Climate Action and Moral Responsibility: Does God or any other Moral Authority ask us to Protect the Environment?

Could climate action be a moral responsibility? Well, philosophically, morality is precribed by a number of concepts or beliefs, the Bible or religion, culture, and philosophy being some of the many! In this short article, I will explore the relationship between climate action and moral responsibility based on the Bible and few other scholarly writings.

Let’s get started!

What is a moral responsibility?

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, moral responsibility is about people’s actions and their intended consequences! Well, this doesn’t make sense, does it? But here is what makes sense: it is the duty of acting in one way or the other based on set principles or values. In other words, it is a commitment to act in accordance with certain principles or values that are considered to be right or good.

But who sets these principles or values upon which we act morally?

Philosophically, scholars have argued that humans are born with a moral compass, the ability to tell good from bad, right from wrong. Do you need evidence for this assertion as well? Well, read here and here. Based on this, it seems, even without further arguments, every human being knows it within himself that preservation and protection of nature is a good thing!

Additionally, as we grow, our moral compass is influenced by religious beliefs, culture, philosophy, and various other experiences, for example, education! Indeed, it isn’t a surprise that after travelling around the world, we come to realize that some values we considered right are actually wrong!

Whatever the influences, the end is the same; a set of values or principles that call us to act in one way or the other. That is moral responsibility. And the question pops up; what values or principles call us to moral protection of environment or climate action?

Moral responsibility for climate action: The Bible

When I talked about religion as an influence of our morality, I meant the more than 4,000 religions in the world. However, I will refer to Christianity alone, for it is one of the largest on this planet and, of course, the one I understand a little, just a little!

“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth” (Genesis 1:28).  

This verse clearly says that we are called to work out the earth and rule over it! Wait! In your understanding, if you were tasked to rule over a Kingdom or people, would it mean to hurt them or take care of them? Think about it!

Genesis 1:28, Climate Action, and Moral Responsibility!

Back to the verse in Genesis, God is asking man to conquer the world and nature, work it out in a way that it produces life and harmony wherever there is danger, death, and threat. As explained by Christopher Brown, the Hebrew words for words like subdue and dominion all bring it out positively more than environmental destroyers and profit-oriented entrepreneurs have ever comprehended. 

In other words, to subdue or dominate is not meant to ‘destroy’ or take over, but lead and/or provide for or care for!

In the Bible, explains Brown, the word Kabash, Hebrew word for Subdue is used in reference to an enemy, a threat, and death (Micah 7:1). And the word radah, Hebrew word for rule or dominion is used in reference to a King, a good King ruling over his people (Psalm 72;8-14).  

And so, the above Biblical call means that the man should subdue (defeat enemies of nature or earth) and rule over the world (provide for). It is a call to work with nature and produce life where there is threat and death, harmony where is conflict, and at the same time protect and provide for nature like a good King does for his people.

Why am I even hustling with this? Let Christopher summarize or re-quote the verse for us in his words;  

“Be fruitful and have children, filling the earth with your life so that you can have power to fight against everything in it that leads to death.  Rule with care and fairness over the natural world, over the myriads of My beautiful creatures – from tropical fish to soaring eagles to dogs and cats – every creature that is a part of this living world”.

Get the full Christopher’s article here.

Additionally, the Bible teaches that all of creation is interconnected, and that harm to one part of creation ultimately harms all of creation (Psalm 24:1-2). There is no such thing as ‘one action’, for our actions impact on others whether we know it or not. We are interconnected.

The problem with mankind has been the separation of sacredness (say God) from every-day life or nature; the separation of self from the rest of the universe as Eisenstein argues!

Ultimately, when we look at our self as separate and independent of other entities, we start to care for ourselves irrespective of who is hurt. This is very dangerous, not to those we hurt only but to ourselves as well, for the reality soon sets in; we can’t exist alone! In other words, man is part of the bigger ecosystem, and his actions not only end with him alone but with everyone and everything else.

NB: Even if our actions were to end in self destruction alone, we would still be morally wrong, for we truly don’t belong to ourselves! This is an argument for another day!

Furthermore, many passages in the Bible stress on the importance of taking care of the poor and vulnerable and protecting the rights of future generations, which have been arguments used to support environmental protection and sustainable development. Available evidence shows that there are special groups of people, the poor, women and children, those with disabilities, indegeneous communities, and others, who suffer climate-related effects i

The takehome is; if one believes in God or the Bible, he or she should know and believe she has a moral duty to preserve and protect the environment. Failure to do so could as well be a sin or disobedience. Even if one didn’t believe in the Bible or God, isn’t it our moral duty to practice that which any other form of knowledge has revealed as truth? We rely on scientific evidence and news reports, but we aren’t one them! Or we are!

Moral Responsibility for climate action: Philosophy & Scholary!

According to moral philosophers and experts in environmental ethics such as Peter Singer, John Passmore, Holmes Rolstone III, and others, humans have moral responsibility to preserve and protect nature. Apparently, the reasons or motivations for this duty extend beyond our own survival and healthy living (anthropocentric or human-centered) to survival of others, including animals and all sorts of ‘creation’ (non-anthropocentric).

