sign in sign up
<<
Home , Environmental ethics, Value of life

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL AND

Zarina Abduazimova Amirovna.

Department "Ethics and aesthetics.", National University of Uzbekistan

Received: 14 March 2020 Revised and Accepted: 8 July 2020

ABSTRACT: The article analyzes the basic values and basic of environmental ethics. Special attention is paid to the normative content of the of , which fixes the of the diversity of animal and plant species and dictates the need to preserve it. The principle of biodiversity was presented through the prism of the anthropocentric and no-anthropocentric components of environmental ethics. Points of contact between the principle of biodiversity and international regulatory documents regulating environmental activities were identified. The main directions of the influence of globalization on the success of humanity’s attempts to preserve the richness of the wildlife of the planet have been recorded. Among the negative factors created by globalization processes are: 1) unprecedented growth of a globalized economy, increasing society’s pressure on nature and leading to the of species, 2) reduced opportunities for effective environmental regulation at the level of national states due to their dependence on mobile global capital, 3) reduction possibilities of public control over threats to biodiversity due to the decline of the self-organizing public sphere.

KEYWORDS: Environmental ethics, biodiversity, position, But , value, , the principle of equality, the principle of future generations, development, globalization process, ecosystem utilization, economic growth.

I. RELEVANCE OF THE TOPIC.

The phenomenon of environmental ethics

For most of the , the focus of its research was on fundamental issues related to determining the normative basis for decisions and actions, establishing fundamental moral principles, identifying the criteria of and , and solving the issue of the meaning of life. Environmental ethics considers a reasonable definition of moral standards, values, principles and rules that people should adhere to, seeking to overestimate them in their relationship with nature. Considering their inner and motivations as compassion, pity, love, emphasizing their manifestation in society. According to A. Sychev, ―environmental ethics opens up new horizons for itself to consider its extensive influence in order to understand the scientific technological environmental challenges. The new concept of a person as a biologically conscious species characterizes the specificity of quality, the manifestation of a person’s attitude to himself and another world around. ―The threat that human relationships to biodiversity consist in social instability and leads to ethics forming the basis and protection of the environment and animal , which gives an assessment principles of environmental ethics. Considering the theory of A. Sychev on environmental ethics can be convinced that is the main element of the relationship between man and nature. Applied ethics deals with socially significant issues regarding nature and the living world. The value-based normative value of environmental ethics reveals a new approach to moral responsibility, paying attention to the analysis of values and actions. The theory of environmental responsibility specifies the problems of protecting the ecological interaction between man and nature.

Ecological ethics grows on the basis of conjugation of (science) and ethics. is one of the important resources of environmental ethics. However, it would be wrong to think that all the material of environmental reasoning in philosophy or ethics is delivered by ecology. Philosophy and ethics themselves determine the subject of philosophical-ecological or ethical-ecological research and the problems of its substantiation. This subject is a specific value and normative content, which is comprehended on the basis of experience in overcoming environmental crisis situations. It is in ecological ethics that a new value-based vision of the world is affirmed, in which a person is no longer considered to be a being whose interests should be given priority, to whom it should be treated not only as a means, but also as a goal, as a value in itself.

Today, the main basis of environmental ethics is the idea of the unity and harmony of the world, the existence of ecological balance in it and the need for people to enter the conscious guarantor of the preservation of this balance. The unity of the world about the important role of humanity in the modern world and about the responsibility of man for his future is present in various philosophical systems, which is a confirmation of the objectivity of positions.

1500

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 Ecological ethics studies the relation of man to the environment to the world of nature as its value and partial embodiment. The value-based normative content of environmental ethics is developed on the basis of normative experience, choice activities and overcoming environmental crises. In environmental ethics, some specification of values and norms may occur, but this specification remains at the level of generality sufficient for them to be applicable to all types of relations between man and nature. In this sense, it is necessary to consider the basics of the approach to the problem statement. Environmental ethics has a world outlook where the definition of the scientific and technical researched can be established, but even this will not be enough for the social ethics problem that can be established in politics and the state undertakes certain tasks to understand the responsibilities of people to the environment. Environmental ethics are closely responding to the interdisciplinary orientation of science on their potential and experience in the normatively developed methods of extensive use of the relationship of man to nature. Environmental ethics is actively developing today, many of its questions are overview and are far from conclusive in making certain decisions. A feature of environmental ethics as a socio-philosophical phenomenon is that, as I believe, it goes beyond society, including in its sphere as equal subjects not only people, but also natural objects and phenomena.

