Response to Sebastian

If we accept that we are all living within environments of some sort, causing harm to anything seems counter intuitive to our genuine happiness as a species.   Just one example (there are many) where humans cause harm to the environments we live in is the case of toxic chemicals.   From the ACOG website, “Approximately 700 new chemicals are introduced into the US market each year, and more than 84,000 chemical substances are being used in manufacturing and processing or are being imported. “The scary fact is that we don’t have safety data on most of these chemicals even though they are everywhere—in the air, water, soil, our food supply, and everyday products,” Dr. Conry said. “Bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone disruptor, is a common toxic chemical contained in our food, packaging, and many consumer products.”   Note the passive language; humans, directly and indirectly, support the products of companies that ditch waste into rivers and communities.  

There is also what Derek Parfit calls the “non-identity problem”, the idea that we don’t know the identity of future persons, and we don’t know what moral standing these probable persons have, and what obligations we might have to them concerning environmental policies.    This represents a difficult argument as we decide how to extend moral standing to future persons. 

The idea that we harm our character when we cause harm to anything makes sense.    I think this is a case of practice lagging behind moral intuition and theory.   Are the benefits that we derive from harmful animal and environmental policies worth the risks?