Philosophy

The following discussion aims to refute Mills claim that a utilitarian approach ought to consider the quality of pleasure over the quantity of pleasure achieved in the process of determining the morality of an action. In order to prove this claim, the following discussion will initially present the foundation of Mills argument followed by an analysis of Mills claim in accordance to one of his critics and in accordance to my basis for refuting his claim.
John Stuart Mill, the famous utilitarian, laid the foundation of his moral philosophy by stating categorically that there is an ultimate good-a summum bonum. Mill argues that all moral actions should be aimed at attaining this good. Further, Mill insists that this good is happiness. Utilitarianism thereby refers to the ethical theory, which claims that happiness is the ultimate end of morality (Utilitarianism 61). He states,
According to the Greatest Happiness Principle, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people) is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality. (Utilitarianism 16)
    Mill states this teleological position by insisting that the rightness of an action is determined by actual consequences. For Mill, the nature of the act is insignificant in determining the morality of an action. Such is the case since within his teleological position, the rightness of an act is judged and evaluated in terms of its consequences, that of maximizing the intrinsic good. Since the intrinsic good is happiness, it follows that any action that maximizes happiness is a right action and any action that does the reverse is a wrong action. In line with this Mill claims,
The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals Utility of the Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness. Wrong, as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. (Utilitarianism 12)
In this context, Mill contends that happiness is the only intrinsically desirable thing. This is the basic argument of the principle of utility. Happiness is thus, the principle of action within his ethical theory.
    It is important to note that although Mill considers happiness as the principle of action his teleological argument differs radically from the initial version of utilitarianism given by Jeremy Bentham. Benthams version of utilitarianism is quantitative in character as can be seen in his hedonistic calculus according to which the quantity of pleasure ought to be considered in determining the morality of an action.
    Mills version of utilitarianism differs radically from Benthams on two important points. First, he is vehemently against the purely quantitative treatment of the principle of utility and second, he espouses that some pleasures are intrinsically superior to others. This is explicitly stated in the following passage wherein Mill disdainfully claims,
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. (Utilitarianism 14)
To clinch this point, Mill cites Epicurus who also espoused the view that while the good life is the life of pleasure, Epicurus does not limit what is pleasurable to only bodily and sensual pleasures. There are higher forms of pleasure such as intellectual and spiritual pleasure. According to both Mill and Epicurus, some pleasures are thereby intrinsically superior in comparison to others.
    At this point, it is important to consider Mills criterion for judging the quality of pleasure. In order to provide this, Mill forwards the following argument
If I am asked what I mean by difference of quality of pleasurethere is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures if there be one to which all or almost all who have experienced both give a decided preference, irrespective of a feeling of moral obligation ton prefer it, that is the more desirable pleasure. If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it be attended with a greater amount of discontent,.we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account. (Utilitarianism 13)
The introduction of quality of pleasure added undue complications to the earlier version of utilitarianism. The higher pleasures consist of the more intellectual, artistic, and even spiritual ones as opposed to the more sensual and physical ones. It is important to note however that Mill does not exclude the lower pleasure from consideration. However, he personally prefers the higher pleasures.
    In order to prove the soundness of his principle of utility, Mill constructs a proof of his argument, which takes the following form
Ones own happiness is the only thing desired by each person.
 It follows from this that the general happiness is the only thing desired for itself by all.
 The only test of somethings being desirable is its being desired,
It follows from this that (a) the general happiness is the only thing desired in itself and (b) the only test of the rightness and wrongness of actions is their tendency to promote the general happiness. (Utilitarianism 37)
    Given the background and the foundation of Mills argument, what follows is a presentation of an argument raised against Mills qualitative version of utilitarianism. Christine Korsgaard claims that Mills proof leads to a certain form of instrumental egoism. Instrumental egoist refers to the view that the only principle of practical reason is the principle that directs us to take the means to our ends (59). Korsgaard argues that Mills account of happiness inevitably resolves itself into a form of egoism where each individual pursues his or her own happiness (59). Such is the case since Mill maintains that happiness ought to be the end of all action and it is necessary to allow each individual to practice his liberty. The former view is apparent in his text Utilitarianism whereas the latter view is apparent in his text On Liberty. In the later text, Mill argues that man is a progressive being (Liberty 53). If such is the case, freedom and the availability of choices then are two important conditions that promote happiness and the development of our own humanity. A truly civilized society must learn to value differing positions and ideologies. This is because of the fact that these differences entail different ideas and different ways in and through which those ideas are formed. This is to say that a truly civilized society creates an atmosphere conducive for a culture of discourse to flourish.
Within this context, Mill may have managed to explain that happiness is indeed, desirable and that it ought to be the end of all human action however his account of happiness and his principle of utility along with his views on freedom of thought present us with a rather interesting scenario. Mills account of happiness inevitably resolves itself into a form of egoism where each individual pursues his or her own happiness. The problem is thus much deeper and intricate since this has serious implications on utilitarianism.
Mill contends that since ones own happiness is the only thing desired by each person, it follows that the general happiness is the only thing desired for itself by all. From a logical point of view, this assumption is mistaken. Apparently, Mill assumes there will still be a certain kind of uniformity concerning human beings desires and wants that will determine the bases for attaining general happiness. This is, however, a mere assumption.
The problem with Mills version of utilitarianism thereby is apparent as he fails to account for the effects of liberty in the attainment of the greatest happiness for all the members of society. In order to account for this, Mill may further develop his ethical theory by applying the principle of utility to general rules and not to specific acts. By doing so, it is possible to ensure the attainment of happiness of the greatest number of individuals in society. Such is the case since the morality of an action is no longer merely based on the end of an action but is also based on whether the end of an action is in accordance to a specific rule. Since the formulation of the rule ensures that the end of an action enables the attainment of happiness of the greatest number of individuals in society, it is possible to conceive of a scenario wherein the action of an individual is geared towards the attainment of societal good as opposed to his own egoistic end.

