




































AQUINNO VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2 JUNE 2024.cdr


AN EVALUATION OF GLOBAL WARMING AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Victor Ogheneochuko Jeko., Ph.D
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Benin

Email: victor.jeko@uniben.edu
And

Odigie Ndidi Joseph
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Benin

Email: joseph.odigie@uniben.edu

Abstract 

The phenomenon of global warming has become a concern about the safety of the environment. 
Global warming has resulted in the destruction of the ozone layer and this is actually caused by 
environmental degradation. The fundamental problems of environmental degradation have 
resulted in the prevalence of over flooding and extinction of some plants and animal species. 
Some of the causes of global warming include industrial pollution, deforestation, 
overpopulation, industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization; the use of combustible 
engines, automobile vehicles and fossil fuels. The solution to the problems of global warming is 
actually international cooperation by all countries of the world to reduce the usage of gas 
emission. The objective of this paper is to unveil the potential dangers of environmental 
degradation to the world's ecosystems and its catastrophic consequences on humanity.  Global 
warming reveals that its impact reflects on a kind of catastrophe. This paper adopts the analytical 
framework in discussing the ethical implications of global warming and environmental non-
sustainability on human existence. Human existence has been bedevilled by certain existential 
burden due to human deliberate choices and actions. The findings of this paper are that 
international cooperation is fundamental in mitigating the challenges of global warming; nature 
is an integral part of human beings and sentient beings. This paper concludes that humanity will 
be doomed if necessary steps are not taken by countries all over the world in mitigating the 
menace of global warming. Global warming has resulted in lethal solar radiation. 

Keywords: Ecologism, Ecosystem, Environmentalism, Ethics, Global Warming 

Introduction 

The phenomenon of global warming has become a concern about the safety of the 
environment. Global warming has resulted in the destruction of the ozone layer and this is 
actually caused by environmental degradation. The problems of environmental degradation have 
resulted in the prevalence of over flooding and extinction of some endangered species. Some of 
the causes of global warming include industrial pollution, deforestation, overpopulation, 
industrialization, urbanization, bureaucratization; the use of combustible engines, automobile 
vehicles and fossil fuels. The solution to the problems of global warming is actually international 
cooperation by all countries of the world to reduce the usage of gas emission. This paper argues 
that the potential dangers of environmental degradation to the world's ecosystems and its 
catastrophic consequences on humanity are immense.  Global warming reveals that its impact 
reflects on a kind of catastrophic consequences. This paper discusses the ethical implications of 
global warming and environmental non-sustainability on human existence. Human existence has 

174

mailto:victor.jeko@uniben.edu
mailto:victor.jeko@uniben.edu
mailto:joseph.odigie@uniben.edu


been bedevilled by certain existential burden due to human deliberate choices and actions. The 
findings of this paper are that international cooperation is fundamental in mitigating the 
challenges of global warming; nature is an integral part of human and sentient beings. 

Furthermore, the interrelatedness between environmentalism, ecologism and global 
warming has become a critical aspect of environmental ethics. Ethics plays a pivotal role in 
mitigating the fundamental challenges of global warming. As Hoffman and Graham (2009, 365) 
rightly observed global warming is acknowledged by most, but not all, scientists as the most 
serious environmental problem facing the planet—the minority who challenge the consensus do 
not question the evidence of global warming, but question its causes, arguing that warming is not 
primarily caused by human activity. In concurrence with Hoffman and Graham (2009), Leon 
Baradat (2008, 281) asserts that “nature as a whole is central, and the value of all things is 
measured by their contributions to nature. If humans threaten nature, they reduce their own 
validity and worth”. Hoffman and Graham (2009, 365-366) argued that apart from global 
warming, there are other specific environmental problems such as resource depletion, localised 
pollution, decline in species and nuclear war. For Hoffman and Graham (2009, 366): 