II. THE METHOD OF STUDYING THE TOPIC.

Value-normative foundations of environmental ethics

Environmental ethics is based on two groups of values. One group has as its center the demands and needs of a person, or is anthropocentric, the other one expresses the internal significance of nature and its individual manifestations, which is independent of these requests and needs, or no-androcentric. In ethical-ecological discussions, anthropocentrism is often presented in a distorted light. Critics of anthropocentrism see in it the source of a consumer, predatory attitude towards nature. Anthropocentrism is rejected as one of the prerequisites for the onset and deepening of the environmental crisis, as well as one of the factors actively influencing global climate change. Such conclusions are made when presenting a strong version of anthropocentrism as the position according to which man is the center of the Universe and its goal, and as the ―master of nature‖ he opposes all known forms of life. But these conclusions persist even with a ―calm‖ or weak interpretation of anthropocentrism as a position according to which man’s needs and interests are a reference point in relation to nature both in general and in its particular manifestations. They are considered to be dominantly valuable, since man is the only being endowed with reason and . Anthropocentrism does not necessarily oppose ecological ethics, ethics of environmental protection, ethics of animal protection, etc. However, concern for the environment and the preservation of wildlife and the protection of animals appear as certain means in relation to a higher goal, which is recognized only man, humanity. We find the classic example in the person of I.Kant, who in his characteristic manner brought anthropocentrism to its logical fullness. Kant resolutely spoke in defense of animals, against causing them unjustified, and even more cruel . He firmly considered the torment of animals immoral, but he did not think so because animals suffer, but because the torment of animals leads to the moral coarsening of man.

Anthropocentrism and but anthropocentrism reveal the differences of ecological ethics in understanding the relationship between man and nature. Here the person’s concern for his own interests is established in the conditions of his needs When, but anthropocentrism is an installation of moral and ethical values that expand the horizon of moral responsibility. No anthropocentrism stems from the specifics of anthropocentrism, namely, human needs, which characterizes the values and principles of environmental ethics based on the value of moral responsibility.

The lack of anthropocentric value assumptions is well underlined by the current situation with the assessment of biological diversity on the planet. The leading normative criterion in an anthropocentric perspective is the economic method of analyzing benefits and costs. The economic value of nature is determined on the basis of the wide application of various mathematical methods. But at the same time there are problems associated with the valuation of the colossal complexity of nature, its functions, interconnections, consistency and complexity. The need for such an assessment has ripened both in the theory of and in practice the nature of protection. The seeming lack of price for many natural often leads to their degradation. But the proposed methods for such an assessment are imperfect and it is not known whether they can get rid of significant shortcomings. Biodiversity conservation activities are constantly losing competition with , the mining industry, and agriculture, as the benefits from these sectors of the economy are visible, have a price. There are objective economic prerequisites for low (or no) assessment of biodiversity. Neither a centrally planned economy, nor a modern market economy could, and, unfortunately, cannot correctly determine the value of nature.

