Man has no responsibility towards the environment Since the 1960s, questions concerning environmental ethics have occupied a place important in the public consciousness. At the heart of all these questions is a single issue that has caused confusion for many involved in this controversy. There have been many debates on this issue, but few have been fruitful, and this can partly be attributed to the fact that the debate is of particularly poor quality. Much of it is name-calling and unjustified conclusions. The central problem in the environmental debate is that debaters who attempt to provide solutions to these questions do not agree on humanity's place in the natural order. However, rather than addressing this central issue, debaters only debate incidental issues that arise directly from the central issue. This central question is “How are we going to deal with or treat the environment?” » Environmentalists often respond that we should, in some sense, live in harmony with nature or respect the rights of natural beings, such as trees, birds, mountains and rivers. In this essay, I present an opposing view: I propose that there is no moral obligation that dictates how "humans" should manage the environment, because the concept "human" is an arbitrary class with no real meaning. The problem with this environmentalist view is that inherent to this position is the presupposition that there is a radical difference between humans and other animals. Environmentalists assume that there is something that puts us in a privileged position relative to the rest of nature. In fact, there isn't one. Humans have the same drives as other animals. In this regard, a... middle of paper...... the definition of "humanity" has to do with how "humanity" should relate to the environment? The answer is that there is no particular set of rules. that “humanity” should follow when it comes to the environment. Certainly, there are some things that would be "good" for "humanity" and others that would be "bad", depending on how you define these concepts of "good", "bad" and "humanity". ". And certainly, some things would be better for the ecosystem than others, depending on how you define “ecosystem good.” But it is impossible to argue that "humanity" should be responsible for managing the ecosystem, or staying in a certain place in the ecosystem, because there is no natural and appropriate place for "humanity" to exist. humanity” – “humanity” is an illusion, an arbitrary group of “animals”. There is no moral consideration that applies to “humanity” as a whole.