Some resources, such as fish, are, with careful stewardship, naturally replenished; 
other resources, such as coal and gas, are not. Both types of resource are 
threatened by excessive demand and so overproduction. Localised pollution may 
not cause a global crisis, but poor air in places such as Mexico City can have a 
debilitating effect on inhabitants. Decline of species may lead to species loss—or 
decline in biodiversity-the use of agricultural chemicals and genetic modification 
of crops are identified by some environmentalists as the cause of the decline in 
biodiversity. Nuclear war will not, of course, be a direct environmental 
problem…scientists speculated that the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles 
could result in a 'nuclear winter': atmospheric pollution caused by dust, soot 
smoke and ash would prevent the 'sun's rays from penetrating for a period of time 
long enough to eradicate most plant life and create a new ice age. Since the 1980s 
there has been a proliferation of states with nuclear weapons. Environmental 
crisis does raise interesting question about the relationship between science and 
politics. Ecologists are critical of scientific rationality, and yet employ scientific 
evidence to support their arguments.          

In the light of the above subscription, some group of scholars have argued that “scientific 
rationality” has paved the way for industrial revolution. Accordingly, Baradat (2008, 277) asserts 
that the “Industrial Revolution, the fount of modern political ideologies, has, for the first time in 
history, made it possible for humans to improve their material lives on a vast scale, but at the same 
time to so influence the natural environment as to actually threaten human existence itself”. 
Baradat (2008, 266-267) further asserts that: 

Focus on this paradox has fuelled the emergence of a new ideology. Known as 
ecologism in Europe and environmentalism in the United States, it is an idea 
system demanding fundamental  philosophical reorientation demanded and 
mandating diametric political, economic, and social change; and humans should 
see themselves as only a part of nature, constituents of a universe that is composed 
of numerous interactive and interdependent beings, both living and nonliving. 
This new perspective is not only ethically right but essential for human survival, 
the ecologists argued.        

Nevertheless, human beings, plants, animals, and other living and non-living beings are 

175

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



actually confronted by the negative consequences of global warming. However, this paper is 
divided into four sections. Section one is the introductory remarks. Section two is the exposition, 
analysis and the ethical implications of global warming on human existence. Section three 
focuses on the evaluation of the catastrophic effects of global warming on humanity. Section four 
is the concluding considerations. This paper concludes that humanity will be doomed if necessary 
steps are not taken by countries all over the world in mitigating the menace of global warming. 
Global warming has resulted in lethal solar radiation. 

Expose of Global Warming and Environmental Ethics  

The conceptual clarification and contextual analysis of global warming and 
environmental ethics demonstrates the clarion call for the preservation of the world's 
environment or ecosystem from abuse and plunder by man. Global warming has come to stay 
with humanity and it is as real as humanity itself. Humanity is at cross roads due to the abuse and 
the plundering of the environment. The ethics of global warming showcases the preservation of 
the world's ecosystem. Worthy of note is that sanctions ought to be melted out to countries that 
violate international treatises that are aimed at ensuring the preservation of the earth. Human 
beings in their deliberate choices and actions must exercise caution in the way and manner they 
treat, manage and handle the environment. However, the ethics of the environment has become 
one of the most controversial and contemporary issues in the field of philosophy. For Baradat 
(2008, 282), argues that “concern for the moral aspects of environmental degradation has 
spawned an entire field of philosophical inquiry called environmental ethics. Broadly speaking, 
environmental ethics considers biocentric questions”. The ethics of the environment has become 
a contemporary issue that demands scholarly attention by scholars, researchers and philosophers.

Furthermore, the ethical dilemma that surrounds environmental ethics is that it has 
become an existential imperative that we cannot do without the natural environment. However, 
human beings, plants, animals and other living organisms and species depend solely on the 
environment for their continuous existence and survival. We are all inhabitants of the earth as far 
as environmental ethics is concerned. The ethics of the environment is actually concerned about 
the natural environment such as plants, water, sun, land, air, rocks, forests, animals and other 
inhabitants of the world's ecosystem. The ethics of environment has become a global issue or a 
universal phenomenon because some plants and animal species are going into extinction because 
of the evils of deforestation, urbanization, industrialization and other nefarious activities carried 
out by human deliberate choices and actions. As rightly observed by Phillip Isanbor and Anthony 
Bature (2018, 5), the quest for ecological or environmental sustainability, especially through its 
environment friendliness and consciousness is a philosophical engagement.  Industrial systems 
eventually will degrade and deplete the resources upon which its productivity depends, and thus, 
are not sustainable. Industrialization is the physical manifestation of a specific concept of 
science, and a specific worldview. Accordingly, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 370) in consonance 
with Isanbor and Bature (2018) argued that: 

