Mr Bigg's RPE blog

Here are some examples of some excellent student work.

Subha on Ethical Theory – she has written some outstanding thoughts on ethical theory and applied them to a variety of subjects. Note the way that towards the end she is thinking about ethics on a wider social scale and this is what has got her a level 8!

Here’s some fabulous GCSE work from Yvee: Note the depth of analysis and strong personal opinion with evidence.

Part D: Explain the differences between how Christians think we should treat the planet.

Christians have different views about the way they should treat the planet because some believe that they were given the earth as a gift from God and that it was by his choosing that humanity would have dominance over all other life on earth, and others believe that God made us the dominant life form to fulfil the role of a steward (which in itself is open to interpretation).

Christians who believe that they are the dominant life form may interpret that this means they have every right to use the planet to their advantage, so that they can prosper and live more comfortable lives by using its resources and animals. For example, they would have no qualms about using up fossil fuels, killing animals for food and using animals for pulling carts etc.

Another view on humans being dominant is that humans are stewards to the lesser animals and that the humans were placed at the top because they had the capabilities to take care of the world, but the world still belongs to God “the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants” (Leviticus 25:23). They disapprove of using the planet exclusively for their own ends and think that it is an honourable job to look after and tend to the planet given to humans by God, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” (Genesis 2:15) and if humans were to follow God then they would help to nourish rather than use and slowly destroy it. (However, this quote could also be void because humans were thrown out of the Garden of Eden back when we were first created, so God shouldn’t really put too much stock into us looking after his creations and should’ve predicted our effect on the environment because he is omniscient etc. Also to “dress it” could mean that they are allowed to build on it, which would mean that humans using the world to create cities and to create cities you have to burn fossil fuels and therefore – without malicious intent – harm the environment and habitats of animals, but then again it could also mean grow pretty plants. But the “keep” quote definitely refers to looking after and protecting which probably means that the whole quote is really trying to say: do what you like to survive and carry on living but make sure the planet is at least thought of and kept from going barren and all of the animals dying out whilst we live on dried space food).

Yet another take on stewardship (other than the complete devotion to the planet) is just to guide it and keep it fertile e.g. grow crops and eat organic food so the chemicals don’t harm the surrounding land.

Part E: “Human beings are not capable of caring for the environment”

Some Christians believe that we are most certainly capable of caring for the environment; it’s just that because of the gift of free will we have chosen to become selfish and use it to prosper and destroy it in the process. We have every opportunity to look after the planet but through our own greed and the original sin we chose (of our own volition) to ignore the request to look after the planet. This is an abuse of free will and is disrespectful.

Other Christians might argue that we were given free will as a gift so it would be more of an insult and abusive not to use it, also considering the day and age, it is necessary to use the planets resources to survive and function in society. And because God entrusted us with the stewardship of the planet, he gave us dominion over it and that means we need to make sure it doesn’t completely fall, but can also use the planet for our own ends. Furthermore, God ordered humans to populate the world which would destroy it in the end and he must’ve known this because he is omniscient “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28) and the word “subdue” could mean have control over everything (being at the top of the food chain means we are) or to wipe out completely and considering the climate change and global warming shenanigan we’re doing that too, so we’re just following God’s orders via the bible which is the “undiluted word of God”.
Another point is that everything is Gods will “Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your father” (Matthew 10:29) can be interpreted as: if you shoot a sparrow then it was God’s will that you hit it. So ultimately everything, including the actions and state of the environment is down to God. (Although saying God controls everything is a bit of a scapegoat theory and not morally very respectful).
Also, if God didn’t like what humanity was doing then he could’ve stepped in by now like he did with Noah’s ark.

Another argument of whether or not humans are capable of tending to the planet, but is not directly related to religion, just conscience and moral judgement (could be argued stemmed from God, but it is also a green atheist’s argument). Point of view is that to keep the planet going for our own good, we should take care of the problems that we as a race have caused e.g. climate change, pollution, sea levels rising etc. As this would help the rest of the world in the process and we would be doing what is best for us and the planet (two birds with one stone).

I believe that there is no unselfish way about arguing whether or not humans can look after the environment. There are many organisations about adopting seals, getting funds for research on air powered cars and to cut down on using fossil fuels, but it is all really for human gain. Sure sponsoring a monkey may make you feel better about killing the rest of them, but you’re only really doing it because you think their nice and fuzzy or you want to keep the balance of the ecosystem so that you can have a steady supply of medical ingredients that are from the part of the rainforest which the monkey lives in. But in the off chance that you’re not and you are doing it solely for the good of the planet, not your children or any future generations of humans or because you want to keep the species going because they look nice or eat bugs that you don’t like, then you’re incredibly nice and deserve a medal.
Humans can look after the environment, and it’s not a bad thing if they do it for their own species, it’s just very unlikely that we will be able to break the habit of getting everything that we want as easily as possible and to start living with basically nothing – like cavemen, no one would go back to that voluntarily and I highly doubt that any other animal bestowed with a human’s level of intelligence would give it all up to help a different species. Especially when we humans live such short lives, it’s so much effort that may amount to nothing because you’ll die before a truly notable positive impact has been made, so you’ll never be around long enough to see the fruits of your labour.
Humans are perfectly capable of taking care of the environment; we just need a big enough incentive to start working towards restoring it, and then a big enough incentive to keep it that way.