1501

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 It is in this connection that it becomes necessary to supplement the anthropocentric part of the values of environmental ethics with its non-anthropocentric part. This part involves the recognition of the intrinsic value of nature and its manifestations, independent of the benefits to humans. From the point of view of various theorists, intrinsic value can be enjoyed by the whole diversity of living things, individual ecosystems or individual living organisms (all or only those that may suffer from the pain caused to them). The recognition of the intrinsic value of nature changes the traditional view of the boundaries of moral responsibility as it does in the ethics of A. Usher, where the main criterion of goodness is reverence for life. The essence of the ethics of reverence for life lies in the fact that a person, harming any other life, is aware of this and constantly measures how much the harm done to someone else’s life is justified. It also provides for a permanent internal conflict, which is based on reverence for one’s life and any other life and, as a result, the inevitability of a choice between ethical and necessary arises. At present, as one of the principles of building human relations with nature, principles based on the understanding of the holistic unity of man with the world, above all with everything alive, the principle of ―reverence for life‖ A. Schweitzer can be recognized: ―I feel prompted to express equal reverence before life, both in relation to my will and life, and in relation to any other. ‖ The ethics of A. Schweitzer are equally humane and realistic. Recognizing the fact that a person cannot avoid violence against life and its destruction, nevertheless, as a reasonable being, he will not do this on a subjective basis, arbitrarily, remembering always that ―he is responsible for the life that was brought in sacrifice. " This kind of ethical approach, very close to the principle of non-violence, can contribute to resolving the global problems of mankind, harmonizing the interaction between man and nature, using the mind in which the individual realizes both the value of the su However, the non-anthropocentric part of the values of environmental ethics is not limited to postulating the intrinsic value of the living. It uses a much more demanding normative concept of equality. It would seem that non-human living beings are unequal to man in very different relationships (from the ability to think to the ability to transform the world through technology). However, equality is not a simple statement of fact, but a moral . There is no reason enough to say that the real difference in abilities between two people justifies any difference in how much we take into account their needs and interests. Lead and equality of human beings is not a description of the actual equality of people, but an attitude toward how we should approach people. expressed it in other words: "From the point of view of the Universe, if I may say so, the good of any individual has no more significance than the good of any other." The leading representatives of modern moral philosophy unanimously proclaimed as one of the fundamental premises of their moral theories a similar requirement, in accordance with which the interest of each individual should be taken into account equally. From this principle of equality it follows that we cannot neglect others, regardless of their appearance or abilities. This prohibition extends to interspecific context. According to the modern utilitarian philosopher P. Singer, if a higher intellect does not give one person the right to use another for his own purposes, then this means that he cannot give the person the right to exploit animals. If a creature suffers, neglect of this suffering cannot have moral justifications. It doesn't matter what the nature of this creature is. The principle of equality determines that his should be considered no less than with the similar sufferings of another being - to the extent that we can, however roughly, compare them. ―If a creature is not capable of suffering or of pleasure and ,‖ there is simply nothing to be considered. That is why the only identifiable limit that determines where respect for the interests of others should start from is the limits of the ability to feel. Rounding world and his own interests and needs.

III. THE RESULT OF THE STUDY

The divisions of anthropocentrism and but anthropocentrism into basic , their influence on public issues are examined in the works of R.G. Apresyan's ―Theory of Morality‖ where the author refers to the fact that the systematic identification of antitropocentric and noanthropocentric opposition is that anthropocentricism wants to be established in a disjointed order of its position and status over nature. Occupying the almighty post. And here, noanthropocentrism comes to the arena, which, understanding that the influence of a person on nature is of paramount importance, is motivated by the fact that he wants to establish the values of environmental ethics under the responsibility of a person. Understanding that a person is responsible for everything living, regardless of his status, pushing what he does not want to admit it absolutely, but the person is the only individual who has the opportunity to realize it. On the basis of anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric values of environmental ethics, a particular point of view arises on public institutions, traditional practices, and individual political decisions, which allows them to be considered morally justified or unfounded. In their practical interpretation, the values of environmental ethics are set by a number of principles, the fulfillment of which is a moral duty for people who act as ordinary citizens, bureaucrats, politicians, etc. There are quite a few attempts to codify the principles of environmental ethics. One of the most successful was undertaken by the authors of the political document of UNESCO ―Environmental ethics‖. The set and normative content of the principles of environmental ethics according to the UNESCO document are as follows.

1502

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 The principle of respect for all forms of life affirms the value of life in itself, the moral value of every living being, regardless of the interests of man, regardless of his ―usefulness‖ or ―harm‖.

The principle of biodiversity affirms the value and necessity of preserving biodiversity as one of the manifestations of the richness of nature. However, out of respect for biodiversity does not follow unconditionally that every individual life certainly deserves respect.

The principle of maintaining the stability of the states the priority of preserving the biosphere as a whole as more important than the preservation of any individual life, species or ecosystem; This principle underlies the concept of .

The principle of environmental affirms the equal distribution among people of the right to environmental safety, while everyone is charged with the responsibility for its preservation.