Industrialisation has changed the pyramid in a number of ways. First, by reversing 
evolution: evolutionary change lengthened the food-chain through the emergence 
of more complex life forms; industrialisation shortens the chain by the 
elimination of both predators and of seemingly useless organisms. Second, by the 
exploitation, which puts geological and other formations, to new uses, such as the 
generations of energy, and removes them from the 'natural chain'. Third, 
transportation disconnects the chain and introduces forms from one environment 

176

Jeko & Odigie                          An Evaluation Of Global Warming And Environmental Ethics



to a new, quite different, one, and with sometimes unintended consequences. 

In concurrence with the above theoretical position, Isanbor and Bature (2018, 5-6) argued 
that “the reflections on the humanity demand to be holistically philosophical, considering the 
freedom man has to change things around him and situation about him, combating challenges in 
order to have some comfortable environmental living, necessarily presupposes the employment 
of some ethical checks on all dealings or activities for environmental sustainability”. Isanbor and 
Bature (2018, 6) further heightened their theoretical position by asserting that “one of the major 
causes of global warming is environmental pollution and industrialization”. Accordingly 
Hoffman and Graham (2009, 364) in consonance with Isanbor and Bature (2018) argued that:

Many people maintain industrialization, urbanization and population growths 
have either brought about, or threaten to bring about, irreversible changes to the 
natural environment such that the future of life on earth beyond more than one or 
two hundred years is in jeopardy. Some writers maintain that the difference 
between ecologism and environmentalism rests, in part, on attitudes to the 
seriousness of this crisis, with ecologists being very pessimistic, and 
environmentalists being very optimistic. There is some validity in this 
characterisation of the differing attitudes, in that ecologists maintain that the 
causes of the crisis are not simply scientific-technical; the roots of the crisis lie in 
human attitudes to nature—we see nature as a resource to be exploited for our 
benefit. However, a human-centred approach to the environment could also 
explain the crisis; without condemning human attitudes to nature it could be 
argued that environmental degradation is the collective consequence of rational 
human behaviour.           

Broadly speaking, apart from the problem of industrialization it has also been argued that 
overpopulation is one of the major causes of global warming. According to Garrett Hardin cited 
by Hoffman and Graham (2009, 365), overpopulation will have catastrophic consequences, and 
that food aid to the developing world should be ended so that population levels can be allowed to 
fall 'naturally'. Hardin is often thought of as an ecologist, and his misanthropic argument is used 
against ecologism, but, in fact, Hardin reasons from straightforwardly human-centred premises: 
human beings will suffer from overpopulation. Baradat (2008, 278-279) in consonance with 
Garrett Hardin cited by Hoffman and Graham (2009) believe that “the question of overpopulation 
has long vexed environmentalists. Overpopulation confronts the entire world with panoply of 
problems”.  Accordingly, Baradat (2008, 279-280) argues that:

One wonders what is in store for the world as the process of global warming 
accelerates over the next half century. One consequence is almost certain, 
however, as the earth warms, the ability of people in the tropical regions-where 
the human population is increasing most rapidly- to grow food will be 
significantly reduced. Thus, famine among large population on earth is virtually 
inevitable. Ironically, the temperate areas are those that produce the most 
greenhouse gases, but in the short run, they will suffer from global warming only 
marginally. 

In the light of the above, Baradat (2008, 280) further heightened his theoretical position 
by asserting that “but global warming is only one important ecological problem. Concentrations 
of mercury in marine fish from industrial discharges are growing in dangerous proportions. This 
very toxic metal causes serious and permanent declines in the physical and mental development 
of children whose mothers eat large quantities of seafood during pregnancy”. It is germane to 

