Leopold of an advantage that may not even

Leopold starts his argument by
pointing out that humans try to place monetary significance on the environment,
which usually doesn’t have any monetary worth (as cited in Timmons, 2016). According
to Leopold, whenever some part of the environment is damaged, or in danger of
being damaged, humans attempt to think of reasons why it is monetarily
appealing (as cited in Timmons, 2016). For example, in the early 1900s, Leopold
points out that songbird numbers were
dwindling (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold discusses how scientists claimed
bugs would prove to be an immense problem if there were no songbirds around (as
cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold emphasizes that the problem was thought of in monetary terms only (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

Leopold makes his
position clear when he plainly states, after this description of the songbirds problem, that the songbirds should have
been helped without economic considerations (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold
states that animals are part of a collective and no human should massacre animals
because of an advantage that may not even be genuine (as cited in Timmons, 2016).
As Leopold emphasizes, even certain environmental areas, like “marshes” should
not be thought of only in connection to economic worth (as cited in Timmons,
2016 p. 699). Essentially, Leopold makes it clear that economic considerations
should not determine how humans act towards the planet at all (as cited in
Timmons, 2016).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Leopold does not specifically
discuss whether financial concerns should be deemed as more important than issues
relating to nature (as cited in
Timmons, 2016). Leopold only reinforces the notion that the environment, in
general, is more important than economic worth (as cited in Timmons, 2016). According
to Leopold, while economic concerns are not necessarily more important than
environmental concerns, people can help create economic growth by helping the
environment (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

Leopold analyzes
economic considerations in relation to the environment (as cited in Timmons,
2016). Similarly, relativism analyzes ethicality in relation to certain guidelines
(Hettche, 2010). For instance, in cultural relativism, ethicality is measured
in relation to local society (Hettche, 2010). Relativism can also include
analysis of ethicality that is connected to the personal thought processes of a
person, which is called subjectivism (Hettche, 2010). Leopold also discusses
the land pyramid and how every part of the environment is connected with one
another (as cited in Timmons, 2016). While economic concerns may not be more
important than environmental concerns, according to Leopold the land pyramid demonstrates
that, by using economic means to protect the environment, those who depend on
the land pyramid could benefit greatly (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

Another example of
Leopold’s insistence that economic concerns are not as important as
environmental concerns is demonstrated by his realization that, although
helping the environment does depend on economic considerations, money and the
economy does not dictate what humans do with every piece of the environment (as
cited in Timmons, 2016). Further, yet another example Leopold provides pertains
to the minor role money plays in how humans treat the environment (as cited in
Timmons, 2016). As Leopold states, what happens to the environment is not a
result of economic considerations, but rather of the preferences the people who
use the environment have (as cited in Timmons, 2016). The normative question could
be relevant to this discussion (Hettche, 2011). The normative question pertains
to why an individual should engage in ethical behavior (Hettche, 2011). Similarly,
Leopold’s argument does as well (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

The normative
question asks why ethicality is important when it is possible to behave in ways
that most people would agree are abhorrent and not be penalized for such
behavior (Hettche, 2011). Similarly, Leopold explains why humans should
preserve the environment, even though there is not always a clear incentive to
do so (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold’s argument pertains more specifically
to the environment and the economic worth that the environment may or may not
have (as cited in Timmons, 2016). What can be inferred from this argument is
the notion that different people could have different opinions about the
environment and, to persuade others of his or her opinion, an individual might
use propositional arguments and thus offer statements to support his or her
ideas (Pendlebury, 2013).

This individual
would likely do so in order to advocate for a certain conclusion in relation to
the environment (Pendlebury, 2013). In Leopold’s personal view, his conclusion
pertains to the economy and the factors that are related to it (as cited in
Timmons, 2016). Leopold argues that the economy and its related factors are
important because they dictate how much or how little humans can conceivably do
with the environment, but the environment itself will always be very important
(as cited in Timmons, 2016).