The precautionary principle, when developing a policy that has humanitarian and environmental consequences, should first of all take into account the most dangerous of the possible scenarios. Perhaps it is necessary to analyze the economic impact of this process on society and socialization.

The principle of the common heritage of natural resources expresses the idea of planet Earth as a whole. People are equally responsible for the environment and natural resources, since their depletion will have consequences for all people, both living and future generations. The commonality of resources is an ethical, not a legal category. Practical principles of environmental ethics include: rights of future generations, shared responsibility, ―presumption of danger‖, reduction and convergence.

The principle of the rights of future generations requires that living people take care of future generations - both people and other living beings.

The principle of shared responsibility states that since natural resources are the common , the responsibility for protecting the environment should be shared by all; it cannot be delegated to any particular organization, group or country.

The principle of presumption of danger arises from the principle of respect for life and the principle of precaution and is expressed in practical demand: those who undertake actions with consequences for the environment must bear the burden of proving their safety.

The principle of reduction and convergence arises from the principles of and the universal wealth of natural resources and concerns gases emitted into the atmosphere, the accumulation of which in the atmosphere enhances the greenhouse effect.

IV. PRINCIPLE OF BIODIVERSITY

In this paper, one of the listed principles will be considered in more detail - the principle of value and the need to preserve diversity. I will try to reconstruct in detail its normative content and reveal the peculiarities of its implementation in the globalizing world.

Biological diversity is the diversity of all life on Earth, from genes to ecosystems, including all types of animals, plants and microorganisms that inhabit all the habitats of the planet. It "permeates" each of the three main levels of the organization of living matter, hence the three branches of biodiversity: genetic, species and environmental. Biological diversity at the species level covers the entire set of species on Earth, from bacteria and protozoa to the kingdom of multicellular plants, animals and fungi. On a smaller scale, biodiversity includes genetic diversity of species formed by both geographically distant populations and individuals within the same population. Biological diversity also includes the diversity of biological communities, species, ecosystems formed by communities and the interaction between these levels. All levels of biological diversity are necessary for the continuous survival of species and natural communities.

Using the concept of ―biodiversity‖ allows you to significantly expand the range of objects with value, at the expense of all living things, ecosystems and even , as well as a special kind of connections between them. From this point of view, a person can be considered as an important link in a single socially natural community, from which he is distinguished not so much by special rights, as by special duties. Only a person is responsible for the degradation of the environment and only he has real opportunities to stop the process of biodiversity loss. Nature in all its manifestations plays a very important role in the creation of our ideals and aspirations. Many of us experience despair and even shame when, as a result of human activity in our area, some

1503

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 kind of animal disappears or any element of the landscape collapses. And, on the contrary, we rejoice when we find out that, for example, we managed to save an animal, clean the reservoir from household waste. It is noteworthy that the feeling of satisfaction can also be mediated. So, a person who has never seen a whale is pleased only from the consciousness that this and other exotic species still live in the world.

Anxiety for the preservation of biodiversity is increasingly becoming the basis of activity for a larger number of people. It is this feeling that makes them give their time and energy, and sometimes devote their lives to preserving animal, bird or plant species. Like aesthetic value, the ethical value of biodiversity cannot be measured and expressed in monetary units. The dedication of nature conservationists provides convincing evidence that biodiversity resources are not worth the price - they are priceless. Biodiversity also has the scientific value of exploring a diverse way of adapting living organisms and creatures to the environment. There is also the intrinsic value of biodiversity in this case, biodiversity is considered as something valuable in and of itself, regardless of the benefits or experiences that can be derived from it. This can determine the recognition of the intrinsic value of biodiversity allows for the introduction of natural objects from the sphere of inefficient market regulation, outlawing human activities that carry the destructive and negative impact of the environment.

M. Sagoff identifies two main approaches to the protection of biodiversity - utilitarian, based on the anthropocentric part of the values of environmental ethics and focused on the benefits derived by man from natural objects, and deontological - prescriptive actions based on a predetermined debt, based on non- anthropocentric values. The utilitarian approach is applied primarily where the value of biodiversity can be expressed in monetary terms. In order to adequately assess a component of biodiversity, it is necessary to take into account its market value, system value, value of existence, as well as potential benefits from its future use. The utilitarian approach is rather narrow: within its framework it is impossible to calculate the religious or aesthetic value of biodiversity, and even less to take into account its intrinsic value.

