Restoration

If you order your research paper from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on Restoration. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality Restoration paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in Restoration, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your Restoration paper at affordable prices!

Creatures in nature have inherent value; therefore I argue that the "Restoration Thesis" and any ideas stemming from this thesis are unsuitable ways of approaching our human interaction with nature. Some supporters of this "Restoration Thesis" will argue that the use of any natural setting for utilitarian purposes is acceptable as long as they can restore it to its previous state after use to the extent that there are not many differences between the original setting and the artificial one. In this essay I will prove those restoration theorists, such as Martin Krieger, to be mistaken in their ideas, and support an anti-restoration viewpoint taken by other philosophers such as Robert Elliot.

The "Restoration Thesis" is the theory based on restoration that is used as a rationalization for the destruction of nature. Restoration thesis supporters believe that any harm done to nature by humans is ultimately repairable through restoration and therefore should be discounted. Personally, I do not support this thesis, and neither does Robert Elliot, and through an elaborate analogy between the relationship between original and replicated works of art and nature, he viably writes off this thesis all-together. Elliot believes, as do I, that because nature has inherent value, and we as humans are morally obligated to preserve it, or at least the pieces of it that we can, from human interference and disruption. In this viewpoint, there is one core idea that nature possesses intrinsic value which cannot be replaced in any way, shape, or form, and that the value is borne of its organic state. Therefore, any human interference inevitably diminishes this value to an irreplaceable extent.

In my personal opinion, I agree with Elliot's main claims and support the views that he expresses. I think that trying to replicate nature, although we have the technology to do so, in a way diminishes the quality of the items being replaced, not only physically, but in the minds of the viewers. Aesthetically speaking, if some great natural disaster were to run through the Grand Canyon, destroying one of our country's greatest natural wonders, would we try to rebuild the Grand Canyon? First of all, would it really be humanly possible to re-create such a thing, and secondly would the artificial Grand Canyon be as wondrous? In his essay "Faking Nature", Elliot attacks these types of questions with the debate that a humanly affected area does not hold the same value of the original natural state because "…Origin is important as an integral part of the evaluation process…" [1, 4] He argues that the knowledge of the history or process of creation of a natural object molds the perceptions of an object. By his example of fine art, if one was to be given a famous original artwork as a gift, one would be flattered because of its value in its original form, however, if that same person were to discover that their gift was a replica, their idea of its value would greatly decrease and the person would not be as impressed. Another example, that Elliot gives to support this idea that value comes from origin, is the example of an individual finding an object which they find aesthetically pleasing, later this person finds out that the object is made out of the bones of a slaughtered man, killed for the very purpose of creating the object. As this person once found the object pleasing, he may now reject the item and devalue it purely on the basis of its origins, and although the object has not changed in any physical way, the idea of the object has drastically changed in this persons mind and its value is has also completely changed.

Elliot is basically making the point that replacement does not always have the same value as an original. In a personal example, imagine a woman being given a beautiful and very expensive diamond wedding ring. This ring was given to her in the holy sanctity of marriage by the one man she truly loves. Obviously, to this woman this ring holds much material and sentimental value. Now imagine that this woman were to lose this ring during her daily routine, never to be discovered again. If the couple has insurance for the ring, another ring, looking exactly like the ring that has been lost, can be given to the woman therefore "replacing" the lost ring. The new ring would never be able to have the same sentimental value as the original because it was not given to the woman on the day of her wedding, now whenever this woman looks at her ring she will be reminded of the fact that she lost the original and this is simply a replacement ring. As Elliot puts it, the presence of the same object as before is not what brings aesthetic appreciation. The perceived appreciation results when one has an original and knows that they are in the presence of history (as in the woman's case.) Although the same object can be replicated and replaced, the memory of the origins of the first object will never be forgotten and that value can never be reproduced. Overall, all of Elliot's examples, coupled with my own example, are designed to disprove the restoration thesis and show that nature can never be reproduced entirely, and that by "restoring" nature you are actually devaluing it significantly.

Custom Essays on Restoration

Supporters of the restoration thesis, such as Martin H. Krieger, challenge us to state why artificial objects are not as good as natural ones. Krieger also goes on to examine the cost and benefits of preserving natural objects in relation to other economic or social needs. He uses the term "preservation" to loosely mean, reconstruct or restore when he makes his points about nature. "We build temples or other monuments to our society (often by means of preservation) and believe that they represent important investments in social unity and coherence. If a forest symbolizes the frontier for society and if that frontier is meaningful in the society's history, then there may be good reasons for preserving it." [, ] Martin Krieger and other supporters of the restoration thesis believe that "preservation" or more closely restoration is a very acceptable way of controlling and paying for human damages to nature. Basically, Krieger holds the view that whatever is the most economically sensible option, should go weather or not it disrupts nature in any way, shape, or form. Krieger argues that what is valuable from the environment is human experience, and so artificial substitutes for natural objects are substantial alternatives for the human race. In opposition to Elliot, Krieger and supporters of the restoration thesis believe that although one's perception of an object or environment may change once aware of its origin or creation, if the object were to be unaware of this activity, the object, in the mind of the human, would have the same inherent value.

In rebuttal to Krieger's argument, Elliot grants that, despite weather the person knows of the loss of value or not, it is inevitably there, and someone somewhere knows about it. Elliot also argues that by the person being unaware of an object's fraudulence, the person can therefore be hurt by this unawareness because humans seek truth. "Even if environmental engineers could achieve such exactitude," Elliot says of restoration, "there is, I suggest, no compelling reasons for accepting the restoration thesis. It is worth str4essing though that, as a matter of strategy, environmentalists must argue the empirical inadequacy of restoration proposals. This is the strongest argument against restoration ploys, because it appeals to diverse value frameworks, and because such proposals are premises to deliver a specific good. Showing that the good won't be delivered is thus a useful move to make." [1, 4] As Elliot emphasizes, the best strategy for preservation is to argue that the restoration of an environment will not recreate the previous value to an individual because such projects are never successful, and the human mind can not recreate memories.

In conclusion, both philosophers make detailed cases as to why restoration is or is not a viable way of approaching human impact on nature. Overall, the claim that nature has intrinsic value always rises to the top of the argument, to strike down any theories of equality in restoration. The restoration thesis is by and large an inadequate theory, and cannot be fully supported, and as Elliot states "leaves out too much." The value of any object, being natural or man-made, is not only valuable because of its aesthetic value, but also for its value in the human mind based on its origin.

Clark University, Environmental Ethics - Prof. Patrick Derr, 18 February, 00, H.Ohmart

Enviornmental Ethics - Louis Pojman

Please note that this sample paper on Restoration is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on Restoration, we are here to assist you. Your persuasive essay on Restoration will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from livepaperhelp.com and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!