Introduction
In recent years, the concept of sustainability is one of the most researched and documented topics across the globe. Over, the past half a century, the notion has garnered broad support in society. However, it remains challenging to implement due to the complexities and enormous shifts associated with it. Indeed, there are significant ethical challenges involved in the promotion and achievement of sustainability. Even though ethics is the essence of sustainability, the moral obligations of humanity continue to blur in recent years. Sustainability is grounded on the equal quest of three core objectives; environmental health, social fairness, and economic well-being. The concept is based on the ethical dedication to ensuring the well-being of not only contemporary society but also that of future-generations. However, one may question if the decisions that human beings are making in the name of sustainability are ethically conscious and beneficial to contemporary society. The paper argues that it is vital for humanity to recognize both the advantages and adverse consequences associated with pursuing inter-generational and intra-generational benefits for the environment, the society, and the economy. Indeed, the article prompts contemporary society to recognize and appreciate the in-depth analysis of the ethics of sustainability.
The rationale for the Pursuit of Sustainability
In the past three decades, sustainability has grown to be one of the most common frameworks in influencing a variety of choices in society. The term sustain describes the act of prolonging the productive life of natural wealth with time while ensuring the reliability of their bases as such facilitating their endurance (Kibert, Thiele, Peterson, & Monroe, 2014) . Sustainability is as such, the continuous process of attaining improved living conditions for the current society and the future generations in a given natural environment. Essentially, sustainability maintains that in the decision-making process, every community has a responsibility to ensure that both future generations and other societies that are less well-off can achieve a certain standard of living. Implied in the description of sustainability is the notion of the physical confines to the industrious use of natural wealth (Keulartz, 2016) . Indee d, there is a close association between the physical limits which creep up the existence of humanity and the concept of sustainability that is linked with the menaces caused by human beings. Therefore, sustainability prompts humankind to recognize the adverse effects of several artificial activities on the environment and as such, take the necessary precautions in efforts of pursuing sustainability.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Indeed, in contemporary society, many communities are applying sustainability to solve energy problems, manage waste, plan urban areas, and develop the economy. Similarly, business organizations are currently using the concept to expand the performance metrics from the traditional view of higher profit margins to including social and environmental performance to economic prowess (Biedenweg, Monroe, & Oxarart, 2011) . Educational institutions, particularly institutions of higher learning, are utilizing sustainability to shape curricula, administration, investments, and their relationships with the local community. Undeniably, sustainability is currently acknowledged as a framework that different institutions, both private and public and the society as a whole utilize in decision-making.
Ethics
Ethics defines what is right and what is evil. The understanding of ethics is vital in understanding the ethical obligations of humankind to the environment and sustainability among other crises that afflict society today (Biedenweg, Monroe, & Oxarart, 2011) . Ethics are to no small extent morals that encompass conformation to a particular pre-determined order. Indeed, ethics is a set of moral behavior grounded on various socio-economic and environmental factors consecrated by tradition (Kibert, Thiele, Peterson, & Monroe, 2014) . Morals are intrinsically associated with the culture of each society since culture guides what is considered positive and what is co nsidered harmful.
It is essential to acknowledge that culture is the interpretation that humankind has of itself and all its relationships, including humankind's relationship with nature. Throughout time, the society has worked to bring about a new sense of self and that of all of the systems, whether social, economic, or environmental. Ethics extends beyond the significance associated with morals since it emphasizes the appreciation of human conduct which can be recognized as either good or evil in a particular society and they are often absolute (Lotter, 2006) . Therefore, ethics is a practical philosophy that seeks to integrate knowledge and action in society.