Gods existence is not obvious to humans. If this was the case, then every human being would believe in God. However, this does not imply that his existence is just a myth or that he does not exist. We believe that bacteria, neutrons or the Andromeda exists even though their existence is not obvious to us. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that they exist. The purpose of this paper is to find some of the common reasons advanced for the belief that God exist. The question of Gods existence is particularly important for a good proportion of human beings since their life are entirely based on this supposition. As such, this paper will not only look at some of these reasons but also analyze their persuasiveness. I will also give my position in regard to this very important question.
The question of the existence of God has baffled men from antiquity. One important point to observe is that this question laws considered with much more seriousness in the past than it is being considered today. As such, the last few years have seen a remarkable decline in belief in God. It is not a secret that today many people are not bothered to think about the question concerning the existence of God. There is a casual presumption that god does not exist even if he does, he is not relevant in their lives. Many reasons can be attributed to this. However, the most popular idea is that God has been disproved by science.
To many people, one of the most powerful evidence for the existence of God has been provided by science since it suggests that there must be a supreme intelligence behind the world that we live in. the proponents of this view hold that modern cosmology and evolutionary biology have provided sufficient proof of the existence of God. If God is responsible for the entire creation, then He is also responsible for the creation of human minds with the ability to consider deep questions and to discover deep answers. The duty of men is therefore to use their intelligence to reflect and find out about Him. This view forms the bulk of Christian belief about God. Such views are common in various Christian literatures. If Gods existence cannot be ascertained, then faith in him is basically guesswork or personal preference, the implication being that the advancement towards agnosticism. If belief in God is founded on strong evidence, then there is need to base human life and existence on him. Having considered these views, it is important to look at some of the reasons that people advance for their existence in God.
Among the reasons advanced for belief in God is related to the question of why anything exists at all. The proponents of this view hold that things do not just happen because it is known from experience that things only happen because there is a cause. Human life is based on a contingency of causes. Everything that exists must have a cause in the same way that things that happen around us have some particular causes attributed to them.  The universe as it exists is contingent. Of course, this has always been true. However, the developments within the past centuries in the field of cosmology have illuminated this view to a greater degree. Science has proven that the universe obey physical laws.  The universe therefore needs a cause. However, this cause of the universe, according to the proponents of this perspective, must be outside the universe.  From this argument, it can be seen that there must be a God.  According to Paul Davis, the physical universe is not compelled to exist as it is and therefore, we are driven back to the problem of why it is the way it is. The explanation can be sought in something beyond or outside the physical world-in something metaphysical-because, as we have seen, a contingent physical universe cannot contain within itself an explanation for itself.
Whenever a contingent entity is explained with another contingent entity, a complete explanation is not captured since nether things had to exist. If a complete explanation is to be sought for any contingent entity, what is required is a non-contingent cause- a first cause that cannot be caused. This is a proof for the existence of God and a basis for belief in him. However, one might say that when the causal links are infinitely long, then there is no need for God. In other words, every link can entirely be explained in terms of the preceding link. Infinity in causal link does not however imply that it has to exist. Envisioning a world in which this particular chain does not exist is possible. If it is not necessary for it to exist then there has to be a reason for its existence. A First uncaused cause is still needed that is, there is need for a God. Science has also shown that an infinite chain cannot exist because the universe is not infinitely old.
A major question that one is bound to ask is whether god was made and by whom. A careful reflection about the universe however suggest that it needs an uncaused cause- an entity that does not require to be made. Therefore, no one or nothing made God since he is not contingent. This is not a simple though even though it worth emphasizing that the proponents of this perspective not only imagine a God who does not require to be made but also that the universe needs this kind of God in order to explain it.
    Another reason why many people believe in God is the order and unity that exists in the universe. A considerable degree of order and harmony has been discovered in the universe by science. Science attempts to discover a unified law or principle behind the physical universe. Those who believe in God see this to be similar in many respects to the idea of God. God is a unity and science is only attempting to rediscover God. There is a crucial distinction between God and the Unity Law according to the proponents of this view. Scientific laws cannot exist by themselves they only describe the behavior of matter. In other words, the existence of the laws is dependent on the existence of matter. These laws do not account for how matter comes into existence. Stephen Hawking clearly states that even if a single possible unified theory exists, it only comprises of a set of rules and equations and this requires something to provide an impetus to the equations and create a universe for them to describe. As such, there must be a lawgiver for there to be laws. The laws cannot cause the universe. Therefore, the Lawgiver who is also the First Cause is God. The expression of gods wisdom is found in the Unity Law. It suggests that Gods supreme intelligence is manifested in his creation. The universe has been created by God in a wonderful way such that its reach diversity comes from a simple unified order.
    The above arguments are some of the reasons that form the basis for peoples belief in God. Their belief is founded on the proposition that God exists and this proposition is supported by the numerous arguments, some of which have been presented in this paper. The fact of Gods existence is the only conclusion that can be derived from data taken from modern science according to those who believe in God. According to believers, if our ability to discover the universe is taken seriously, then we cannot fail to arrive at the conclusion that an all-intelligent God is responsible for the creation of this world.
    These reasons are very persuasive since a world without a cause is unfathomable. The proofs that have been presented by these arguments are an integration of scientific evidence and logical arguments. The proof of existence of anything must follow some basic reasoning. The human mind has the capacity to arrive at valid conclusion through combining evidence and logic. Survival would be difficult if humans were unable to make valid conclusions founded on evidence. However, when there is sufficient evidence, it will beat logic and reason to fail to be certain. The arguments presented are sufficient proof of the existence of God. However, the most difficult part regards the question about the nature of God. The supporters of the above views hold that God is not physical he is pure Spirit and pure Mind. He is also not part of the universe. He created the universe as an ordered and harmonious unity. His creation was purposeful and this purpose is human beings, a being that is inferior to him but nevertheless possessing his intelligence. It is more complex to attempt to disprove the existence of God than to prove his existence. As such, I am more inclined towards the theists than agnostics.

Every individual has a unique identity. But all of these identities have some basic components as defined by some or in every situation. The nature of human self is to have different nature for every individual.