177

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



note that Hoffman and Graham (2009, 365) identified specific environmental problems such as 
global warming, resource depletion, localised pollution, decline in species and nuclear war. On 
the other hand, the ethics of ecological and environmental sustainability demands the need for 
what Olagunju and Ibiezugbe, (2018, 65) called global “community sustainability”.  Global 
warming has become part and parcel of the contemporary discussion of the ethics of 
environmentalism. Accordingly, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 365) postulate that, “the most 
popular discussion of environmentalism and ecologism-takes place within the context of a 
discussion of the so-called environmental crisis”.  Ekwealo (2012, 13) in consonance with 
Hoffman and Graham (2009) argues that  there are certain ethical guidelines provided to ensure 
normative responses that would best provide a better and safe environment for the existence, 
survival and living of man. We live in a world full of apparent contradictions and complexities, 
whose meanings and designs is made impossible by factors of shortness of human life, the linear-
mindedness of learning and knowledge. This theoretical discourse advocates the need for caution 
in the ways and manners we abuse and plunder the environment. The proper treatment of plants, 
animals and other non-living things should be part and parcel of our ethical behaviours and 
guidelines. This will bring about proper ecological and environmental sustainability. According 
to Hoffman and Graham (2009, 496), deep ecology is a form of ecologism, stressing both the 
interdependence of nature, and the need for fundamental human change; it is contrasted with 
'shallow ecology', which is essentially environmentalism. On the other hand, Hoffman and 
Graham (2009, 496-497) assert that environmentalism refers to a movement which highlights the 
importance of preserving the earth's natural resources and guaranteeing a fair share of those 
resources for future generations. Unlike ecologism it can be combined with many different 
ideologies. Environmentalism and ecologism have become new forms of ideologies and global 
warming has become a contemporary issue in addressing the challenges of this environmental 
crisis humanity is currently facing. For Isanbor and Bature (2018, 55-56), respecting the 
environment as our “Common Home” ought to be one of the objectives of humanity. The 
environment remains our common heritage and it has to be protected by the rightness of human 
deliberate choices and actions. Maathai (2009, 233-234) in consonance with Isanbor and Bature 
(2018), argues that climate change will bring massive ecological and economic challenges. In 
such a context, therefore, alleviating dehumanizing poverty-and achieving the UN Millennium 
Development Goals (MDGs) will become even more difficult. Global warming is leading to food 
and water shortages. Food security in Africa is also increasingly in danger due to skyrocketing 
food prices in world markets. Baradat (2008, 281) in consonance with Isanbor, Bature (2018) and 
Maathai (2009) posits that ecologoism and environmentalism are contemporary ideologies that 
are geared towards “energy conservation”. Hoffman and Graham (2009, 362) in consonance with 
Baradat (2008) argue that:

The desire to protect the environment is based primarily on concern about the 
consequences of environmental degradation on human beings, whereas for 
ecologists, something called 'ecology', or 'nature', is the source of value. It follows 
from this distinction that whereas environmentalism can be combined with other 
ideologies, ecologism is distinct. In terms of political practice, politicians from 
across the political spectrum have embraced the rhetoric, and sometimes the 
policies, of environmentalism. 

Nevertheless, global warming and environmental ethics presuppose the tendency for 
what Hoffman and Graham (2009, 364) called green movement. Baradat (2008, 281) in 
consonance with Hoffman and Graham (2009) asserts that many political parties throughout the 
world associate themselves with the ecology movement and refer to themselves as “Greens”. 

178

Jeko & Odigie                          An Evaluation Of Global Warming And Environmental Ethics



Perhaps nowhere has the Green Party become so powerful as in Germany. For Hoffman and 
Graham (2009, 364):

The differing possibilities of ecologism, environmentalism and green (or Green) 
thought—carry distinct ideological implications. In the view of those who called 
themselves ecologists, environmentalism denotes an attitude compatible with 
almost all the competing ideologies. Environmentalists attach value to the 
'environment' or 'nature' but only in relation to human consciousness and human 
concerns, and as such the environment is slotted in as a subordinate component of 
alternative ideologies, such as liberalism, socialism, or feminism. 