Well, with my little experience in libertarianism literature and Christian hedonism, I would love to argue that pure moral duties are those meant to serve self. It is for self-service that any service is possible. Even for the most selfless acts of love, the hidden motivation is self.

I have already argued that serving self is the highest moral duty. That is, ‘we have obligations to respect the environment because we actually owe things to the creatures or entities within the environment themselves.’

Our moral protection of environment isn’t just charity, but a payment for all that the environment is and means to our own well-being. In other words, we are part of an ecosystem, and hurting any of what makes the system means hurting ourselves. And we have a moral duty not to hurt self too! It is the same reason you love your wife or husband; because she or he is ‘yours’

Besides the call to serve self, there are other ethical issues that bring us to knees, morally! According to a 2012 article in the Nature, Gardiner and colleagues present clear cases of unfair sufferings of climate-related disasters by those who practically contribute less to these hazards.

During COP27 in Egypt, Africa and other developing countries’ negotiators relied on this fact and negotiated for what they called ‘loss and damage fund’. In simple terms, rich countries that greatly cause most of the climate-related havoc must pay for the damages and losses faced by the least developed nations!

Of course, so many ethical questions still exist! For example, do rich countries have a moral obligation to pay the fund? If yes, why? Are the poor countries poor simply because they behaved well towards climate or they, in their own weaknesses and poverty, had nothing to work out against climate? If Africa’s less contribution to climate crisis isn’t born out of moral fibre of Africans but incompetence, why should we be rewarded or paid for such ‘inactivity’?

Those are questions for another day!

For today, just know that the fact that our actions don’t end up with us only but affect those who had nothing or less to do with it calls for moral responsibility to protect those vulnerable populations.

Additionally, Gardiner and colleagues continue the argument, climate-related effects are intergenerational, potentially affecting the lives of future generations! It is on this post that I lose a bit of my stand or argument for ‘self-service’ as the highest moral standard.

If I won’t be around in the next 1,000 years, why should I be bothered by the heartaches people of that time will face? Could I say that someone important to me or related to me will somehow be there? So we save the future for our grand children, right?

Well, here is another spoiler! Can I consider people of the coming 1,000 years to be part of the whole ecosystem that provides for me today? If yes, we refer to our earlier arguments above; we have a duty to serve them too! However, if they aren’t part of what makes life what it is today, why should I be responsible for what shall make up their life to come?

It’s true my actions will affect their future. But does their future affect my today?

Could we say it is a transfer of ‘grace’! Just like the past generations prepared and preserved life for us, we are morally obliged to prepare and preserve life for those to come! I find this more compelling! Ayn Rand might disagree to all of this! Yes, they are nice things to do. But are we obliged to do them?

According to Charles Eisenstein, we should live a life of gratefulness. According to his arguments in the book, Sacred Economics, we are all products of grace; born, nurtured, provided for, and catered for by nature, through our mothers or parents, friends, nature itself, and all things and mixture of factors that make us be! Our payment for such generosity is to pay it forward! Forget the nonsense of ‘self-made’ billionaires!

Good! So, yeah, we are morally responsible to preserve and protect the environment simply because the same has been done unto us! It all comes back to ‘SELF’. Or God!

Wait! What if someone didn’t care or believe in the duty to preserve the environment for the sake of self or others in the ecosystem, what should be the option? The law? Culture? Or what!

Moral Responsibility to climate action: The Law!

It is now legally known in all nations across the globe that man has a right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment or the right to health. I love this approach. Based on this, people have a right to healthy environment and can legally question culprits of environmental pollution.

While enforcement of legal laws regarding the human right to health is a challenge, UNEP contends that this field is growing, and many stakeholders are coming on board. According to an article in the Council of Europe, more than 300 environment health cases (probably in Europe) have been fought based on these laws, and they seem to be working.

In Uganda, some cases have been staged and won in the same name of legal protection of environment. Additionally, we have many enviroment health focused Acts and Policies to which an individual or business can turn to in case of violations of these rights. In 2019, a researcher named Nyesiga Innocent explored most of these laws for Uganda, and summarized his findings in this report. NEMA has taken businesses like churches, bars, and factories to Courts of Law based on these legal provisions.

The point is, individuals and companies have a legal obligation or, better put, a moral responsibility informed by legal values or principles to protect and preserve environment. So, even if someone would hide away from all forms of conscience and responsibility, the law will get them around!

SUMMARY: My intention in this short article has been to show you that the call to preserve environment and make it habitable for us and the future generations is a moral responsibility. Therefore, our response to climate change shouldn’t be in response to laws or pressures only or be motivated by sociopolitical dynamics alone, but an internal moral compass that calls us to fairness and doing what is right. And, yeah, when the moral compass fails, the legal road could be travelled as well.

READ THIS: 20 actions you and or your business can do to contribute to climate action

Thank you.

NB: At Miklah Life, we are postively contributing to climate action through a program called SACRED ENTREPRENEURSHIP! Would you love to join?