Buddhas Five Aggregates of Human Existence suggests that the soul of humans is a psychophysical unity or monism. Humans have 5 constituents namely, Rupa, Vedana, Sanjna, Sanskara, and Vijnana. Buddha sees that humans exist to these five parts (Rahula, 1962). They have different roles in every individuals life, as Rupa constitutes ones physical identity as it is made up of four elements (Earth, Water, Fire and Air). Vedana along with Sanjina gives individual the basic experience of feeling and perception respectively. Sanskara is the karma formations or dispositions  the locus of character, moral responsibility and karma. Finally, Vijnana is the function of continuity in the experiences of individuals it is the consciousness or awareness
The Brain in a vat by Dennett is an element utilized in various though experiments proposed to draw out particular features of peoples notion of reality, mind, knowledge, truth and meaning (Putnam, 1982). This is gotten from the idea, typical to a lot of science fiction stories that a mad scientist may have remove an individuals brain from his body, hovering in a vat of life-sustaining fluid, and attach its neurons through wires to a supercomputer that would supply it with electrical impulses similar to those the brain usually receives. According to these stories, the computer then becomes a simulating reality with proper responses to the output of ones brain and the individual with the disembodied brain would persist to have absolutely normal conscious encounters devoid of these being connected to events or objects in the real environment or world.
Gender identity is an issue experienced by an individual who hugely identifies himself or herself with the other sex. The person may identify to the point of deeming that he or she is in fact a member of the opposite sex who is merely trapped inside the wrong body. An individual with a gender identity problem may experience dissimilar personalities and behaviors to regular people who are not suffering from such identity issue (Kopf, 1996).
In the medieval and ancient philosophy, self was identical with ones soul, and the soul was deemed to be a permanent substance that existed earlier than its temporary conjunction with the physical body and which lives on the suspension of the body. Aristotle, a great and well known philosopher, rejected this notion and advocated a theory that is more in relation with natural science. He viewed a persons soul as the entelechy of the body, and as it is the bodys form, it was indivisible from it as well.
Social and physiological factors influence the farther patterns of personality development. Social psychologists were inclined to affix greater significance to the social environment where in the human child grows and develops (Buller, 2005). Physiologists on the other hand, hold that hormones secreted by a persons endocrine glands, play a crucial role in the development and normal functioning of ones personality. It is through the process of socialization where personality emerges.
In the view of psychologists, personality grows and develops as a result of the individuals reactions itself. The important factor for personality is not the social control or influence where the person is exposed but through the process in which the individual responses or reacts to it.
A persons self concept or identity is multi-dimensional paradigm that concerns the persons individual idea of his self in connection to several numbers of characteristics like gender roles, racial identity, academic, sexuality, and many others (Buller, 2005). This idea of ones identity or self-concept is not limited to the present as it can include past and future ideas of him.

Existentialism, the philosophical discourse which Sartre developed,  with a core foundation of  existence precedes essence  has become popular and widespread during the post war era. It s an idea, which criticized traditional metaphysics because throughout the history of philosophy, it was always believed that the essence of a thing is more fundamental than its mere existence and therefore,if you want to understand a thing, what you must do is learn more about the first.
    Sartre begins by posing a problem against the traditional background of philosophy. It is, for Sartre, how to characterize the relation of object to subject. Subjectivist philosophies lose the object in the subject, objectivist philosophies on the other hand divide it from the subject. The realtion between the two must be seen as complex, unstable and dialectical. This unstable relation between the two is what  Sartre  calls being for-itself and being in-itself.
    It should be distinguished that Sartre does not relate this principle universally, but only to humanity. Sartre contests that there were two kinds of being. The first is being-in-itself which is characterized as fixed, complete, and having absolutely no reason for its being it just is. This describes the world of external objects. The second is being-for-itself, which is characterized as dependent upon the former for its existence. It has no absolute, fixed, eternal nature and describes the state of humanity.
     Sartre opposed the divine outlook on the world and on human nature with a human outlook that has no divine element. For that, when God thought about creating the world, he conceived it first. Then God made everything and gave existence to the essences.   But because Sartre did not believe in God, so there was no use for the essence of humanity to be before human existence. Existence comes first to us and  essence comes later and it is the latter that is whatever we decide it is going to be. So, from our standpoint, things are just the opposite of what they would be for people who believed in God. Now it is existence precedes essence. That is existentialism. As Sartre said, thee appearance is not supported by any existent different from itself it has its own being (Sartre 1968).

     Sartre s focus is not so much of the distinction between essence and existence but the non-appearance of God. For him, the absence of God has a much massive significance than the metaphysics of creation, which is, without God there is no purpose and no meaning in the world.  According to Sartre
    If God is I and if he is the Other, then what guarantees my own existence If creation is held to be continous, I remain always suspended between a distinct existence and a pantheistic fusion with the Creator Being......then nothing really guarantees my existence to God he is now united to me only by a relation of exteririty, as the sculptor is related to the finish statue. (314-315)
This is the foundational proposition for Existentialism. A world without purpose and meaning is senseless, worthless, meaningless and null.
Nietzsche influence on Existentialism
     Nietzsche, one of the main influence of existentialism, was focused on the subjective human experience rather than the objective truths of mathematics and science, which he assumed to be too far-out and observational to truly get at the human experience.
    For Nietzsche, God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.(Nietzsche 1887) This shows the core of the challenge from Nietzsche to the very foundations of traditional morality that was always been imposed by Christianity. For Him man had rested on the values and dogmas of Christian morality for so long and advocate the proposition that it was time to be release from the constraints of Christianitys ethical principles and endeavored to redefine mankinds moral values.
    The worship of God only superficially satisfied the fundamental human need for the transcendence of ones own finite state. Nietzsches claim was that the death of God is a way of saying that man will no longer be able to believe in any such cosmic being since Christians themselves can longer identify to it. He believed that the absence of god would reject of absolute values and ultimately denounce any binding objective and universal moral law.
    Nietzsches daring challenge was aimed directly at the established traditions of morality, and the core of this was the idea that if one was to remove the metaphysical foundation for the Christian belief system, particularly with the existence of god, then  nothing is left  important.
