Nature's Rights Recognized: A Case Study of the Marañón River

Hasnat Mahmood Tahsin

23301272

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Brac University

HUM103: Ethics and Culture

S27

Nooha Sabanta Maula

07.04.2024
 Nature's Rights Recognized: A Case Study of the Marañón River

The Mixed Court in Nauta, Peru, said that the Marañón River had rights. The environmental

court's decision identified the river's value as a source of water and a living thing with rights.

This essay will argue in favor of the court’s moral decision and will be put to the test by

Consequentialist Ethics by Bentham and Mill and "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"

by Kant .

The court case between the Peruvian government and the Huayna Kana Kamatahuara Kana

Federation shows that there is a big difference between taking care of the environment and

making money off of it. The fight between these groups shows how badly the environment is

being hurt and how that hurts the culture of the local groups that depend on the Marañón River.

When the court said that the river had rights and worth on its own, it was a big deal. This is like

the moral questions asked in "What Is Ethics?" from "Discovering Right and Wrong?" That

chapter looks at the core of ethics in terms of values and living a good life (Pojman & Fieser,

2016). Aside from the economic worth, this choice supports the importance of the river. It also

supports a moral framework that sees protecting and valuing nature as an important part of living

a good life.

Based on the ideas of Bentham (1781), consequentialist ethics looks at what happens after an

action to decide if it is good or not. What will give the most pleasure or help to the most people

is what it focuses on. Helping the Marañón River is likely to be good for both the environment

and the original people who live there. This decision is better for the ecosystem and the health of
the people who depend on the river's supplies. This choice is also in line with bigger

consequentialist goals to protect the environment and protect the rights of indigenous people. It

shows that people are aware of the strong link between the health of the environment and the

health of the community. In other words, protecting natural resources will always make people

happy and make the world better. Velasquez (2010) agrees with this point of view and stresses

the importance of finding a balance between moral duties and practical needs. He says that moral

actions are those that are good for the health of the whole group, including the earth. On the

other hand, a consequentialist view might be blamed for not taking into account the value that

things have on their own. Because it focuses on results, consequentialism might miss the

importance of ecosystems and species that goes beyond how they help people. This argument

shows that consequentialist thinking in environmental ethics has a flaw. Velasquez (2010) says

this shows that trying to make things as helpful as possible and accepting the rights of nonhuman

beings just because they exist may be at odds with each other. This shows how hard it is to use

ethical ideas that focus on people to solve environmental problems. This shows how important it

is to have a deep understanding of both the effects of acts and the natural environment's value on

its own.

From Immanuel Kant's (1998) "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," we can see that

deontological ethics says acts are morally right if they are done out of duty, no matter what

happens. So this moral point of view says that protecting the Marañón River is an inherent duty.

This shows that the river is important for more reasons than just what it does for people.

According to Kant, moral acts are those that follow the moral rule. He says that caring about the

world comes from seeing the worth in every living thing, not from setting strict goals. Kant
thought that nature should be seen as a goal in and of itself, not just a way to get to another goal.

This might help you understand the Marañón River decision. This fits with the idea that the river

has rights and value on its own because it is a natural resource that should be protected. From

this point of view, you should take care of the world. This is because protecting natural resources

is the right thing to do, even if those resources are good for people. Additionally, Kantian ethics

presents the idea of universalizability, which means that people should follow rules that apply to

everyone. If we use this to talk about environmental ethics, one could say that if everyone

followed the rule of taking advantage of natural resources without caring about their own rights,

it would be against everyone's will because the long-term damage to the environment would hurt

everyone. Kant's idea of environmental ethics says that nature has moral value even if it doesn't

help people. The Peruvian court's decision that people have a duty to protect the river is in line

with this idea. The court's decision, which is in line with Kantian ethics, is a big step forward in

both law and moral theory. It recognizes the river's right to exist and be cared for as a moral duty

that comes from the value of nature itself.

I strongly believe that environmental ethics should go beyond practical concerns and

acknowledge the value of nature in and of itself. I agreed with the decision that the Marañón

River had rights. This view, which blends consequentialist and deontological ideas, agrees that

outcomes are important for societies and environments and that people have a moral duty to

defend the value of natural things on their own. But when these moral theories are applied to the

complicated web of environmental problems that happen in the real world, they show both links

and conflicts. Not only is it hard to balance the needs of people and the environment, but it's also

hard to deal with morals that don't always agree on how to handle certain situations. The story of

the Marañón River shows how combining moral problems with legal choices can help protect the
environment. This idea shows how hard it is to use moral standards to solve environmental

problems. It shows how important it is to take a fair approach that looks at both the results and

the natural environment's importance on its own.

Using both consequentialist and deontological ethical theories, this essay looks at the choice to

support the Marañón River. It showed that protecting nature things is the right thing to do, even

if they aren't useful to people. It is a big step forward in environmental law that the river is now

recognized as a Subject of Rights. It shows how important it is for law systems to understand the

worth and rights of nature. This choice will have a big effect on future rules about the

environment. It urges politicians as well as individuals in general that protecting the earth should

be important. This call for further research and discussion on environmental ethics shows how

important it is to use moral standards when making decisions in the real world. The Marañón

River decision is very important for learning how to make the world more sustainable. It will

help us find a balance between our needs and the natural world's inherent value. This will lead to

a more humane and sustainable relationship with the planet.

 References

● Bentham, J. (1781). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation .

Batoche Books.

● Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.; pp. 10–

13). Cambridge University Press.

● Pojman, L. P., & Fieser, J. (2016). Discovering Right and Wrong (pp. 1–11). Cengage

Learning.

● Velasquez, M. (2008). Philosophy: A Text with Readings (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.