In the light of the above, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 364) argued that 
“environmentalism is anthropocentric—that is, human-centred. Ecologists, on the other hand, 
assert that nature has intrinsic value, and that the task of ecologism is to engage in a critique of the 
anthropocentric worldview, which in socio-economic terms manifest itself as industrialism. 
Ecologism is “eco-centred”. Baradat (2008, 278) in consonance with Hoffman and Graham 
(2009) posit that:

Ecologism is a reaction against the predicament we have created through 
the combination of anthropocentricism and modernization (science, 
technology, industrialization, materialism). Ecologists believe that 
humans have wrongfully violated nature by attempting to become its 
master. Humans, they believe, feel themselves to be separate from nature. 
They see nature as an economic resource to be harnessed rather than a 
domicile to be nurtured and accommodated. As a result, humans have 
created an artificial, anti-natural world, one that fouls the air and water on 
which every living creature depends. We have accelerated the annual rate 
of species extinction 200-fold over the preindustrial rate; the great rain 
forests that do so much to regulate the climate and oxygenate the air are 
disappearing under the treads of giant earth movers; global warming due 
to the greenhouse effect caused by gases released into the atmosphere has 
begun the dangerous melting of glaciers and the polar icecaps; and the 
ozone layer depletion because of industrial pollution threatens us with 
lethal solar radiation.          

In concurrence with Baradat's above theoretical position, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 
363-364) further argued that “whereas environmentalists share a post-Enlightenment belief in the 
uniqueness of the human perspective on the world—that is, they place human beings above, or 
outside, nature—ecologists challenge that philosophical position, maintaining that human life 
only has value insofar as it is a 'knot' in the 'net' of life, a net which connects together not only non-
human animals, but non-sentient entities, such as trees, rivers and mountains”. For Hoffman and 
Graham (2009, 364), “indeed it is the net rather than the knots that is of ultimate value”. Baradat 
(2008, 280-281) argues that “green spaces are shrinking, endangering unique wildlife like the 
panda bear. Deep ecologists call upon people to abandon their anthropocentric view of the world 
and embrace the totality instead. This broader view is called holism”. In this connection, Baradat 
(2008, 281)   postulates that environmental ethics could be regarded as “environmental holism”. 
Environmental holism is the comprehensive overview of how the environment can be sustained 
and protected from human abuse and plunder of the environment. As rightly observed by Baradat 
(2008, 282-283), the British scientist James Lovelock suggested in the late 1970s that earth was 
not simply an inert host of countless living and non-living things. Instead, it was itself a living 
organism, with humans little more than certain cells in the earth's body. Accordingly, Hoffman 

179

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



and Graham (2009, 366-367) rightly observed that ecologism and environmentalism have led to 
Green Politics; and the possibility of Green politics depends on the generation of surplus goods 
and therefore, the consumer society of which Greens are so critical. Ecologism is a distinct 
ideology, whereas environmentalism can be a strand in other ideologies, such as liberalism, 
conservatism, fascism, feminism, fundamentalism, nationalism, anarchism, multiculturalism, 
and socialism. As Hoffman and Graham (2009, 367-368) rightly observed:  

If we leave the world more degraded than we found it then we are violating the 
rights of future generations and hence there is the need for conservatism. At a 
simplistic level conservatives and environmentalists share a belief in 
conservation. Although conservatives focus on the preservation and transmission 
of cultural traditions, respects for the environment--- the maintenance of a sense 
of place –is also important. At a deeper philosophical level conservatives share 
with many ecologists a scepticism towards rationality. 

In the light of the above, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 368) argued that environmentalists 
oppose the exploitation—in the pejorative sense of the word-- of the natural world. There is more 
than a metaphysical equivalence between socialist and environmentalist opposition to 
exploitation; and the people most likely to suffer the consequences of environmental degradation 
are the poor in society, especially the poor in the developing world. This is often the result of a 
deliberate policy of 'dumping'. For instance, Nigeria is one of the countries in the African 
continent that is currently experiencing “a deliberate policy of dumping”. In other words, Nigeria 
is a dumping ground for all sorts of expired goods and services due to the evils of poverty and 
hunger in the land. These goods include used kitchen utensils, clothes, shoes, electrical 
appliances, vehicles, rugs, furniture and other goods. Worthy of note is that the Nigerian 
government must put up viable economic policies in place to reverse this ugly scenario of 
dumping of expired goods from Europe, United Kingdom, United States of America and other 
parts of the world. 