    As a firm believer that mans essence is  creative expression, Nietzsche believed that destroying the belief in God would enable the full advancement of mankinds creative abilities which will lead to the not having God as an obstacle. T
Existentialism in Maslow s Needs
    We can compare Maslow s Hierarchy of needs to existentialism because he has been a very inspirational  for people who were tired of the mechanistic messages of the behaviorists and physiological psychologists and were looking for meaning and purpose in their lives, even a higher, more mystical meaning.
    Maslow was one of the first in that movement to bring the human being back into psychology, and the person back into personality. He theorizes a design saying when a person met their needs, they eventually can achieve  their higher self. Just like Sartre and Nietzsche, he  believes that when you find your purpose, you will find your higher self..

Ethics can be defined as norms or values of the society. Each society is governed by rules that an individual is expected to adhere to and when a person does this heshe is referred to as being ethical. Different people explain ethics in different perspective according to their point of view which included Kants deontological ethics and Mills utilitarian ethics as discussed below.
Deontological ethics determines if an action is right or wrong by analyzing the action rather than the consequence. In this, ones morality is seen through the action and the ability of a person to do something (Bencivenga, 2007). It calls for one to exercise their virtues and to do unto others what heshe expects others to do unto himher. Hence a butcher for example will be honest on the scale of measurement if he uses it right. This shows that he values honesty and do not want to steal from hisher customers. It is not because of the gain he will have on having more customers. To further elaborate this, one can liken it to cause-effect relationship. Deontological ethics therefore focuses on the cause part of it rather than the effect.
On the other hand, Mills utilitarianism is based on the consequence of the action done by an individual. This theory states that Actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number (Moore, 2003). Hence the morality of an action is determined by the overall utility that it contributes. If the action elicits good response from the people it affects, then it is ethical and vice versa. For instance, a politician during a campaign can decide to give bribes to the voters so as to get their votes during the election. The question is how do the people feel about receiving un-toiled for, money The response is obviously good. Thus the action when analyzed using Mills utilitarian ethics theory is right as it promotes good or rather the consequence is good in that the people who are given the money feel happy.
    An action thus, can be interpreted differently depending on the theory under application at that time. An example of this is my own personal experience on which I picked a wallet one day while walking down the street the wallet had been unknowingly dropped by someone ahead of me. Opening the wallet, I was astonished to find fifty dollars in it. At that time, I was almost running out of money that I had been given to use during the semester. This was indeed a blessing at the right time. I decided to take the money in the wallet. By judging my actions using Deontological theory, it would not be ethical. The rule governing the theory is that one should do the right thing in every situation (Starr  Ashmore, 1994). Was my action right The answer to this question is no, because I was guided by greed and dishonesty to steal. On the other hand, utilitarianism would see the action otherwise. My taking the money would promote happiness to me. Hence it is an ethical action. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequence part of the action rather than the morals governing the action.
In summary an action can be termed as ethical by an individual and also termed as unethical by another since they are using different theories of ethics to interpret it, as exemplified. Interpretations of ethics also differ from one society to another depending on how each society view and interpret an action.

The Method of Doubt is a systematic process of doubting ones own beliefs in order to ascertain which beliefs are actually true. This method was revolutionized in the field of philosophy by Rene Descartes (1596  1650). Descartes employs a basic strategy which aims to defeat skepticism at its own ground. He advocates doubting the fundamental process of reasoning in addition to doubting the evidence of the senses and cultural superstitions. If any specific fact can stand this test, it is truly indubitable and can be considered a solid foundation of knowledge.
In his Meditation 1, Descartes resolves to doubt everything that he believes in order to establish something as being indubitable and entirely certain. He aims to doubt his beliefs, not reject them outright (Lacewing). Descartes tries to establish doubt across three distinct verticals
Perceptual Illusion Descartes believes that the perception about the external world, gained through human senses, may turn out to be mistaken (Philosophy Pages). Things are not always just as they seem at first glance. He lays stress on the fact that it is wise to not fully believe what one perceives. In real life, one can always recognize a mistaken perception by using correct perceptions as a benchmark. Since one cannot be sure of the truth at first, it is possible to doubt every bit of sensory knowledge which is apparent (Kemerling). Here, the question arises - How do we know anything about what it is really like. Descartes argument notes a clear distinction between appearance and reality, laced with a strong suggestion that the world is nothing like how it appears.
The Dream Issue Descartes also describes a systematic method of doubting every perception, by relating to his inability to distinguish his most vivid dreams from real life. In Meditation 1, he says that since his most vivid dreams are indistinguishable from waking experience, he believes that is possible that everything he sees in the world is just a figment of his imagination . On this basis, it is possible to doubt the existence of every physical aspect, including the world itself (Kemerling).
Some philosophers have tried to refute Descartes by claiming that it is definitely possible to differentiate between dream and reality.  But Descartes had shot back saying that we could be dreaming a perfect replica of reality (Lacewing). Other philosophers have argued that if everything were a dream, then it would be impossible to have two separate entities of realism and dream. This seems to have softened Descartes a bit as he modifies his view slightly in his third meditation. Here, he agrees that we can distinguish between dreaming and waking experience, by the greater coherence of perception (Lacewing).

A Deceiving God Finally, Descartes projects an even more radical theory, related to one of the most treasured worldly beliefs. He discusses the consequences of the all-present god turning into a deceiver and rendering all beliefs false. He seems to suggest that it is an evil demon which seems to drive all our experiences. The possibility of the demon could mean that even if an individual is able to distinguish dream from reality, his experiences in real life could be no more real than his dreams (Lacewing). He also brings up a far more terrifying hypothesis that even if all things have been true up until now, the truly omnipotent deceiver could change the world so as to render ones belief false.   
Descartes seems to reconsider this particular idea in his second Meditation. He tries to argue that even if the evil demon exists, there is one thing he can be sure of.  Later, in Meditation 4, he goes about trying to resolve the issues which led him to doubt everything initially. In order to do this, he needed to establish that
There is no evil demon trying to deceive him
He is not dreaming
A physical world including his body does exist
He can trust his senses
The answer to all these questions establishes that God indeed exists and is not a deceiver as Descartes argues in his early Meditations (Burnham and Fieser).
