200
9 Environmental Ethics
utilitarianism vies utility as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism is
associated with various strengths, including accounting for consequences being
important in ethics, being theoretically simple with a single prescription of
maximizing utility, bringing all values together on one scale for them to be
aggregated and weighed against each other, and easily leading to a decisionmaking procedure of cost–benefit analysis (CBA). This entails evaluating whether
the benefits outweigh the costs to determine whether the action is morally right or
wrong. However, utilitarianism faces criticism on many fronts, such as not directly
factoring in distribution, suffering epistemic issues because of the difficulty in
predicting all the impacts of a specific action, and issues with aggregating diverse
goods on one scale (Attfield 2014).
Regarding Kantian ethics and the environment, Kant argued that humans have
both a rational and animal nature, the animal nature acts as the source of our desires,
but humans remain special since they possess reason and can think rationally. Kant
believes in one major moral principle called Categorical Imperative. According to
the Categorical Imperative, each individual should act on universalized principles
or the principles that can be rationally and universally accepted. Consequently, it
forbids actions such as lying, cheating, or making false promises (universal law
formula) (Bowie 2017). The Categorical Imperative Humanity Formula, on the
other hand, states that each individual should respect others and act in ways that
appreciate other people as autonomous and rational beings. This means that humans
should treat others as ends-in-themselves rather than means to our ends. The major
strengths of Kantian ethics are the ability to capture the moral perception that some
things should not be done irrespective of their impact on overall utility, providing a
foundation for universal human rights, and not treating all preferences as equally
deserving moral weight. The main critiques of Kant’s ethics are that it is too
strict in the categorical prohibition of some actions irrespective of the situation,
it provides limited guidance in dilemmas and difficulty in interpreting formulations
of Categorical Imperative to ascertain the best course of action.
Considering the strengths and limitations of hedonistic utilitarianism and
preference utilitarianism, which one would you determine as better or more
superior. Give two reasons.
In your opinion, what is the major disadvantage of environmental cost–benefit
analysis? Can you come up with a better option?
9 Environmental Ethics
utilitarianism vies utility as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism is
associated with various strengths, including accounting for consequences being
important in ethics, being theoretically simple with a single prescription of
maximizing utility, bringing all values together on one scale for them to be
aggregated and weighed against each other, and easily leading to a decisionmaking procedure of cost–benefit analysis (CBA). This entails evaluating whether
the benefits outweigh the costs to determine whether the action is morally right or
wrong. However, utilitarianism faces criticism on many fronts, such as not directly
factoring in distribution, suffering epistemic issues because of the difficulty in
predicting all the impacts of a specific action, and issues with aggregating diverse
goods on one scale (Attfield 2014).
Regarding Kantian ethics and the environment, Kant argued that humans have
both a rational and animal nature, the animal nature acts as the source of our desires,
but humans remain special since they possess reason and can think rationally. Kant
believes in one major moral principle called Categorical Imperative. According to
the Categorical Imperative, each individual should act on universalized principles
or the principles that can be rationally and universally accepted. Consequently, it
forbids actions such as lying, cheating, or making false promises (universal law
formula) (Bowie 2017). The Categorical Imperative Humanity Formula, on the
other hand, states that each individual should respect others and act in ways that
appreciate other people as autonomous and rational beings. This means that humans
should treat others as ends-in-themselves rather than means to our ends. The major
strengths of Kantian ethics are the ability to capture the moral perception that some
things should not be done irrespective of their impact on overall utility, providing a
foundation for universal human rights, and not treating all preferences as equally
deserving moral weight. The main critiques of Kant’s ethics are that it is too
strict in the categorical prohibition of some actions irrespective of the situation,
it provides limited guidance in dilemmas and difficulty in interpreting formulations
of Categorical Imperative to ascertain the best course of action.
Considering the strengths and limitations of hedonistic utilitarianism and
preference utilitarianism, which one would you determine as better or more
superior. Give two reasons.
In your opinion, what is the major disadvantage of environmental cost–benefit
analysis? Can you come up with a better option?