After read the one , then you will open the flies do the homework : Natural ethics is a theory which is not easily defined and perhaps the most elusive of any of the theories we are studying. Natural ethics is partially a theory of naturalism, a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. It also contains elements of allowing nature to be as it is without human meaning being placed upon it. Naturalists leave nature alone rather than trying to subdue it. Natural Law is another element of natural ethics whereby the philosopher tries to learn the from the laws of nature. Religious people believe that nature has been designed by God who has placed within nature a divine code. There is a rhythm and pattern to nature and as fellow created beings, humans can learn from the God created patterns, how to behave as God intended. Part of this theology is that animals act exactly according to their nature so they are not immoral even when they do “bad” things like a fox killing a chicken. Humans have freewill so they do not automatically act according to their nature. Since the Scriptures are silent on topics like bio-technology, religious philosophers tend to turn to nature to discover God’s intended purpose for creation. There are plenty of critics of Natural Law ethics since it often comes across as inconsistent. If we look to nature to teach us how to act, we can see cannibalistic snakes, lions who kill the children of their enemies, polygamy and polyamory, species who can change between male and female, homosexual penguins, bugs who eat their mates after copulation, non-consensual sex, and the list goes on. So, to then use Natural Law to deny the use of embryonic stem cells or to reject homosexual marriage seems at best, a little inconsistent. This does not mean that there are not ethical concerns about using embryonic stem cells; however, perhaps one of the other normative theories might give a better analysis than Natural Law.
Yet, with global warming and the destruction of biodiversity at a rate that risks the survival of the human race, — at least in the current carefree way it exists today, — turning to the natural world seems to make sense. As a people, we are not listening enough to the world around us. We are stuck in a pattern of heat, beat, and treat to get what we want. Chef Barber points out, we are not focusing enough on relationships and following the patterns which already exist in nature. It takes less energy to follow the patterns of nature than to artificially create our own reality. Aldo Leopold, in his writings about Sand County in 1949, teaches principles he has learned while being in nature. Leopold is not a vegetarian or an activist, but naturalist who engages nature and listens to what it has to teach him. Carolyn Merchant who is a historian in science and technology writes of the controversy over the destruction of the environment for personal gain. Often, we think about the environmentalist movement originating in the 20th century but there are writings against mining going back to the middle ages. J.R.R. Token reflected on this theme as well in The Fellowship of the Rings when Saruman warned, “Moria… You fear to go into those mines. The dwarves delved too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of Khazad-dum… shadow and flame.”
Naturalism does not only apply to plants and animals but also to people. When you read Jennifer Reid’s book, you will see how Native Americans were also treated as animals. It is not in this text but we know that South Americans and Africans were treated similarly by colonialists. People who did not live in “civilization” as defined by many European colonialists were deem natural or animalistic. Nature served one purpose for colonialists, to be consumed for the profit of the crown who paid for the expedition. Plant, animal, native… all are commodities.
Pope Nicolas Vâ€™s Papal Bull of Romanus Pontifex, granted the Portuguese the right to â€œtake possession of the new world.â€ Nicolasâ€™ successor Alexander VI expanded the Doctrine of Discovery with the Papal Bull Inter Cetera in 1493 when Columbus returned from the New World. In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case, Johnson v. McIntosh, 1823. Benjamin Ziegler in The International Law of John Marshall, wrote it was permissible to virtually ignore the most basic rights of indigenous “heathens,” and to claim that the “unoccupied lands” of America rightfully belonged to discovering Christian European nations. (46)
In the mid-19th century, the right of white Christians to expand their territory as far as they could reach was codified by the term Manifest Destiny. This rallying cry was the belief that American Christianity was morally superior to heathen practices and God commanded that Americans spread these values for the sake of liberty and progress. The term was mythologized in American exceptionalism and became part of the national narrative.
Even with the failures of the Roman Catholic Church, in 1610 the Vatican recognized the Mi’kmaq people of Acadia, now Nova Scotia as a sovereign nation under the Wampum Belt Treaty. This treaty gave the Mi’kmaq people equal rights as a sovereign catholic nation as much as France, Portugal, Spain, the Italian States, etc. Unfortunately, by 1710, Protestant England conquered Acadia and the Papal recognitions were rejected by the British and its American colonies. The lack of protections for the natural state which is expressed in the loss of Acadia is symbolic of the natural state worldwide. Nature is safe as long as a favorable administration is in office. As soon as a more powerful entity moves in, nature is again susceptible to monetization and destruction.