Descartes ideals on certainty and knowledge have come under severe criticism. Many have argued that Descartes sets the knowledge bar really high. If Descartes thinks that for knowledge to be indubitable, one must be unable to doubt it. For this to be true, belief needs to be infallible. However, this level of severity advocated by Descartes can be seen to be abating by Meditation 3, where he feels that he can know whatever is clear and distinct(Lacewing). Descartes ideas on certainty have also come under the hammer as it appears that he is only after the beliefs that he is certain of. However, Descartes refutes this challenge by claiming that people have a habit of drawing conclusions without appropriate evidence. This is where the Method of Doubt could be employed to good use.   

The way of life of people in the modern world has become somewhat transformed by the ways and behaviors that come with modernity. The world today is characterized by actions by people that are indicative of the moral and societal preferences in their everyday life. The actions by mankind and the effects that these actions have both on the environment and on the people in that environment are both matters of critical importance which ought to be assessed and analyzed with a view to understanding how best the entire human race can live on this planet without any undue pressure to the environment. Matters and issues of the environment have become very important in the 21st century owing to the direction that is being taken by people and organizations in an attempt to live a better life (Schweickart, 1996). The issues of the environment present challenges too. Most of the present challenges in environment conservation and protection are those that have been brought about by the inability of mankind to pay a lot more attention to the consequences of his daily activities. In seeking to reassert himself, man has engaged in all forms of activities that he believes are essential to bringing about his survival in the world. He has more often than not failed to recognize and appreciate the value that is placed on the environment not only by environmental conservation groups but also by other people who have cared enough to realize the great value that can be gained by preserving the environment (Preston, 2007).
 All actions by mankind are geared towards personal or social development. Economic well-being and personal and social development ought to encompass the societal values that require all forms of development to be sustainable and without undue pressure on the ecological system. The life lived in the world has to be all-inclusive. All around the world, many activities are taking place and all are aimed at improving mankinds life. How about the consequences of these actions Is it all right if the drive for wealth, riches and power is given a priority over matters critical to society like climate change and global warming Can there be anything that can be effectively called sustainable development if on one hand the development itself is injurious to the society and to the environment, and on the other hand it causes untold human suffering because for one to gain another must lose
All these and many other questions ought to keep ringing in the minds of all people in society every time they are about to make a decision on anything. Ethics in the environment have been relegated to the abyss of forgetfulness, and more than ever before in the history of the world they need to be unearthed from those deep recesses of societal forgetfulness where they have been buried all this time. A consideration of some of the emerging issues in the present world especially where environmental affairs are concerned is critical if a balanced assessment of events in the world pitting mankind and the environment is to be carried out successfully.
The Role of Markets in Decision Making
    Environmental ethics are greatly influenced by markets. The making of decisions about matters pertinent to the environment as well as other social matters, when left to be done by markets, impacts greatly in ways that bring about negative effects on the eminent. This is because unlike in economics, environmental and social issues are closely associated with mankind  his actions, decision, and welfare. Making decisions based on the nature on markets creates problems to mankind and to the environment. Usually, people will want to be treated like humans and nothing else. In making market decisions, the main factor that is considered is monetary gain (Schweickart, 1996). Markets seek to have whatever is desired  whatever needs a person has  made available for exchange for some kind of financial gain. It is more conserved with satisfying the needs of people in exchange for a price.
Economic decisions are made by considering factor availability and the cost of the factors in relation of the expected revenue to be generated from the factors. Such decisions bear in mind the demand that is there, and seek to supply the required quantity to meet this demand. Such is not what is needed in making environmental and social decisions. Morality has often been an attribute that every human being is entitled to (Schweickart, 1996). Moral issues transcend economic and financial demarcations. When dealing with people, it is essential that any decision first considers what value systems that person subscribes to, and how the decisions likely to impact on the person. The same applies to environmental decisions. It does not make sense at all to have any decision about the environment based on the existing conditions in the market (Schweickart, 1996).
For instance, the need for energy has been growing over time. Never before has there been a decline in the number of people needing energy. Any decision made will therefore most likely point to the need to have the supply of energy increased. A specific example is fossil fuel. The demand for it has been growing, and even during the current global economic crisis, oil has remained fairly highly priced because its demand has not dipped as much. A market-conscious decision might require that more exploration for oil be done and existing reserves be harnessed to meet newer and existing demands. However, the reality is that the trend in the world is to move away from reliance on non-renewable energy resources like fossil fuel, and instead harness renewable sources (Schweickart, 1996). To add to this, OPEC nations will always base their production decisions on the current market conditions. They will relate their needs of cash and cut or increase output of oil and gas to influence price and hence demand. The extraction of oil has therefore been more as a result of market trends and not as a result of actual human needs.    

The Theory of Sustainable Development
    Theorists commenting on the subject of development have quite often than not failed to make a clear distinction between the need to develop globally and the more important need to make this development as sustainable as possible. Sustainable is aimed at ensuring that in any given undertaking that is geared toward bringing about economic development or any other form of development is able to bring about an assurance that future generations will also be able to make use of resources available in the present age (Schweickart, 1996). An understanding of this need to consider the future and just the present ought to be what drives mankind to preserve present resources, or even better, to use them with restraint and care. The world has all that everyone needs and a lot more to spare.
However, it does not mean that wastage of resources can be a practice that is tolerable in society. Instead, every human being must understand the role heshe is expected to play in bringing about sustainable development  ensuring that development is in line with environmental preservation and management. Economic theorists will hardly agree to the fact that nature has resources for everyone. They are responsible for pushing the society to seek to do all in their ability to find what they call scarce resources. Without seeking to discredit any particular economic theorist, it is imperative that all people understood that the scarcity of resources (and the abundance of wants) does not necessarily mean that nature has suddenly become devoid of resources and so all every one must rush to grab whatever remains. Instead, it remains a true concept that nature has and will faithfully provide for all the needs of humanity. This then means that the best that can be done to ensure this continued provision is to conserve nature  protect natural habitats and stop or reduce pollution of the environment.