Nevertheless, ecologism and environmentalism are concepts that are closely linked with 
other ideologies. On the other hand, there is a theoretical affinity between feminism and 
environmentalism. As rightly observed by Hoffman and Graham (2009, 368), the links between 
feminism and environmentalism (and ecologism) seem more metaphysical than real. The idea of 
Mother Earth implies the femininity of nature. The ideas of growth and nurturing also summon up 
notions of motherhood and of the mother-child relationship. For Baradat (2008, 283), the 
suggestion that women are more in tune with nature and less threatening to it than men has gained 
resonance among feminists. Women claim that their biological role of giving birth and nurturing 
is more compatible with Earth Mother than is the male drive to conquer. As Hoffman and Graham 
(2009, 368-369) rightly observed:  

Environmentalists and ecologists value cultural diversity; and so an 
environmentalist seeks to preserve an endangered species. Environmentalism and 
ecologism draw a parallel with fundamentalism. If ecologism—rather than 
environmentalism –is viewed as a religion then it is not difficult to take the next 
step to describing it as fundamentalist. It is clear that there are links and affinities 
between these various ideologies- multiculturalism, feminism, nationalism, 
fundamentalism, fascism, liberalism, socialism, conservatism and both 
environmentalism and ecologism. There is a distinctive core to ecologism which 
can be summed in the distinction between an anthropocentric ethic and ecocentric 
ethic.  

180

Jeko & Odigie                          An Evaluation Of Global Warming And Environmental Ethics



In addition, the concepts of anthropocentric ethic and ecocentric ethic identified by 
Hoffman and Graham (2009) in their theoretical position on ecologism and environmentalism are 
traceable to Aldo Leopold notion of 'land ethic'. For Leopold (1978, 150) and Hoffman and 
Graham (2009, 369) the essence of 'land ethic' was that land was an interdependent system, and 
not a commodity; human beings were part of the 'land community' and not masters of it; for 
human beings to understand themselves they must grasp the 'whole' of which they are a 'part' and 
'a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic 
community…it is wrong when it tends otherwise. For Hoffman and Graham (2009, 369-370): 

What Leopold called 'land' was what later ecologists would call the eco-system, 
biosphere, Gaia, 'earth' ('Spaceship Earth'), and by 'community' Leopold meant an 
interdependent whole, the members of which were not simply human beings, or 
even all sentient beings, but all the life forms. The extension of ethics to land is an 
'evolutionary possibility' and an 'ecological necessity'. Certainly, Leopold argues, 
individual thinkers have condemned the abuse of the land, but 'society' has yet to 
embrace the land ethic. The conservation movement is the embryo of such social 
affirmation. Individuals must change their motivations and this is a powerful and 
central claim of the ecological movement.  

Nonetheless, Burr and Goldinger (2008, 232-233) emphasizes that more than forty years ago 
the American ecologist Aldo Leopold argues for the need for a new ethics; an ethics that deals 
with man's relations with the environment. Deep ecology ethic will face problems similar to those 
we identified in considering the idea of the reverence-for-life ethic; and the reverence-for-life 
ethics with regard to the natural environment is deeply rooted in morally significant interests. 
Accordingly, Burr and Goldinger (2008, 234) further heightened their theoretical position by 
asserting that:  

We are on surer ground if we confine ourselves to arguments based on the interests 
of sentient creature, present and future, human and nonhuman…the arguments 
grounded on the interests of present and future human beings, and on the interests 
of the sentient nonhumans who inhabit the wilderness, are quite sufficient to show 
that, at least in society where no one needs to destroy wilderness in order to 
survive, the value of preserving the remaining significant areas of the wilderness 
greatly exceeds the values gained by their destruction.  

Accordingly, Burr and Goldinger (2008, 233-234) assert that the ecosystems lies some 
form of holism—some sense that the species or ecosystem is not just a collection of individuals 
but really an entity in its own right; and to seek intrinsic  value in diversity or complexity is a 
mistake. In a more simplistic term, humans will validate their own existence, survival and worth 
if they protect and sustain their nature environment.                                            

Evaluation 

Having critically examined the challenge of global warming with regard to ecological and 
environmental sustainability, this paper observed that environmental ethics is the rightness and 
wrongness of human actions towards the wellbeing of the natural environment; and it 
demonstrates the need for the normative outcomes of a peaceable and healthy environment. For 
Ikeke (2013, 404-405):

181

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



A clear affirmation of the right to a healthy and safe environment comes in the 
1981 African Charter on Human and People' Rights. By placing a duty on 
sovereign states and persons to conserve and protect the earth, the charter 
invariably and implicitly affirms a right to environmental wellbeing.  The 
fundamental inalienable right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of life 
are not possible outside a safe and healthy environment. This is why the 
enjoyment of fundamental human rights and liberties imply the right to a healthy 
environment. Earth's life forms are to be allowed to flourish, the land and water 
are to be well managed and all of nature is to be used sustainably. 

