more human and inclusive understanding of animals and the environment by utilizing the principles and knowledge attached to ubuntu. The relationships in an African community are based on the value that each relational tie gives another. This value that African environmental ethics emphasizes would certainly add values and morals to the western environmental ethics that will impact the relationship between humans and animals (Kelbessa, 2015: 387-391).

In conclusion, the relationship between humankind and the environment is a complex and multifaceted issue that is rooted in our societal norms, values, and beliefs. The metaphor of the Earth as a child's toy highlights the similarities between the way a child can gain abundance of joy from a toy, but also the possibility that this joy may come at the expense of the toy itself and with a total lack of consideration for its well-being. This metaphor embodies the way humans have built the societies of today and the way we treat the environment that nourishes our life. This essay discussed the ethics and moral principles that underlie this mistreatment of our home and why humanity is struggling to agree on solutions to our threatened planet. It also provided insights into African Environmental ethics and how it can assist our western civilization in fixing our broken relationship with the planet. The complexities generated by the global, intergenerational, and epistemological nature of the causes and current solutions of climate change have led to fragmentation of efforts to mitigate it. However, by reevaluating our relationship with nature and recognizing the interconnectedness of all living beings, we can begin to transcend the division and fragmentation of climate change incentives. This can be achieved by utilizing the principles and knowledge of traditional African ethics, such as ubuntu, which emphasizes the interconnectedness of all living beings and the importance of valuing and respecting all life.

References

McKibben, B., 2006. The end of nature. Random House Incorporated.

Gardiner, S.M., 2011. A perfect moral storm: The ethical tragedy of climate change. Oxford University Press.

Kelbessa, W., 2015. African environmental ethics, indigenous knowledge, and environmental challenges. Environmental Ethics, 37(4), pp.387-410.

Singer, P., 1974. 1989:“All Animals Are Equal “. Teoksessa Tom Regan & Peter Singer (Toim.). Animal rights and human obligations, pp.148-162.

Vogel, S., 2011Why ‘Nature’has no place in environmental philosophy. The ideal of nature: Debates about biotechnology and the environment, pp.84-97.