Introduction
The term ethics has a variety of definitions. It can be viewed as a branch in philosophy that tries to define moral notions like defining wrong and right (Bookchin, 2004). It can also be defined as the science of individual obligation (Bentham, 1999).
Nature of law assumes that law is a social-political fact that is distinctive with universal characteristics that be understood through philosophical study. It also tends to guide human behavior by providing reasons for any action thus this reason-giving is one of the natures of the law (Clark, 2002).
As much as the environmental ethicists may try to distance themselves from the basic moral questions, they find themselves entangled to them especially to questions like what nature of things are considered basically valuable and which ones are considered good or bad, what makes some behaviors or actions to be termed as true or false (Bookchin, 2004).
In environmental ethics, there are two main ethical theories that we ought to discuss: Consequentialist ethical theories and deontological ethical theories.
The consequentialist ethical theories
The consequentialist ethicists consider goodness/badness or value/disvalue moral notions to be of more fundamental moral notion as compared to rightness/wrongness. In order for a behavior or action to be judged as right or wrong, it has to be determined by evaluation of its consequences if they are good or bad (Bentham, 1999). Consequentialist ethicists believe that the ends justify the means and the right actions are those that find the equilibrium between the fundamental values over the disvalues. For example, if pleasure is regarded as the only fundamental value in the world and pain is the only fundamental disvalue, then the right actions/ behaviors are the ones that try to find the balance of value over disvalue. This ethical theory does not define who the subjects are at both receiving ends in order to calculate the aptness or the injury of actions (Clark, 2002).
Deontological ethical theories
The term deontological was derived from the Greek word Deon which stands for duty and logos which stands for science. As for the deontological ethicists, the action is judged right or wrong independent of whether its consequences are good or bad. They believe that there are distinct moral duties like do not kill, do not harm the innocent, do not lie, keep promises among others whose observance or violation is basically right or wrong (Clark, 2002). This means that the action can be right or wrong without analyzing its consequences as right or wrong. For instance, each individual has the moral obligation to treat those animals with basic value not as means for our wants but with respective treatment (Bookchin, 2004).
Following the proper moral duties is not enough; we should have the correct inspiration behind our actions. Although having a right drive itself is not a justification of deontological ethics and therefore cannot be used to give an explanation for action as ethically correct (Bentham, 1999). In short, each individual has a prima facie moral obligation not to harm or kill another individual or animal. Therefore, commercial hunting of animals or the use of animals in extreme sports is wrong regardless of rightful consequences that may be harnessed from them since these animals have a right for respective handling.
Types of deontological theories include; duty theory, right theory, divine command among others (Clark, 2002).
References
Bentham, J. (1999). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bookchin, M. (2004).Toward an Ecological Society. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
Clark, S. R. L. (2002). The Moral Status of Animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.