Evolving Environmental Ethics and Accountability: A Philosophical Reflection on Human Responsibility and Species Rights in a Changing World

Abstract

In the face of accelerating ecological degradation, ethical responses to environmental crises remain fragmented and culturally biased, often dominated by anthropocentric and Western paradigms. The paradigms do not recognize the more spiritual and ethical connection between people and the natural world. Environmental ethics needs replenishment, and this time with the assistance of the different schools of thought that recognize the moral significance of non-human life. This gap is addressed in the current paper through research and synthesis of three accounts, Upaniṣadic metaphysics, Buddhist ecological ethics, and contemporary moral philosophers like environmentalism as proposed by thinkers such a thinker as Peter Singer, to come up with a responsive model of environmental accountability through philosophic reflection and moral awareness. The methodology of the paper is qualitative and philosophic-conceptual. Comparative mapping and normative arguments are employed to gauge how consistent each framework is, and this is attained in the study by textual analysis of canonical texts. The texts include Upaniṣads, Buddhist suttas, and Animal Liberation by Singer, which is supported by peer-reviewed sources in environmental humanities and comparative philosophy. The findings show that there is a shared starting point in anthropocentric rejection and the emphasis on interspecific moral responsibility. The Upaniṣadic paradigm is centered on the unity of the cosmos and the sanctity of duty, as compared to Buddhism, which offers practical applications to the paradigm of interdependence and non-harming. Conversely, the framework by Singer is clear and policy-oriented in terms of rational ethics of sentience. Comparative analysis reveals the fact that a combined approach of rational universality, spiritual reverence, and behavioural ethics can create a moral consciousness in environmental crises. The article states that the Anthropocene is dependent on a pluralistic, cross-traditional framework. This kind of approach cuts across cultural boundaries and provides a paradigm that is inclusive and brings together reason, spirituality, and ethics in a cross-cultural sense.