Staples and Cafaro (2012) define rights from three perspectives. Specifically, they suggest that rights carry the elements of respect, restraint, and resources. They suggest that for one to claim that they have a right to something, they consider that others should respect them, act with restraint towards them, and allow them to have a fair share of the available resources. To them, rights do not apply to human beings alone, but to the rest of the species. They place their argument into the context of the environment, in which they argue that human beings should show respect for nature, act with restraint towards it, and allow the species that exist in the natural environments to enjoy living in their environments. For instance, the authors pose a question to their audience, “Do we want other species to continue to flourish on earth? If the answer is yes, then we need to affirm their right to do so,” (Staples & Cafaro, 2012, p. 285). They suggest that humans have the moral responsibility to protect the environment by restraining from infringing on the rights of other species to exist in nature. This argument would indicate that rivers should be allowed to have their rights because they since all humans have the right to life, people should understand that rivers have the right to flourish (Staples & Cafaro, 2012, p. 286). In fact, they compare the right to live in the human context with the need for people to respect the value of the life of the rivers. Human beings should be reminded of the fact that the right for other species to exist is paramount and that any attempt to challenge this element of rights would mean that people enjoy contributing to the untimely extinctions of other species. As much as Staples & Cafaro stage a significant argument to environmentalists, some people find faults in the idea of rights. For instance, their idea that the natural environment should be allowed to flourish without human interference nature appears over-ambitious. In reality, it would be impossible for people to let the rivers flow from source to mouth without using them for any economic benefits. According to Kothari, Margil, & Bajpai (2017), it would be impossible for people not to use the largest rivers of the world, such as the Ganges in the creation of electricity. They ponder, “If the most fundamental human right is the right to life, does it mean the river should be able to flow free, unfettered by obstructions such as…,” (Kothari, Margil, & Bajpai, 2017, p. 1). To him, the idea of rights would be challenging to implement from an economic point of view. The same element of rights is challenged from the perspective that rivers do not have the ability to represent themselves as legal entities. According to Turkewitz (2017), an issue arises concerning the people and parties that would be appointed to represent nature in the human courts. He suggests, “Imbuing rivers with the right to sue, he argued, would force humans to take care of the water and trees they need to survive,” (Turkewitz, 2017, p. 1). This argument further suggests that because the rivers do not have the right to represent themselves in legal cases, humans are less likely to respect them. The example of the Ganges in India indicates the reality of this argument since despite the Indian government being responsible for the legal representation of the river, humans have continued to pollute its waters and divert it at different stages of its course. In conclusion, Staples and Cafaro pose a useful challenge to humans to preserve their environment. However, their argument would be impossible to implement considering that the environment should be protected for its economic value to humans and the fact that it does not have the ability to represent itself in court.
References
Kothari, A., Margil, M., & Bajpai, S. (2017). Now rivers have the same legal status as people, we must uphold their rights . Retrieved 29 April 2018, from https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/apr/21/rivers-legal-human-rights-ganges-whanganui
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Staples, W., & Cafaro, P. (2012). For a species right to exist. Life on the Brink: Environmentalists Confront Overpopulation , 283-300.
Turkewitz, J. (2017). Corporations Have Rights. Why Shouldn’t Rivers? Nytimes.com . Retrieved 29 April 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/does-the-colorado-river-have-rights-a-lawsuit-seeks-to-declare-it-a-person.html