There are attempts to integrate biodiversity conservation into the concept of market failures and the provision of public goods. These are the economic benefits that are consumed collectively and for the of which it is impossible to make the individual consumer pay. The special properties of public goods predetermine their systematic underproduction in the economic system regulated by the market; therefore, the provision of citizens with public goods is forced to take on the state. The similar role of state institutions is justified both from the point of view of economic expediency, and from the point of view of justice. However, in the perspective set by the theory of public goods, the activity on biodiversity conservation faces an extremely significant problem. Any state should choose a reasonable level of provision of citizens with a given public good and, therefore, a reasonable level of expenditures for these purposes. The economic approach to solving this problem is to conduct citizen surveys and determine how much they are willing to pay for the preservation of species and ecosystems. However, citizens may have undeveloped environmental sensitivity or their personal economic situation may be so bad that environmental problems (with the exception of their health and the health of their children) are in the background. Then the application of the analysis of benefits and costs in relation to public goods will lead to a level of financing of state programs for the protection of biodiversity, which will make the implementation of this principle of environmental ethics impossible.

The deontological approach to the protection of biodiversity takes into account not so much the economic benefits and individual preferences, but the moral principles and beliefs that guide people in the decision- making process. M. Sagoff writes about this: ―The market, however competitive and effective it may be, can sometimes achieve a morally repulsive result. Such cost-effective, but at the same time, immoral actions include prostitution, child labor, the sale of drugs, as well as any human actions leading to the death of animal and plant species. Therefore, society can go on the cost of preserving rare species, regardless of whether the benefits outweigh the benefits or not. The non-utilitarian approach to decision-making is applied to those objects that, given their symbolic, historical and spiritual significance, are valued more because of their value than because of their use. ‖ Today we can say that there is a consensus that the basis of the processes of biodiversity loss is characteristic of anthropocentrism consumer attitude of mankind to the world, in which short-term goals are given priority over long-term strategic benefits. This explains the irrational ways of management, inefficient energy use, industrial technologies that destroy the nature, over-exploitation of resources, etc. Modern man as a whole is aware of his guilt for the processes of reduction of biological diversity and, under certain conditions, is capable of responsibility for it. Responsibility for the conservation of biodiversity has both temporal and spatial dimensions. In order to adequately assess a component of biodiversity, it is necessary to take into account its market value, system value, value of existence, as well as potential benefits from its future use. Biodiversity is , which took billions of years to accumulate. But a significant part of this capital, humanity has managed to squander in a relatively short period of time. The incommensurability of these time scales is an indicator of the fact that man, as the manager of enormous natural capital, cannot cope with the responsibility assigned to him.

1504

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 To date, several regulatory documents have been adopted that implement the principle of value and the need to preserve diversity. A measure for the conservation of biodiversity there is a strategy where measures are developed aimed at the conservation and environmentally sound use of biodiversity, which overwhelm environmental , protect certain species or groups of organisms from over-exploitation, create and protect a special habitat of various biosphere reserves, national parks and preserve certain species organisms in botanical soda or in gene banks

In aggregate, you can consider several documents in the textbook of environmental ethics under the general editorship of T.V. Mishatkina and Kundas. V. P. where is considered the general picture of public standards on environmental ethics. Provides articles and principles regarding animals and biodiversity of living beings. Developed methods and methods of attracting the attention of man in relation to the environment and the animal world.