Poverty and the Environment
    The relationship that exists between economic well-being and environmental degradation has been responsible for some of the greatest harms done to the environment and to the community. The developing countries of the world are home to some of the worlds rarest animal and plant species which ought to be conserved yet these countries are known to have the worlds most grim human development index figures, a majority living in absolute poverty. As if to compound this, these countries are heavily indebted to Western countries and the Breton Woods institutions like IMF and the World Bank.
The poverty levels have been so high that governments are finding it difficult to service loans and Official Development Assistance (ODA). This has posed a threat to the ecosystems there, as communities have began encroaching on protected land in search for a living. In some instances governments have bowed to pressure from politicians and allowed people to settle in forests and farm there, or poaching has become rampant. For there to be sustainable development in the Third World, therefore, there must efforts to eliminate debt from these countries to ease the economic burden placed on them, and in exchange, the governments can be required to implement programs that will help conserve the environment.
Maldevelopment and Underdevelopment
    More than anything else, what characterizes the developing world and sets them apart as different from the developed nations of the West is their gross underdevelopment. The underdevelopment there is so rampant that it is hard to imagine how people manage to live. The GDP of most of most of these countries is so low that it is hardly enough to cater for the needs of its people. Therefore, development projects are generally lacking, and the mainstay of the economies is normally the primary agricultural sector. The economies of such countries rely entirely on the export of agricultural products to the developed world where they are processed and converted into finished products. These products are then resold to those very countries at very exorbitant prices. This in itself goes against the ethical approaches to the environment (Pierce, 1995).
 Developed countries ought not to capitalize on the poverty of developing nations to rip them off even if it is usually a business activity resulting from the mutual consent of both parties. That aside, there must be a way of ensuring that these beneficiaries from the products that come from farmers in these developing nations are made to compensate them for the degradation they cause to the environment. This is in addition to the price paid for the commodity, and considering that this is the main agricultural sector in developing countries that is relied on in spite of being responsible for a lot of pollution on the environment. One of the notable practices in agriculture in the developing countries is the use of agricultural chemicals not only to add fertilizer to crops but also to control pests and diseases. The chemicals are very harmful to the environment, some of them lasting a long time in the soil. They offset the natural balance that is otherwise responsible for daily occurrence of the natural processes of both plants and animals.
 Natural cycles like the water, oxygen, sulfur, and carbon cycle are usually affected by the presence of such chemicals in the atmosphere. Such chemicals will often cause damage to the ecosystem as well. The pollution that results will always be felt for a very long time after the chemicals have been applied. This is part of the role that underdevelopment has played in hampering environmental conservation issues. Logging is also a common activity in developing nations. The cutting down of trees has been noted as being one of the greatest contributors to the overall pollution that occurs to the environment (Preston, 2007). The cause has mainly been cited as the rampant, usually unchecked encroachment on forests by people clearing the forests to make way for new farms. The efforts they put in are usually genuine sometimes as they seek to have a source of livelihood. However, this is at times a deliberate move to destroy natural habitats in order to achieve some undisclosed motives or to achieve certain selfish goals. It may also be as a payback strategy for past ills committed against such people.
The bottom line, however, is that this has greatly contributed to the growing problem of global warming that results from an accumulation of greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide gas from the cutting down of trees is one such gas. Environmental ethics require that such activities be halted as much as possible. The need to support development programs in the developing countries in order to enable the people to get involved in less hazardous farming practices is urgent. Since the developed world has a lot to gain from such sustainable projects, they ought to be on the forefront in funding them. Health wise, maldevelopment has led to many health complications that has made the developing world a target for multinational drug companies (Preston, 2007). Environmental ethics call for the ensuring that there is a drug-free environment as drugs are generally harmful.
Dumping Ground
    The West has been responsible for a lot more environmental issues abroad, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The damage that has been caused by the dumping of second hand goods and those that are no longer functional has been great, and the West has been so far unrepentant. Many Western computer makers understand too well that their products end up somewhere in the developing countries not because they really intended to sell the computers there in the first place but to dump them there. In addition to this, most of the developing countries use vehicles that have been rejected in their countries of manufacture or initial use (Light, 1998).
    Africa, for instance, is full of Japanese car models and planes made in Russia. This is a problem that can be checked much better by the involvement of international safety and environmental agencies because local ones can never be relied on to do better investigation and consequent control. The manufacturers of products that have ended up in these developing countries have to be made responsible for their actions because it is unacceptable to have them cause harm to people and wildlife far away from where they were manufactured. Alternatively, they ought to be made to account for their products for as long as possible, including the place where the product will get dumped upon expiry of its usage time or period. 
Mining and Construction Contracts
    There have been a lot of mining contracts that have been given to grant to engineering firms from all over the world, but especially from Western Countries. This has brought about a rather huge foreign presence in these countries. Mining in countries like the DRC and Botswana has never gone well with the locals. While the motive might be good, the resultant effects have been so bad that it has been almost impossible for people to realize and enjoy the deserted benefits. Mining, apart from being responsible for rampant environmental destruction, has also caused conflicts between different people in the community who cannot real understand the benefits of the projects.
In the DRC, human suffering including rape of women and displacement of whole families from their homes has become the order of the day. This is done by armed militia opposed to the projects there cannot agree to be deceived in letting their resources to be used by foreigners. These companies must be ready to do a lot more to help the community from where they operate than merely what they give to the government as tax revenue. They must understand that the community is the legal owner of the minerals that they are extracting, and they must treat them with due respect and dignity. This has to be done if sustainable development is ever to be realized.
