Our Obligation to Environmental Protection

O.P. Dwivdei argues, “A synthesis of the key concepts and precepts from each of [the world religions] pertaining to conservation could become a foundation for a global environmental ethic” (Dwivedi 311). Whether we look at his view or another which proposes simply following the environmental ethics of a single religion, it seems that this type of work should be unnecessary for the purpose of motivating action towards sustainability. I offer challenges to the view that religious considerations are the most viable option for motivating people to act in an environmentally responsible way.

In order to solve the environmental crisis we need not incorporate religious views, whether they concern nature’s status as “a sign of the Creator” (Samarrai 324) or the intrinsic value of nature. That is to say, while religions, either individually or in conjunction with one another, might be able to motivate individuals to pursue the goal of environmental sustainability, it does not seem that the motivation needs to be religious in kind. Operating from outside of the religious realm, according to Segun Ogungbemi, it seems that we are already obligated. This obligation comes from what he calls quite simply, “conventional morality”, and it can be stated as “not taking more than you need from nature” (Ogungbemi 331).

Ogungbemi later provides us with yet another reason to promote environmental awareness and responsibility by “reformulat[ing]” our already discussed obligation. He aruges, because we are “Invariably endangering our existence” when we exploit the environment (Ogungbemi 337), (“our” refers to us as well as future generations) we are already obligated to act in an environmentally sustainable fashion based simply upon these considerations.

Also consider the words of Sociologist Ramachandra Guha in his discussion of the issue of nature’s intrinsic or extrinsic worth. For no matter which side of this discussion we find ourselves arguing for, it seems that we will not be motivated to act differently for either answer. It seems reasonable to conclude from this that if we believe ourselves to have an absolute duty to protect the environment, no matter what the basis for this belief, we will have just as much motivation to act, and it is for this reason that in the case of environmental protection, religion should not be able to provide us with any greater motivation toward action than our already existent moral knowledge.