Part One
The subject of future generation is an issue that continues to draw multiple reactions globally. In essence, there is a concern regarding the responsibility of the present generation in the preservation of morality. There are those who believe that we have the responsibility to pass our virtues to the subsequent people. On the contrary, other emphasize that we have no link with the future. Consequently, different theories have been put forward to aid the argument. They include utilitarianism, communititarianism and deontology. The paper explores the moral obligations of the current society and the perceptions towards future generation.
There are reasons why we might not have moral ties with the times to come. First, it is evident that we do not have a conversation with the noncurrent society. We also do not share the same cultural background. In other words, we have no opportunity to speak our mind to it. Consequently, there is a high chance that future generations will be distinct from us. For instance, with the increase of privatization, they are likely to obtain a better world that we inherited. They may not have the experience of some of the things that we experience at the moments. For example, we have seen the world evolving. We have evidence of industrialization. We have also seen the unconstructive impact of industries on the environment. Consequently, we have moral consideration out of the experience. Nevertheless, the future generations have no exposure to it. Secondly, we have no entitlement to act on behalf the future people. In other words, there is no written agreement that obliges us to pass down our code of conduct to our children. Moreover, there is an uncertainty concerning their acceptance of it. There are no moral ties that can link us. We live an independent life.
It is fundamental to recognize the role of the theoretical approaches in advancing any moral argument. For instance, the philosophy of communitarianism helps to account for the need of moral consideration regarding future generations. In essence, it refers to the shared membership of a community (Partridge 640). Consequently, there are three moral conditions concerning the philosophy. Firstly, there is moral interaction among people. Secondly, there is a cultural association. Finally, there are moral similarities that we share. The theory suggests that three conditions should confirm the consideration of the future generation. There is no applicability of the first condition. It is because we do not have real interaction with the future in our present times.
Nevertheless, the two other ideas apply. We share cultural association. In other words, the future generation can trace their roots from our existence. It is apparent that we also trace our origin from our ancestors. The evident display of similarity is expected. The theory purports that the future generation will suffer most of the things that are eminent. The greenhouse effect will not cease. The environmental, air and noise pollution will also be evident. Consequently, they will desire to have moral ways of curbing the situation. Shalin insists that communities exhibit relationship throughout the times. Partridge argues that these two conditions should motivate us to consider morality of the future (1981). He further emphasizes that human life is comprehensible. In other words, we live both in the present and future times beyond the span of our lives.
The example our role in greenhouse emission reduction elicits different views. However, in my opinion, the need to reduce greenhouse emission is not best framed as a moral obligation. I believe there are more compelling factors that motivate people to take care of the environment. We do not have a direct moral responsibility towards the families that will emerge after we are gone. However, there are apparent factors that encourage reducing the greenhouse effect. The need to consider our safety and security is critical. The depletion of the ozone layer has detrimental effects on our health. It exposes people to divergent health conditions. It increases the normal temperature.
Consequently, we must make measures that ensure our survival. It is because greenhouse effect endangers us and all other species. Wildlife is at a risk of becoming extinct. There is also a need to preserve biosafety of the globe. On the contrary, arguing that our moral obligation is an attribute of future is unacceptable. We do not have a direct link to the future. None of us has walked into it and noted the shortcomings that characterize it. Moreover, we expect a lot of diversity in the next generations. It is therefore necessary to preserve the environment because of the current benefits that we attain rather than a prospective tomorrow with which we have no connections. However, we can pass on the mandate to the subsequent generation.
The discussion explores the current age and our responsibility regarding the people in following years. It is evident that we may not have moral ties with them. It is because we do not have conversation with them. Consequently, we have no awareness regarding their perception. We also do not have an entitlement to uphold the moral ties on their behalf. However, the theory of communitarianiim insists that the present society must secure morality for subsequent ages. Its representatives believe in shared membership of livelihood. In other words, our lives also extend into the future. The example of greenhouse emission reduction is an example of compelling factor that necessitates our duty towards caring for the environment.
Part Two
The conflict between humanity and the elephants is a subject that continues to disturb the world. The four articles have presented a critical discussion on the various challenges that face the elephant population. They contain diverse perspectives on the destructive impact of human activities on the well-being of the elephants. Moreover, they portray human beings as the chief enemies of these wild animals. Bradshaw et al. (2005) explore the social bond of wild animals that are broken apart through separation. The paper examines the moral conflict between human beings and the elephant life and existence.
I agree with the fact that elephants undergo physical and psychological trauma. For example, there are poachers who kill gigantic females and males elephants in order to obtain their tusks. They tend to forget that the animals are parents to young ones. Consequently, they separate the families depriving them of a happy social life. The remaining elephants undergo social trauma. It impacts them destructively. Such kinds of animals are detrimental to the wellbeing of other living creatures. They grow in extreme wildness. As a result, they became dangerous to human beings. Jacobsen (2013) also notes that elephants become homeless. The human population continues to deprive them of their natural habitat. They, therefore, roam in a constant search for an abode. It is in this process that they can encounter people’s settlements.
I believe there is a need for urgent intervention regarding the lives of animals (Siebert 2006). There are governmental bodies and nongovernmental organizations that have been on the forefront in staging a campaign against the killing of elephants. Nevertheless, there is a need to educate the public on the need for wildlife conservation. Whyte (2002) emphasizes that the public has the greater responsibility than the administration in managing elephants’ issue. It is a subject that requires further elaboration to the public. Adequate comprehension is necessary for ensuring the sustainability of the living species. Elephants are critical part of the wild animals world that require utmost conservation.