However, the cultural origin of the ethical values that contemporary society utilizes is often ignored. The ignorance is grounded on the fact that ethical standards, its logic, and moral integrity are the very ways that individuals usually arrive at their thoughts and subsequently, judgments on what is evil or good. The fact that these ethical values guide individuals conduct and behavior, it is unlikely for one to question the origin of ethics (Biedenweg, Monroe, & Oxarart, 2011) . Moral standards and by extension, ethics are sanctified by tradition and preserved over time that they are merely perceived as impartial components. Unfortunately, the naturalization of ethics implies that what is considered good or evil is disguised as static, which is not the case. It is necessary to acknowledge that ethics are dynamic since they are grounded in history and culture (Kibert, Thiele, Peterson, & Monroe, 2014) . Indeed, though ethics are common to the society that inaugurated it, it deviates with time to keep pace with new social burdens. Therefore, ethics is a normative understanding of human actions since it determines morally mandatory codes of conduct in regards to the environment and life as a whole. The guidelines associated with ethics impose limits on harmful and insensitive behavior.
Ethical Obligation to Intervene against Nature
Ethical dimensions constitute a group of ideals and responsibilities that showcase the content of moral conduct and subsequently vital in the construction of moral behavior in a particular society. However, from an eco-centric view, the ethics in the current society are anti-ethics since the current moral premises are grounded on anthropocentrism and utilitarianism (Palmer, Mcshane, & Sandler, 2014) . Indeed, humankind perceives the natural environment not as something to preserve but rather one to dominate. The perception that human beings inhabit the most advantaged place in the creation illustrate that individuals perceive nature as the servant.
The current ethical codes are influenced by anthropocentrism, which showcases that human beings consider themselves superior as such, putting their rights above all other forms. Caught up in the ideology of being excellent, humankind ignores the fact that all different kinds of creation irrespective of their superiority have rights and as such it is ethical to recognize that all creatures have privileges to both a present and a future (Palmer, Mcshane, & Sandler, 2014) . Indeed, until quite lately, human beings did not consider the environmental question and merely exploited the environment as a source of goods and fuels for both consumption and production. While in the past few decades, the concept of human ethical obligation to nature has garnered extensive support, it is still evident the current human actions are grounded on the perception that humankind is superior.
Many environmental ethics advocates maintain that what makes an ethical theory environmentally conscious is the commitment that the environment, including species, ecosystems, and biotic communities, are considered moral. This particular argument illustrates that humankind has a moral obligation to get rid of the notion of superiority but rather acknowledge the rights of other beings in nature (Environmental Values, 2016) . The prevailing perception is that humankind has an obligation towards life that encompasses respecting the integrity, stability, and beauty of the environment. The best way to acknowledge and respect the environmental wholes such as the species, ecosystems, and biotic communities is to let nature take its course. The arguments against human interference with life are categorized into two.
The first, the prima facie principle of noninterference, which illustrates there is a contingent but universal connection between human interference with nature and eco-systemic harm. As mentioned, the definition of sustainability acknowledges the role of social activities that work against the principle of preserving the environment, whether intentionally or non-intentionally. Indeed, the epistemic variant view of the first argument illustrates when faced with the decision of whether to interfere with nature, there will always be a multitude of reasons that pinpoint to the direct adverse consequences of interfering regardless of the specific circumstances (Lotter, 2006) . Another argument against the interference of nature is the conceptual association between interfering and harming the ecosystems. For instance, the well-being of the ecosystems is identified and associated with the wildness. Wildness refers to the lack of human interference and involvement (Lotter, 2006) . Therefore, irrespective of the actions that human beings take in the name of sustainability, all and any human intervention necessarily affects the wildness of the ecosystems and as such detrimental on their well-being.
It is not always clear that nature knows best. For instance, it might be unclear whether a particular health should be allowed to revert to a scrubland or if a starving elk should be left for dead or whether one species population that has exhausted its food supplies in a specific area should be left to die or moved to another location. In such cases, there are rooms for different individuals to disagree on the best course of action (Environmental Values, 2016) . However, allowing nature to take its course implies that it will establish a balance that will change over time. Indeed, many ecologists support the idea of the equilibrium paradigm, which assumes the position that nature knows best and often inaugurates a delicate accord and stability between and among the various forms of life and human interference in the environment can easily upset the balance.