V. RIO DE JANEIRO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT.

The declaration considers the basic principles of . Concerns issues of human environment. The declaration is equipped at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, adopted in 1972. The Declaration contains 27 principles of correct behavior of the world communities, it is the main source of environmental law in most countries. It reviews the law and legislation of environmental standards and priorities. The focus is on the values of environmental ethics where a form of partnership is developed between states, sectors of society and people. The main importance in the declaration is global problems of international scope, the problem of respecting and protecting the interests of all living beings, a global holistic attitude in the environmental system. The privilege is also given to the complex nature of the relationship between man and the environment. The declaration was approved by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Caring for people is central to sustainable development. The right to development must be respected so that they would adequately meet the developmental needs of present and future generations. All states and all peoples should unite in the name of a single goal, the elimination of the poverty of the development of forms of standards in order to more effectively meet the needs of the majority of the world's population. The principles of the Declaration also imply the interests of all countries applicable to international actions to save the environment. One of the principles states should cooperate in creating a favorable environment of an open international economic space that will lead to growth and stability of environmental progress. States should develop national laws that will reflect responsibility for the damage and harm caused to victims of pollution and other factors of negative consequences and environmental damage. In order to protect the environment, states should cooperate in providing a favorable atmosphere to those countries that need economic and legal systems. Where is the high ecological disaster. Developing countries can prevent some destruction in distressed countries through regulatory and legal agreement. Each country and nationality can cooperate in good faith in order to save the ecological situation, in the implementation of the principles proclaiming this declaration. Development and environmental protection are interconnected and it impoverishes countries and states, nations and humanity for the salvation of a single home called Earth.

VI. WORLD DECLARATION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS.

Adopted by the International League of Animal Rights in 1977. It was re-promulgated by UNESCO in 1990.

The declaration takes into account the life and rights of animals, also considers the fact that a person recognizes other types of living beings in the biological and ecological sphere. It takes into account that each article of the declaration reflects the criteria of animal rights. Where characteristic is developed a form of respect for their natural diversity, the preservation of their position in nature, not causing harm to their realization. The articles reflect the motives of non-violent attitude, emphasizing the unjustified cruelty is not allowed mockery of the body of animals. (Experiments, abuse). Each animal has the right to life and breed in freedom in its natural habitat. In the aggregate, if we consider each article separately, we can pretend that each animal, regardless of its origin and habitat, has a value in nature that is significant not only for the environment but also for a person who, by of his will and dominant position, has a consumer character, destroys the biological properties of nature treating it not benevolently and condescendingly. Since all animals have the right to respect, it will be more correct to develop a stereotype that would allow a characteristic understanding of the importance of responsible attitude towards animals. You can not deprive the animal from its free space, wild animals should live by the right of freedom. The hunt for them is contrary to the fundamental right in Article 4. Each animal has the right to a proper lifestyle. Any act resulting in the death of an animal is a crime against life. This declaration is a definition from the point of view of the tangent relationship between the human species and the species of other animals. It proposes norms and rules of morality that are clearly defined in the modern world. Animals endangered by the fact that the declaration helps to develop a position for the sake of animals. An important step

1505

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 for human is the establishment of animal rights in the declaration to justify a place and restore man’s place among living organisms, which means changing the way people’s thinking consumer attitude to animals will stop the progressive influence in the destruction and death of living beings.

In 1995, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation ―On Measures to Implement the Convention on Biological Diversity‖ was adopted. Protection of the gene pool is the most important natural value. Each species does not repeat, it carries information about the development of the plant and living world, which is of great scientific and applied importance. The Resolution deals with the problems of biological diversity, the preservation and increase of of living beings, their rights and utilization. On the basis of the resolution, the Interdepartmental Commission on the Problems of Biological Diversity was created. The Resolution adopted a proposal on environmental protection among the Russian Federation.

VII. CONCLUSIONS

Biodiversity protection and the globalization process

At present, the socio-political and economic context of the implementation of the principles of environmental ethics, including the principle of biodiversity, is set by globalization processes. This context requires special study, since otherwise the moral regulation of environmental policies at the national and international scale will be ineffective. Before talking about globalization in the light of environmental issues, you should decide on the concept. In its most general form, as is commonly believed, globalization is the dissemination of certain ideas, phenomena and processes around the world, the global unification of financial, economic, technological, ecological, social, political, legal and cultural activities and their respective organizations, but also the desire of these organizations to embrace all countries and peoples. That is, it covers almost all aspects of human life and society. As is known, the term ―global‖ has a double meaning: As a result of the spread of Western culture to other territories, it acquires a worldwide character. Globalization brings countries, peoples and cultures closer together. The unconditional positive aspects include the fact that thanks to it, the current information revolution has become possible, which has significantly changed our lives - citizens of individual states become citizens of the world at the same time. Globalization cannot be reduced only to the activities of financial and economic structures (and those organizations that express their interests under a different shell) and ecology, since this would be too narrow an understanding. But these parties undoubtedly occupy a central place in the process. It seems that globalization as a possible solution to the current common problems in the unity of positive and negative aspects is to a greater extent an objective and unavoidable process, the result of historical societal interactions, ways of human activity and the relationship of man to nature.

