The principle of sufficiency mandates that all forms of life are entitled to enough goods to live on and flourish. The principle also means no one should waste or hoard resources intended for the sufficiency of all. Upholding the norm of sufficiency makes demands upon individuals - to share, to live more simply, to think creatively - and on human communities: to ensure that everyone has access to the goods that they need to live a life of dignity. The ethical norm of sufficiency is closely tied to the notion of moral significance, which means that something is worthy of our ethical concern. This means that humans include the needs of others in our consideration of what is important, or worthy of our concern. When humans consider the needs of others, such as poor individuals in our society or poor countries in the world, humans are asserting the moral principle of sufficiency. This principle helps us think about whom else humans need to consider, to whom humans have moral duties. It underlies the practice of empathy. This principle can conflict, at least in some people's minds, with the notion that the Earth does not have sufficient goods to meet everyone's needs. To apply the principle of sufficiency to an environmental decision, humans should ask:

1. Will the decision permit all those involved, especially the poor, to have enough resources on which to live and flourish?
2. Is there any aspect of the decision that indicates the presence of waste or excess? Or a failure to be creative?

Compassion extends the notion of sufficiency to the Earth. Environmental ethics asserts that other animals, plants, and the elements (such as water, soil or air) are morally significant, and that humans have responsibilities to act so that their needs are met too. Some environmental ethicists, such as Deep Ecologists, assert that non-human forms of life have moral significance equivalent to humans. Most people, however, believe that other forms of life have some moral worth, but that humans are of greater moral significance. Even if you think animals are far more worthy of your concern than plants or elements, recognize that all animals depend, either directly or indirectly on plants for food, and that no creatures can live without sufficient clean water. To assert that any wild animal is worthy of our moral concern begins the process of learning about the interdependence of all creatures on the habitat and food resources provided by other creatures in an ecosystem. It is simply impossible to consider the well-being of one other creature in isolation from their environment. Ultimately, the future of humans is tied to the well-being of all other creatures. To apply the principle of compassion to an environmental decision, humans should ask:

1. What duties do humans have to the other creatures likely to be affected by our actions?
2. What does sufficiency mean for other creatures, especially those threatened with extinction?
3. What would it mean to extend the principle of compassion to non-human creatures?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Paragraph 1 Ans 1 The decision of sufficiency will permit all those involved especially the poor to ... View the full answer