However, many arguments for interference pinpoint that in recent years, the disequilibrium paradigm is the trend, which illustrates natural processes results in the constant flux of the ecosystems. Therefore, the advocates for interference pinpoint that nature requires an intermediate level of ecological intervention in efforts of producing the highest degree of heterogeneity of circumstances and life systems (Lotter, 2006) . However, the fluctuation in the environment through several ecological methods might be nature’s technique of restoring wildness and humankind should, therefore, allow nature to take its course.
It is essential to acknowledge despite extensive research on ecological processes over the past decades; it remains a fact that despite the superiority of humankind, individuals do not comprehend all the environmental courses in place and as such efforts of intervention and interference might be premature. Indeed, the assumption of being knowledgeable indicate that humans so often destroy nature and disturb the ecological processes through interference that turns out to be harmful, which asserts the notion that nature should be permitted to take its course (Keulartz, 2016) . Indeed, the idea that nature's well-being is grounded on its wildness illustrates that any human involvement often turns out to be detrimental irrespective of the circumstances under consideration.
A case in point is the argument against human intervention with the lives of elephants. Culling is often used as a technique of human intrusion in the existence of elephants with the idea that the process controls the population of highly developed mammals such as elephants in efforts of protecting the vegetation and habitat of less developed species (Lotter, 2006) . However, allowing nature to take its course rather than intervening might be a better strategy. The argument goes, when nature is allowed to flourish, there is a flux in the number of elephants . Elephants have a robust feeding pattern which is likely to gradually transform the woodland into grassland, which while it rescinds the habitation of some species it generates the settings of other species to expand (Lotter, 2006) .
Moreover, it is likely that eventually, the population of elephants will automatically diminish under the severe condition since they have gradually depleted their food sources. There is a possibility that the elephants might move to other locations for better habitat or the reduced food resources will adversely affect their reproduction rates. Either way, the benevolent functioning of the natural ecological processes will eventually relieve pressure on the habitat pinpointing that human interference is often premature and ill-informed (Lotter, 2006) . Indeed, the question of the ethical obligation of humankind to nature should be grounded on extensive information on the natural processes of the ecosystem.
Many argue the luxury of letting nature takes its course was only possible eras ago when there were minor human inhabitants with negligible effects on the environment and the ecosystem. However, the discovery of fire and the evident expansion in technology directly affected the impact of human populations on the earth's environment and its inhabitants. For the past three centuries, human beings aggressively exploited wildlife, mainly due to the increase in population (Palmer, Mcshane, & Sandler, 2014) . Over the years, humans have proceed ed to destroy the environment through pollution, deforestation, and currently, global warming. In recent years, human beings have acknowledged their role in adversely affecting the environment over the last two centuries and are currently working to restore nature.
Indeed, the restoration of nature is not only seen as the practical solution in the environmental policy but also as the moral obligation of for many environmentalists. The ethical argument is grounded on the idea that human interventions and interfere with nature restores it since human activities continue to intrude on the natural environment. Therefore, on these grounds, the ethical obligation to interfere is grounded on the acknowledgment that over the years human interference and activities have adversely affected the environment and it is vital for humankind to repair the damage (Lotter, 2006) . However, it is evident humanity efforts of restoration are too optimistic and born out of guilt f or the damaged the environment. Indeed, the efforts of sustainability in the current are grounded on the same guilt and is essentially a way of humanity feeling better through acknowledging the importance of maintaining the productive capacity of natural resources to ensure not only the well-being of the current generation but also the future generations.
Sustainability in limiting the potential of the Current Generation
The market system primarily controls contemporary society. However, this system is not that of the fraternity but rather one of survival. Current ethics emphasizes the code of conduct that is not harmonious with humanity and the environment. While it is factual that all human action economical and socio-cultural occurs on nature, necessitating individuals to be aware of themselves and others, the question of how knowledgeable the society is supposed to be comes to play (Mangan, 2012) . In recent years, the pursuit of sustainability implies that society often makes long-term goals. Sustainability is a just cause grounded on the idea that the current society should acknowledge the living standards of future generations . However, the focus on long-term goals to some extent allows the present generation to survive rather than thrive.