The first problem that globalization poses to a policy focused on the implementation of the principles of environmental ethics is a sharp increase in the rate of economic growth and growth of the population size, which is characteristic of the globalized world economic system. This leads to accelerated destruction of ecosystems and a sharp decrease in the diversity of the biosphere. In recent times, global industrial production has grown by 7 times, and the global population has increased 2.5 times. By 2050, population growth can exceed as much as 2%, and as a result, by 2030, a growing population will require an increase in food, energy, clean and fresh water. The current international distribution of labor leads to the fact that some countries are willing to allow a significant environmental degradation to gain an advantage in the global market. They neglect environmental standards in order to make their products cheaper. This is part of their forced policies to attract foreign capital. Also, the global economic system stimulates the turbulent raw materials sector of the economy of some countries and, consequently, the excessive extraction of resources for export. Neglect of environmental costs gives a competitive advantage in this case too.

The second problem is connected with the fact that in the context of globalization, such an instance of social and political control as the national state loses its value. In the process of considering globalization, we can mark the notion of a consequence for people and society. As Zigmund Bauman argues With a general increase in the speed of movement — the ―compression‖ of space / time as such — indicates David Harvey - some objects move faster than others. ―Economy‖ - capital, that is, money and other resources necessary for ―doing business‖ to make more money and things — moves quickly; fast enough to always be one step ahead of any (territorial or other) state entity capable of trying to stop its movement or send along a different route and as a result is practically freed from restrictions related to the territory that served as the starting point, destination or route. The more we move towards economic equilibrium, the more the drive entity suffers. Alberto Melucci suggests that the consequence of the rapid growth of the influence of supranational - "planetary" - organizations becomes "and accelerated elimination of" weak "links, and the creation of new channels for investing resources, derived, at least in part, from the control of individual states"

1506

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 According to G.Kh. von Wright, ―the nation state is decaying or" dying out. " The powers that undermine him are transnational in nature. ‖ Since nation-states remain the only benchmark for ―balancing‖ and the only sources of effective political initiatives, the ―transnationality‖ of decomposition forces takes these forces beyond the realm of conscious, purposeful and potentially reasonable action. Therefore, these forces, their character and action are surrounded by a veil of secrecy; they are the object of assumptions, not of reliable analysis. As von Wright notes, ―the driving forces of a transnational character are mostly anonymous, and therefore hardly perceptible. They do not form a single system or order. This is the agglomeration of systems manipulated mainly by ―invisible‖ figures ... between the above-mentioned forces [there is no] unity or purposeful coordination of actions ... The ―market‖ is not so much the commercial interaction of competing forces as the manipulation of manipulative demand, artificially created needs and aspirations for rapid enrichment. "

All this surrounds the ongoing process of the ―withering away‖ of the national state with an aura of catastrophe. His reasons are not entirely clear; even if these reasons were known, it is impossible to predict its course; and certainly, even predicting, it cannot be prevented. The feeling of anxiety — a completely natural reaction to the lack of control over the situation — was clearly expressed by Kenneth Jowett , who titled his book, The New World Disorder. In the era of new and recent history, we are accustomed to identify order with "control over the situation." It is precisely this feeling of ―control over the situation,‖ justified or purely illusory, that we most lack. What does this mean for the problem we are considering? The nation state ceases to be an effective agent. It has to accept the conditions of global capital, among which environmental deregulation is not the last. In order to avoid the flight of capital and production to other countries, the national governments of most countries give up their tough environmental policies and go to numerous compromises. And if the simple deterioration of environmental conditions still retains some significance for national governments, since it is painfully perceived by the population, then losses in the field of biodiversity are considered to be unimportant.

