No Moral Obligation to the Earth

Relatively young philosophy and fast movement of movement is environmentalism. It comes from moral philosophy. It has moral responsibility to fulfill its duty to the planet. However, that method is wrong. It is obviously useful to research and master the Earth where we live but it is a mistake to propose moral obligations to protect it. Many people are beginning to accept this type of lie. This is guided by malicious logic and emotional concepts without moral concern. We have no moral obligation to the earth.

Behavioral advocates - usually supporting military intervention - believe that it is the moral duty of the United States to help people harmed by unjust or cruel behavior somewhere on the planet It is. But what determines the order of feeding for this moral obligation? First of all, is it responsible for correcting the crimes of others, or will they be responsible for rectifying the crimes committed by Americans? Who issued a greater demand for US aid, and the Syrians suffered today with Bashar al-Assad or Iraqi aid, and their country was hit by US invasion in 2003 Falcon? Where are the Vietnamese people? How did the Filipino deny independence at the end of the 19th century and forced to integrate into the American Empire?

Over the years, I have been interested in moral obligations that we may have to complete strangers. The problem of moral obligation of people we know well is not a problem for me. There seems to be clear moral obligations to those with whom I have relationships, rooted in the moral contract I voluntarily establish with those who understand more or less mutual expectations. Relationship The voluntary nature of these relationships seems to involve moral obligations

Some authors claim that the argument of moral rights and moral obligations is an unprecedented endless story. There is no "moral right" or "moral obligation", at least there are moral rights and moral obligations in addition to legal rights and legal obligations. Higher moral authority can not enforce certain ethical requirements. Rights and duties vary by law. According to ethics, it is best to say "moral consensus" (eg Gauthier). Advocate insists that ethical consensus has the same status as legal rights and legal obligations, but emphasizes that no one has an obligation to make his moral rights better than others There. Applicability is an important aspect of metaphysics of rights and obligations. It is only formal constraints that can establish rights and obligations in a particular society (eg Hobbes); informal constraints in a particular society - although it may be stronger - not -