In concurrence with the above assertion, Ikeke (2013, 408-409) further stressed that the right 
to a safe and healthy environment has evolved from the last quarter of the last century to the 
present day. It is now well recognized that there is a human right to a safe and healthy 
environment. Environmental problems certainly affect social order. Deforestation, 
desertification, soil erosion, oil spillage, and pollutions of the waterways and land of the planet 
are already impacting negatively on the earth. Accordingly, Ikeke (2013, 403) further argues that 
environmental ethics deals with contemporary issues of how societies aggregates the interaction 
among people, social class relation with authority, the consequences of urbanization and 
industrialization on the cohesion of society, community and social control, the outcome of the 
disruption of traditional societies and their norms and the general instability that come with rapid 
social change.        

Moreover, global warming is just one of the basic issues in environmental ethics. Worthy of 
note is that apart from global warming, there are other environmental problems such as decline in 
species, depletion of natural resources, water shortages, food shortages, desertification, 
deforestation, urbanization, environmental pollution, industrialization and the proliferations of 
nuclear weapons by some nation-states. The proliferations of nuclear weapons have caused 
catastrophic and devastating consequences on humanity and the natural environment. For Ekiyor 
and Boro (2018, 159), a nuclear weapon is a lot of free energy but in the wrong hands it is a threat 
to humanity. Accordingly, Ekiyor and Boro (2018, 162) further argued that the negative effect of 
our actions should be channelled to the attainment of order in the environment. The attainment of 
order in the environment boils down to the supreme question of man. Global warming has 
demonstrated a contemporary call for the safety of the environment. The challenge of global 
warming is a very serious problem that demands concerted effort by humanity in order to mitigate 
the excessive abuse and plunder of the environment by man. Global warming reveals an 
anthropocentric conception of man as a paradoxical being. Man is a paradox and he remains a 
bundle of confusion. According to Mondin (2007, 1) man is the supreme question for man. For 
Hoffman and Graham (2009, 377) human beings must place value on the environment because 
value does indeed depend on the human capacity to evaluate, but it does not follow that values are 
"human-centred”. Worthy of note is that technological advancement has contributed to 
environmental degradation such as the testing of “intercontinental ballistic missiles”. We all have 
fundamental right to the environment both living and sentient beings. According to Ikeke (2013, 
404), the human persons have right to a sustainable, peaceful and healthy environment. For Ikeke 
(2013, 398), the environment refers to the entire natural world, with human persons inclusive. 
Some scholars have also asserted that technological advancement has also contributed to the 
degradation of the natural environment. For Hoffman and Graham (2009, 381-382), technology, 
on the other hand, dates back to the earliest human activity- it is simply the marshalling of natural 
processes to serve human ends. Of course, advances in scientific understanding have aided 
technological advance, and many ecologists will argue that neither science nor technology are in 

182

Jeko & Odigie                          An Evaluation Of Global Warming And Environmental Ethics



themselves to be rejected, but rather it is the degree of intervention in, and alteration of, natural 
processes which is at issue. Moreover, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 381) further assert that: 

The danger with ecologism is that it fails to distinguish between human enquiries—the 
drive to understand the world—and human wants, that is, the desire to use the natural 
world for human ends. Human- centredness is narrowly defined by ecologists as 
instrumental reason; nature is used as a means, or instrument, for human ends. But you do 
not need to be an ecologist in order to challenge instrumental reason; you can move 
completely within a human- centred view of the world and still raise rational objections to 
the idea that because we have the scientific knowledge to do something, such as clone 
human beings, then we should do it.

