It is argued that the serious threat to the welfare of the oceans can best be solved through ownership, and if it may not be achievable, regulation. This paper opposes the view that the significant thing is the relations between the ecological systems and humans.
Changing this interaction to provide humans with an opportunity to survive means a departure from the Lockean right to property that is entrenched within the western derived legislations and constitutions, as well as declarations such as the declaration of human rights by the United Nations. There are no ecological rights that provide assurance for human rights to property, freedom, life, and health.
Grimond defines the depletion of life and dilapidation of the sea. It has been asserted that humans should change their ways. The chances of a disaster are simply huge to contemplate. Grimond emphasizes that the catastrophe of the sea is the catastrophe of the commons.
This means that any individual with an access to any resource should exploit it since if not, someone else will exploit it. This paper strongly disagrees with this conclusion. In order to give reasons and alternative principles for maintainable resource utilization, it is essential to define the methodology for deciding ethical principles.
Secondly the prevailing ethical principles underscoring the right to ownership of property should be defined and assessed, and alternatives delineated.
Ethical paradigms aim to illustrate the meaning of moral language in the daily discourse, as well as the representation in moral standards or guidelines. Paradigms can also strive to advocate for divergent understanding in relation to how to behave in cases of contradictions between divergent discourse behavior, and between different representations.
Daily discourse may include words like right, obligation, and duty among others. On the other hand, the schema defines standards or guidelines enshrined in specialized rules, national constitutions, codes of conduct, doctrines and creeds, and organizational charters (Howell, 2010).
There are three categories of ethical principles, or an essential concept in a group of ethical principles that may include human-human and earth-human perspectives. The three include intrinsic values, integrity, and respect.
Consideration of personal, organizational, communal, and environmental concerns are critical in the evaluation of these concepts. The consideration of individual relationships and responsibilities includes the development of rules or dictums against things like murder, physical assault, cheating, and theft.
However, this may also include parental responsibilities for children and children’s obligations for the care of superiors. These responsibilities are covered with the three concepts. The reason is that in the vent that one steals or assaults another individual, they are not being respectful towards them.
Thus, such individuals are not treasured intrinsically or of integrity. If the concepts of respect, integrity, and intrinsic value have the ability to lead to definitions of moral obligations between humans and nature, which safeguards the life and welfare of ecological systems, what are the consequences of the privatization or control of resources such as the ocean?
Assigning of ownership is not the answer to solving the sea issues. In other areas such as land use, the privatization of land or subsequent control by governments has not yielded the desired results or changed policy.
The core factor would be a drastic change in human, earthly relationships. In this case, humans should not view nature as an instrument to fulfill their utilities and a basis to lay claim to ownership of property up and above other obligations.
Reference List
Howell, R 2010, “Choosing Ethical Theories and Principles and Applying Them to the Question: ‘Should The Seas be Owned?’”, International Journal of Transdisciplinary Research, 5(1), pp. 1-28.