For instance, in the business paradigm, previously, efforts of going green were considered as a cost of doing business. However, the emphasis on sustainability over the past three decades has expanded the aspect of going green from a production cost to a facilitator for invention, new market opportunities, and capital creation. Indeed, the perception that new interest in sustainability will increase productivity for both private and public enterprises is widespread across the globe (Mangan, 2012) . However, the idea of a win-win in both economic and environmental agenda is unrealistic. The efforts of sustainability continue to increase ecological costs in many companies with little chance of economic payback. While many justify the enormous costs of sustainability with the argument that the benefits extend beyond financial returns to encompass the provision of a better life for future generations, it is evident that the current generations are merely surviving rather than thriving in the name of sustainability.
In the past three decades, since the dawn of the modern environmental movement, the USA has disbursed more than one trillion dollars in efforts of addressing ecological threats that are associated with commercial activities. Within this time, the US economy has moved from the estimated trade balance in the long haul basis to long-lasting trade deficit. Many experts argue that environmental regulations are weakening the effectiveness of the US productiveness (Mangan, 2012) . The conformist perception is that on a global scale, efforts of sustainability impose high costs to both private and public industries reducing productivity and as such, limiting the socio-economic potential of the current generation.
However, while the environmental costs are enormous, it is vital to acknowledge that humanity has thrived during the 19 th and 20 th centuries at extensive damages to the environment. Therefore, arguments that environmental consciousness is adversely affecting socio-economic performance are grounded on selfishness and ethical codes grounded on ultiratism rather than the idea of good and evil (Palmer, Mcshane, & Sandler, 2014) . Moreover, the definition of sustainability clearly states that sustainable endeavors ensure that the needs of the current society are met without conceding the capability if the future generation to make ends meet. Therefore, the emphasis of sustainability is not only on the living standards of future generations but also those of the current. Consequently, all environmental policies and activities must take into account the ability of the current generation to thrive rather than merely exist. Sustainability is a well-rounded concept that concentrates on economic equality, social well-being and the environment, and as such, should not work to limit the talents and the abilities of the current generation to develop and thrive.
Conclusion
In recent years, each society across the globe is emphasizing the importance of sustainability. However, the implementation and achievement of the concept are rather tricky due to the complexities of the issues associated with it. Sustainability is grounded on the ethical code that takes into account the lives of each individual in the globe and the importance of socio-economic prosperity in different regions of the world in addition to taking into account the productive capability of the future generations. Since ethics are dynamic and often changes over time to keep pace with the changes in the society, one may question the ethical obligations when it comes to interfering with nature in the name of sustainability. Many environmentalists argue that processes are considered environmental ethical if they uphold the integrity and the rights of the wholes in the environment, including ecosystems and inhabitants. However, the ideology of letting nature takes its course is viable in a situation where human activities do not affect the environment. This is not the case since every human activity, whether economic or social, takes place in the earths environment, as such warrantying human intervention and interference to limit the adverse effects of their actions. However, society needs to pursue greatness rather than mere survival in the ethical obligation of sustainability. Undeniably, it would be a shame if human beings concentrated on pursuing long-term goals while ignoring the short-term potential of the current generation.
References
Biedenweg, K., Monroe, M. C., & Oxarart, A. (2011). The importance of teaching the ethics of sustainability. International Journal of Sustainability in higher education .
Environmental Values. (2016). Letting nature take its course. Enviromental Values , 381-384.
Keulartz, J. (2016). Future directions for conservation. Environmental Values , 385-407.
Kibert, C. J., Thiele, L., Peterson, A., & Monroe, M. (2014). The ethics of sustainability.
Lotter, H. (2006). Should humans interfere in the lives of elephants? 1-23.
Mangan, A. (2012). Three challenges to sustainability. Retrieved August 1, 2019, from Bioneers: https://bioneers.org/three-challenges-to-sustainability/
Palmer, C., Mcshane, K., & Sandler, R. (2014). Environmental ethics. Annual Review , 419-442.