Social Justice
    The need for the society to have access to what they consider to be very important to them is a critical milestone in helping bring about environmental conservation through sustainable development. What comes to the fore whenever the justice of the people is mentioned is the chilling feeling that people never always get what is rightly theirs. Then one wonders who is responsible for taking away from the society their portion of resources. Often, the society is deprived when decisions are made without involving them. They come to be informed later that a certain project is being undertaken and that they are likely to gain from its successful implementations. As Rawls would argue, all people are entitled to a say in whatever activity, event, or action that affects them (Rawls, 1971). In the world today, and especially in the developing world, the community has been ignored in key aspects of development. If the underlying principal of sustainable development is to be realized fully in any society, there has to be an understanding of what is important to the community (Rawls, 1971).
They must agree that they indeed want the project to go on as planned or oppose it depending on what they believe to be the likely outcomes. The exploration and subsequent drilling of oil by Western Companies in the developing countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America has been noted as one coming without many benefits to the society. The initial promise has always been that the drilling of the oil would result in greater economic empowerment of the people. However, as the projects go in, all the community gets is the pollution that results from the projects (Rawls, 1971). In the Niger Delta of Nigeria, poverty has characterized the lives of the people in spite of their land being a major source of international wealth. Logging in the Brazilian Amazon has been a problem that apart from causing damage to the environment has never been beneficial to the local people living beside the forest.    
World Hunger
    People all over the world ought to get what they need in order to live a life that is comfortable enough not only to make them be able to actively take part in environmental conservation matters but also in order for them to desist from acts that are environmentally unethical. All around the world, people are faced with hunger and starvation, and this is being translated into a mass encroachment on forests and other natural resources as these people attempt to feed themselves (Rawls, 1971). World hunger needs to be halted by use of more collaborative efforts that can be used to bring about more access to daily food for the majority if not all of the people. This can be reflected in efforts by international and national organizations who can work with a view to ensuring that a lot more people are able to afford food. This will keep them from vulnerability to hunger and starvation and open the way for more targeted conservation approaches (Rawls, 1971). The humanitarian organizations like FAO, Red Cross, and Save the Children have been doing a great and commendable work which deserves recognition. In addition, other organizations ought to emulate them. 
Population Explosion
    The population of the world has been growing at a very fast rate. Although there are disparities in these figures, an overall picture points to a situation whereby there is expected continued growth in the coming years. While population growth by itself can not really be said to be responsible for environmental degradation as such, the impacts that it brings have indirect and direct effects on the natural system (Rawls, 1971). Increase in the number of people is always associated with an added economic pressure on the available resources. Prominent economists would argue that like land, natural resources are fixed in supply especially in the short term, although in the long term their supply can only be slightly increased through conservation and restricted use.
With more people around, for instance, more food will be needed to feed them and more clothing to clothe them. All these resources must come from somewhere in nature. The overall impact of population growth is therefore that it will most likely cause degradation to the environment. There is therefore a need to ensure that population growth is in tandem with GDP figures and that economic growth is given a priority more than population control (Rawls, 1971). This is because population growth is not really a problem in itself but it becomes a problem when measures are not put in place to accommodate the extra people.
Overconsumption and Sustainability
    In an endeavor to satisfy unlimited wants using scarce and highly limited resources, people have often ended up exerting too much pressure on the few resources that have been available. The environment is capable of replenishing itself naturally and pristinely. The attempts by mankind to try to extract too much from the environment than is necessary has been responsible for the depletion of natural resources. This is the one point where approaches to the environment are closely correlated with those to economics. While an economist will call it the increased marginal propensity to consume, an environmentalist can describe the excessive consumption of natural resources as overconsumption (Rawls, 1971). There must be a real effort by every consumer to care for the future generations, and even for the future use of the same natural resource. Whatever is conserved today will be available for use the following day by the same person or by another.
    A case in question is the culture of people in the developed worked who will use so many resources at any given time that one is left wondering whether the resources are only meant for one section of society. What is left ringing in the minds of people is whether or not people ought to have as much as they want as long as they can afford to get that which they desire, or if there should be some form of regulation. With all due respect to all people, it is amazing how Westerners can consume so much quantity of everything, literally. Most of the worlds leading fuel-guzzlers are made and used in the West (VanDeVeer, 1994). Consider the Hummer, the Mercedes Benz, and many other car models made in the West and compare them with those made in China, India, or Japan. If the argument is that the Western nations have a lot to spend, then the Japanese have a lot more, yet they make fuel efficient car models because they are sensitive to the needs of the people and those of the coming generations. The overconsumption culture is more of a failure to regard the needs of others elsewhere, so that one only thinks of oneself and those immediately around himher (VanDeVeer, 1994).
    Overconsumption needs to be checked now more than ever before if there can be a protecting of our environment. It is part of environmental ethics to postpone andor reduce consumption in order to use whatever is saved later on. A critical factor to consider before spending of overindulging in merrymaking is what implications ones actions are likely to bring about on the environment and on the welfare of the entire society. If by using two vehicles instead of just one, or by having a 10Watt bathroom lamp instead of a 50Watt one will enable someone else have a better access to the resources one wants  as indeed is the case  then one must go ahead and do just that. The culture of wanting too much than is actually needed only serves to worsen the problem of environmental degradation.  The more that people consume products, the more the degradation that occurs to the environment (VanDeVeer, 1994).
    A factor that is related to both overconsumption and social justice is that of using food. Food is perhaps the most basic human need that one can ever desire to have. The lack of food spells doom to the person, and all measures must be put in place to ensure that food is available for all people in the society. Again, there is a stark contrast between the developed and the developing countries when it comes to food acquisition and consumption. While food is readily available and even a lot is spared in the developed world, people in the developing countries hardly get enough food to eat. Their low income levels have made them victims of hunger and starvation, and malnutrition is a common occurrence there. Some cannot afford as much as a meal a day and if they are lucky to, the food is often lacking in the right and necessary calorific value necessary to make them healthy and protect them from infections. Morally and ethically, such people ought to be helped to get food. Instead of consuming too much and throwing the leftovers, such food items can be donated to the poor and needy in society (VanDeVeer, 1994).
