ISSN- 2394-5125 VOL 7, ISSUE 19, 2020 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND GLOBALIZATION 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 principles of environmental ethics. Special attention is paid to the normative content of the principle of biodiversity, which fixes the value 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 extinction 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 anthropocentrism, value, moral responsibility, 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 history of ethics, 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 good and evil, 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 rights, which gives an assessment principles of environmental ethics. Considering the theory of A. Sychev on environmental ethics can be convinced that applied ethics 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 ecology (science) and ethics. Environmental science 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 morality. 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 suffering. 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,