In the light of the above, Hoffman and Graham (2009, 382) aver that ecologism's 
distinctiveness can be found in its emphasis on the interconnectedness of life on earth, and the 
demand for fundamental change in human relations to nature--- where nature, of course, is part of 
humanity, and humanity part of nature. Hoffman and Graham (2009), in their theoretical position 
identified the inextricable nexus between humanity and nature and that human beings and nature 
belong to an interdependent whole (part-whole) analysis. We are all part and parcel of nature and 
our longevity, continuous existence and survival depends on the natural world. Environmental 
ethics is based on human-centredness. As rightly observed by Ikeke (2013, 405-406), human 
activities on the planet have altered it greatly, and political institutions are finding it difficult to 
cope with the rapid changes caused by environmental pollution and exploitation. For Burr and 
Goldinger (2008, 226-227), thus, a human-centered ethic can be the basis of powerful argument 
for what we may call “environmental values”. Scholars have also suggested that the need to 
preserve the natural environment is an existential imperative for the sake of future human beings. 
The price to be paid by future human beings is too high.                    

Concluding Considerations  

So far, we have made effort to present to our reader(s) the ethical dilemma surrounding 
the emergence of global warming as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer. It is pertinent to 
state here that global warming has become an existential burden to our humanity. The whole of 
humanity will be doomed if the necessary steps are not taken for the preservation of the natural 
environment. The normative outcome of environmentalism is deeply rooted in respect for nature. 
There is a serious need for us not to ignore the contemporary call for stemming the tide of global 
warming because this would spell doom for humanity. There are potential dangers ahead of 
humanity if the ethical question surrounding ecological and environmental sustainability is not 
being resolved as quickly as possible.

183

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



References 

Baradat., L. (2008). Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact, Ninth Edition, New Delhi: 
Prentice Hall of India Private Limited.

Burr., J. and Goldinger., M. (2008). Philosophy and Contemporary Issues,  New Delhi: Prentice 
Hall of India Private Limited

Ekwealo., C. (2012). Applied and Practical Ethics: A Simplified Course Text, Volume 1, Lagos: 
African Environment Ethics and Values Research Group, A Publication of the 
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Lagos.  

Hoffman., J. and Graham., P. (2009). Introduction to Political Theory, Second Edition, England: 
Pearson Higher Education Limited

Ikeke., Mark. (2013). “The Right to Safe and Healthy Environment: A Quintessential for a New 
Social Order: A Philosophical Enquiry” in George Ukagba, Des Obi and IksNwankwor 
(Eds.), The Kpim of Social Order: A Season of Inquiry, Meaning and Significance in the 
Modern World, USA: Xlibris Corporation.  

Isanbor., P. and Bature., A. (2018). “Morality, Integral Ecology and Development in Francis' 
Laudato Si: A Review” in Professor. Peter F. Omonzejele (Editor-in-Chief), Philectics 
Benin Journal of Philosophy, A Publication of the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of 
Arts, University of Benin, Volume 1, No. 2, 54-64.

Leopold., A. (1987). A Sand Country Almanac, and Sketches Here and There, New York and 
Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Maathai., W. (2009). The Challenge for Africa: A New Vision, London: Heinemann Publishing 
Limited. 

Mondin., B. (2007). Philosophical Anthropology, Rome: Urbanianna University Press.  

Olagunju., B. and Ibiezugbe., M. (2018). “Youth Empowerment as a Catalyst to Environmental 
Sustainability in Nigeria” in Professor. Peter F. Omonzejele (Editor-in-Chief), Philectics 
Benin Journal of Philosophy, A Publication of the Department of Philosophy, Faculty of 
Arts, University of Benin, Volume 1, No. 2, 65-70.

Welson., E. and Boro., D. (2018). “Kantian Categorical Imperative and Composite 
Thermodynamic Imperative: Implications for Ethics” in Professor. Peter F. Omonzejele 
(Editor-in-Chief), Philectics Benin Journal of Philosophy, A Publication of the 
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, University of Benin, Volume 1, No. 2, 153-
165.

184

Jeko & Odigie                          An Evaluation Of Global Warming And Environmental Ethics


	Page 182
	Page 183
	Page 184
	Page 185
	Page 186
	Page 187
	Page 188
	Page 189
	Page 190
	Page 191
	Page 192

