Is Government Structure Preventing True Protection of the Environment?

   During class, we had a discuss where the quote the was brought up when talking about the government is that, "you can't have a judge without a sheriff," and it was later talked about how the government, especially the American government is flimsy and weak, and based off of the whims and wants of the people, as opposed to what may necessarily be best for the state all together. This brought up the question, does the way our government is structured not allow real change take place? Furthermore, if the government doesn't have a way to enforce it's laws if the people are against it, does it mean that the government is then not able to do it's job.

   Thinking this then causes the question of the environments true protection coming up. The government can create laws to protect the environment, but unless there is some type of authority who can back up the law, even if the general mass of people are against it, then it cannot be upheld. I think this is a problem of sorts in most places. I love and support democracy, but I think that a lot of people in power forgot that they are not in power to please the people, but to do what's best for the people and the surrounding lands. Is there any way we can remind people of this? Is there any way that the democratic system could be changed someway where the judge wouldn't lose the support of the sheriff the instant the masses questioned a judge's ruling?

Land Ethics and Animals

    Upon reading the assigned readings, I came across something that didn't necessarily fit for me. in "Egocentric Ethics: The Land Ethic," Aldo Leopold said, "The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land" (223). Upon saying this Leopold was talking about a third, unrecognized ethic, which would be that of land ethics. In that statement, he was defining all that land ethics would include, which is basically an "enlargement of the community ethic. My issue with that statement is that although there isn't necessarily a type of ethical viewpoint which lists was is ethically right or wrong in relation to the land, animals should not have been included in that statement. Animals are intrinsically a part of nature, but there is already a set of ethics which dictate what people can or cannot do in relations to animals. I think that Leopold should take the animal aspect out of what should be defined in land nature. If he doesn't want to do that, I think that he should specify animals, like are humans a part of that definition. What would be a good definition for what land ethics should entail? What should it include?

During the assigned readings, in essay 20, A sentence that really caught my attention and made me think was a statement found on page 189, "We don't know how many species we are eliminating, because we don't know how many species there are." This really stuck out to me because it's crazy to think that we don't know how many species there are, and that through all our destruction of the world and different environments, we can be killing off numerous species and not even realizing it. That's horrible. I would rather reduce the things we destroy in the environment than have a surplus of things that I don't really need.  Is that possible though? Can we really control our numbers in a way that causes less destruction of the environment?

Direct Duties & Indirect Obligations

I think that most people would agree in societies day and time, we all have certain duties that we are expected to uphold, a direct duty. For instance, if we see a man hit a woman, although some would ignore the situation, one's direct duty is to defend the woman from the man and report the man to higher authorities. That is because it is each person's independent duty to defend another sentient being. But why then, should I report someone who kicks my dog, who is not a sentient being. I love my dog, but he doesn't have the same complex emotions or thought processes as a human, yet I am bound by an indirect obligation to my dog to defend him. That is because, although my dog is not a sentient being, it would reflect on me, and show others that if I don't defend a non-sentient being, that I have the capacity to allow the same injustice to happen to a sentient being. Well, that's the argument according to Kant. Is he right though? Do I need to fulfill indirect obligations to prove whether or not I have the capacity to fulfill my direct duties, should I need too?

Shallow Ecology Movement

  After reading through the readings, I spent a lot of time trying to decide what kind of Ecologist movement I would fit into if it was like a war between the two sides and I had to decide. After looking at the evidence presented in the book, and looking within myself, I've decided that I'd be a part of the Shallow Ecology Movement. That's because I care about going green for artificial reasons as opposed to the deeper more important reasons. I want everything to be pretty, and I want people to be happy and healthy enough to enjoy it which is largely affected by the health of the surrounding environment. Is it bad that I don't necessarily really care about the environment because it independent deserves to be cared about? Is it wrong that I view the environment in terms of how it benefits humans?