    This will be reducing overconsumption in the West but at the same time helping to meet a social need and so exercising social justice. That aside, donating food will keep the starving and the hungry from the temptation to resort to unconventional and often illegal practices such as poaching and logging in their desperate attempt to fend for themselves and their families (VanDeVeer, 1994). Natural habitats will be conserved and exploitation of natural resources will be halted. Usually, the community will only resort to destroying the ecosystems and natural habitats in their vicinity if they re not made aware of the impacts or consequences of their actions, or when they feel the relevant project implementers are not working in conjunction with them. Sustainable development goes hand in hand with environmental conservation in fact the former is aimed at achieving the latter. If the culture of seeking to have too much is checked, and more people, especially in the developed world, are made to understand the importance of saving for the future and giving to a needy child or family, then efforts aimed at environmental conservation will be given a greater boost (VanDeVeer, 1994).
The Role of Globalization in the Conservation of the Environment
    Globalization  the integrating of national and local economies into one international economy with a common market and closely working trading patterns, reduced barriers to trade and the enhanced free movement of people across national borders - may be a blessing to the business community but it is not really a welcome development to efforts to deal environmental degradation. Globalization has resulted in opening up of international borders and a general relaxing of trading barriers (Schweickart, 1996). There has been formation of trading blocs and has allowed for free movement of labor (people) from one nation another without too many restrictions. There has been a movement away from protectionism to a freer business world. This has made illegal trading in wildlife products relatively easier. Poaching has been on the increase in the recent times because poachers have found it very easy to get around checks and regulations that are still in place (VanDeVeer, 1994).
    The movement of people freely within trading blocs has also increased instances of smuggling of natural resources from one country to another. The rather unrestricted or poorly restricted flow of goods across borders has been responsible for a lot of other goods moving across borders. In order for environmental ethic to prevail, then, it is appropriate that globalization is made more tolerable by ensuring that poachers and other dealers in illegal natural products are hunted down and nabbed (Schweickart, 1996). The fact that globalization is offering a lot of financial and economic gains do not mean that all caution should be thrown away. Instead, there ought to be even stricter border regulations because with the rather increased flow of goods and people across borders, more criminals are more likely to take advantage of this to cause more ecological damage to wildlife and plants (Evans, 2004). 
The Existing Market Systems
    The modern world is becoming rather accommodative and reformist in nature. As a result, different market systems have come into existence. While the more common trend is that of capitalist or absolutely free market economies, other countries are still under socialist and moderately socialist market economies. The operations of national economies have had a direct impact on the policy that is implemented, especially the economic policies, and such have determined the outcomes in environmental conservation. A totally free system will bring about a situation where the affairs of the market are not affected by any form of regulation or control from the state or government. Every business decision will them be determined solely by market forces. Such a system, while being very ideal and appropriate in the business world, is not favorable in bringing about proper environmental conservation and protection (Schweickart, 1996).
    Issues of the environment are best dealt with and addressed based not on what the forces in a free market dictate but by what is deemed necessary and beneficial to the people. If people are able to get benefits of any project or system, then the end will justify the means  it will not matter so much what is available in the market. In essence, a free economy will not bring about desired environmental ethics in the community (Rawls, 1971). Instead, important decisions regarding the environment will have to be made by people who never have the environment at heart. Considering a case where the market has to be the determinant of such matters, then a growing demand for goods and services will increase the level of pollution and general damage to the environment. As economic activities increase, there will be a need for increased productivity in order to keep the many production processes moving forward (Schweickart, 1996). In essence, there will be a lot more economic activities that will be implemented in the name of responding to free market forces. These economic activities will have adverse effects on the environment.
    A fairly regulated market economy will be able to offer some help to conservation efforts. This is because such a system will allow for a significant meddling by regulatory bodies that will seek to control matters that are key to societal and government importance. A fully controlled market economy will have different effects on conservation efforts and environmental ethics. It will remain to see what exactly is regulated (Schweickart, 1996). A totally controlled market system may, therefore, hinder or enhance efforts to promote environmental ethics. The only major issue with heavily controlled economies is that the government has so much say in the affairs and events of the economy that even matters of the environment might be affected negatively. For instance, due to this regulation, economic activities are likely to decline dramatically, and the outcome will be that environmental conservation efforts will be without a sponsor (Schweickart, 1996).
    Quite often than not, funding for conservation measures is either from well-wishers or from government and NGOs. Some of these organizations and agencies will not be willing to take part in joint conservation efforts if the government is too much involved in the affairs of the economy. Heavy regulation, quite often than not, will lock out many foreign players from taking part in the business activities within the market. A much better system is one that is intermediate between the two extremes. This is one which will put in place regulation in matters that are critical. This will most likely be the one that will seek to have environment issues delinked from the rest of the business and economic activities of the nation (Schweickart, 1996). This will in turn help promote conservation efforts because they will not be subject to trends in the market.
Conclusion
    The world has socially been transformed by the way people interact and do business. Many aspects of the society have worked to either hinder or promote efforts that have been aimed at the conservation of the environment. Environmental ethics is a rather controversial issue, and it is only how different political and economic views are able to explain that one can come up with a clear and precise approach to take regarding it. Capitalism, a rather common mode of administration and a popular socioeconomic system, has been criticized for being responsible for the rampant social and ecological problems affecting people all around the world. On the other hand, it has been noted that overly restricted socioeconomic systems like a fully socialist country will also do little to take care of the problem of environmental degradation and the associated problems such as social conflicts.
    The West has been accused of causing a lot of damage to ecosystems in developing countries especially when its companies dump products there. The theory of social justice has been cited as very important in explaining what the needs of the modern man are. It requires, among other things, that mankind be given all the rights he deserves in order that he may live life free from the woes of the world, especially those resulting directly or indirectly from environmental degradation. Nations and international agencies are expected to play a greater role in helping resolve the problem of global hunger. There is a need for international safety enforcement agencies to put in place measures that help prevent rampant dumping of used goods in developing countries. There is also a need to analyze and seek solutions to the social and ecological harmful outcomes of globalization. To this end, border checks and patrols ought to be intensified in order to curb illegal immigration and the smuggling of wildlife products into other countries. On the whole, all in society are expected to do a lot more to help bring about sustainable development, and ensure the world is a cleaner and safer place to live.