Even if no options are available, we must NOT follow our natural tendency to alleviate human suffering. This idea sounds cruel and immoral, but it is not. We need to draw a line and make our responsibilities to the environment absolute. If we make exceptions, more than the slippery slope argument comes into play. We will then take away any incentive for planning because we will always have a safety net. Truly, if protecting the environment is essential for our long term survival the measures we take have to be drastic. ConclusionThe environmental ethics established may be faulty in philosophical reasoning, but it is ideal for practical use. Its ideal of prioritizing environmental concerns leaves clear guidelines for both bureaucrats and a citizen alike. In defining the environment before we mentioned that we view environmental concerns with humans as external factors. This is not accurate. When evaluating a situation, it is essential to take human force into account but the goal we are shooting for is a habitat minus humans. But why? Are we setting ourselves to fail from ever reaching our goals? The answer is loaded in that it is both yes and no. The notion that in reaching something beyond our means we can achieve something livable while constantly striving for improvement....
