Environmental and Animal Ethics Essay

During the dark ages, justice was applied selectively basing on race and gender. People of color had no full rights especially when interacting with Europeans and other powerful races in the society. The law always favored the whites, people of other races lived at the mercy of the whites.

In today’s world, equality is embraced everywhere including places that were worst hit by the vice. Each creature is being awarded freedoms and rights. Thus, even trees and animals deserve their rights though they may not be equal to those of humankind. Governments and the society in general should develop some laws that will govern interaction between humankind and nature.

The writer argues that to some point, the environment should be treated in the same way human beings are treated meaning that companies polluting the environment with emissions should understand that the environment feels the pain. The courts are challenged by the writer to offer grant to the right holding, which will be the only way of ensuring safety and polluted free environment. The writer observes that as per now, natural objects do not have rights.

The courts in most cases favor the property owning human beings in deliberating over environmental pollution. The writer accuses the courts for siding with powerful multinational corporations to destroy the environment by allowing them to deposit waste products at an expense of associated consequences.

The writer cautions that the judicial authorities are not aware of the costs involved in making and maintaining forests such as reseeding, repairing watershed and restocking world life (Stone 177). Stone is upset with the fact that either most of the natural objects have no rights holding but instead the owners, the government or private owners are granted their rights.

Natural objects are treated as mere objects that are readily available for man to utilize them. Even if they are polluted and compensated, the proceeds do not go into upgrading them instead the owners diverge the proceeds into other activities. The natural objects, just the way people of the color were treated, exist at the mercy of the alleged owners who are keen to preserve and maintain them.

Stone is optimistic that efforts are being made to see natural objects have their own standing rights. He postulates that such rights will not be attained through nature’s efforts but instead through the well-wishers who have the interests of preserving nature at their hearts. Such groups will come up through requesting guardianship of deprived natural objects.

The groups will further be willing to hire competent lawyers to represent natural objects in courts. The well-wishers need to be given more powers pertaining to the management of forests such as collecting data to be presented in court for further action.

Stones recommends that natural objects should be direct beneficiaries of court judgments to prevent changing hands in the ownership of these objects. According to Stones, preservation of nature is indispensable since without proper preservation, man will be destroyed too. Man should revise his relationship with nature especially in solving material problems.

Man can as well obtain energy and raw materials from other sources and develop some measures that would allow preservation of nature. The first step towards preserving nature is by developing a positive attitude and interest towards it.

Works Cited

Stone, Christopher. “Should Trees have Standing? Toward legal Rights for Natural Objects.” California Law Review, 45.450 1972.