Finally, there is another factor associated with globalization and affecting the implementation of the principles of environmental ethics. The globalized economy of modernity generates a social system that is characterized by extreme insecurity, uncertainty and painful experience of their own vulnerability on their upper and middle floors and stability, acquired only through humiliating and unpromising poverty, on the lower ones. Under these conditions, any social mobilization, any translation of individual problems and individual convictions into the plane of collective political demands, becomes difficult. As Z. Bauman notes, ―the most difficult of political riddles today is not so much― what should be done ‖, but― who can do it, even if we knew what ‖. Since the effectiveness of actions is usually determined by the capabilities of the instrument, the most reasonable people expect little from their local ecclesia, because they understand too well how limited the freedom of their maneuver has become. For those who are concerned about the well-being of oikos, meetings on agora to discuss common interests, ways to satisfy them and protect them more and more seem like a waste of time and energy ‖(Bauman Individualized Society 121). The environmental agenda is no exception. Degraded agora does not allow to promote it in modern societies. In them, mass environmental movements are initially devoid of political power.

Making a conclusion, one can characterize the fact that the moral justification for restricting free market relations in those types of human activity that pose a threat to the environment, as well as the conclusion about the need for compulsory collective financing of measures for its protection and restoration is not a little important in the social sphere. In the long term, given by the theory of public goods, the activity for the preservation of a favorable environment is faced with one extremely significant problem. Any state should choose a reasonable level of provision of citizens with this public good and, therefore, a reasonable level of expenditures for these purposes should be carried out taking into account how loyal this capital is to the manifestation of these measures.

Nature, indeed, is not at the mercy of our morality, so it cannot be the object of moral pressure from people. And if people turn it into an object of their production, use, cognitive, etc. activities, it is only to the extent that they are in its power and operate within the framework of the laws of nature. We do not rule over nature, but it rules over us.

1507

ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 VIII. REFERENCES.

[1] Ethics of environmental responsibility. And Sychev. Alpha. M 2016, with the 5-16 [2] A. Porter Reverence for Life 1992 g [3] Henry Sidgwick Sidgwick Henry . The Methods of Ethics . Indianapolis : Hackett Publishing Co , 1981.. P . 382 [4] Apresyan R.G. The dilemma of anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism in environmental ethics. S. 23. Theory of morality . [5] The 2006 UNESCO Ethics Paper was adopted by the UNESCO Commission. [6] Sagoff M. Kantovsky and utilitarian approaches to the value of biodiversity // Humanitarian Environmental Journal. 2002.V. 4 issue . 2. P. 55–572 Planet Earth: the future. SPb . : Amphora, 2008.S. 120. [7] 7 . Sagoff see the same magazine. [8] 8 . T.V. Mishatkina and Kundas . B. P training manual on environmental ethics 2008 from 144-216 [9] 9. World Declaration of Animal Rights . [10] Adopted by the International League for Animal Rights in 1977. It was re-promulgated by UNESCO 1990. [11] 10 . Bauman 3. Globalization. Consequences for a person and society / Per. from English M.: Publishing house "All World", 2004.— 188 p. Janko [12] 11. ― ALL ANIMAL EQUALS ‖ Magazine Man No. 4 2017 [13] 12. A .... Prokofiev. Humanitarian Bulletin of TSPU named after L.N. Tolstoy №3 (23), October 2017. THE MORAL BASES OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: INCREASING SUMMARY BENEFITS, IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND PRECAUTION PRINCIPLE. [14] 13 . ECOLOGICAL ETHICS AND ECOLOGY OF SPIRIT IN THE EPOCH OF GLOBALIZATION . IN AND. FALCO, prof. cafe Philosophy of Moscow State University, Ph.D. Philos. n AUC ECOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL CHALLENGES OF THE GLOBAL CRISIS . scientific journal No. 2- 2011 [15] 14 Social justice and the environment . Prokofiev A.V. The article was prepared as part of the project ―Justice in the field of environmentally significant decisions : theoretical foundations and practical contexts‖ (grant of the President of Russia MD-140.2010.6). [16] 15. Ethics and Ecology Executive Editor : Doctor of Philosophy, Professor R. G. Apresyan. Veliky Novgorod 2010. Set of articles

1508