31
3.2.1 The Ethics and Values
Economists use preferences as the normative criteria in studies dealing with an individual’s choice between alternatives. In that way, a decision is determined by individual preferences. In analysing policy choices, we assess the normative criteria
from some ethical position. The ethical basis for economics is utilitarianism, which
is the principle of assessing the values (moral correctness of an action) where utility
refers to the balance of pleasure and pain of an individual. Pleasure increases the
utility of an individual and, vice versa, pain reduces it. The entire utility of individuals is known as welfare. Normative economics does take account only of the utilities
of human beings.
Common and Stagl (2005) stated that there is no difference at all between ecological economics and neoclassical economics – both are anthropocentric, as well
as utilitarian. For many environmentalists, especially deep ecologists, this is unacceptable and arrogant because it denies other living things any intrinsic value,
namely, any value outside of their value to humans (Beder 2011). Beside of purely
ecocentric or biocentric aimed academics dealing with consequences of human economic activity, there are world authorities that strongly emphasise not only environmental (crisis of climate change) but also social (poverty) issues caused by modern
culture’s anthropocentrism (Francis and Bartholomew 2017). Explained simply by
Pope Benedict (2009) – when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society – environmental ecology also benefits.
There are some differences between ecological economics and neoclassical economics in the way that human pleasure/pain is to be measured. Neoclassical economics considers each human individual to be the sole judge where the change of
its utility is measured only in terms of the preferences. These preferences are taken
as a given, bearing in mind consumer sovereignty is not subject to any moral evaluation. Ecological economics does not treat individual preferences as sovereign or as
the only source of normative criteria (Common and Stagl 2005).
Carroll (2016) claims that the environment and environmental issues are both
moral and spiritual issues. He argues that defining environmental questions in this
way is not new but dates back at least to the philosophical writings of Aldo Leopold
in the United States and his famous ‘land ethic’ essay, published in 1948. Leopold
(1949) worked out a new approach towards the value of nature which could be
called (for now) neo-anthropocentrism, where nature not only has value for man but
also for its own value (Androvičová and Rácz 2017).
Mainstream economists take a very specific view of the term ‘value’, which
relates to the exchange value of a commodity rather than any broader concept that
might include aesthetic, spiritual and ethical dimensions. When environmental
economists speak of valuing the environment, they mean giving it a market price
based on supply and demand and individual preferences (Beder 2011). Neoclassical
economists do not concern themselves with moral, political and ethical concerns
because they assume that the market is an ethical system and that political decisions
should be made separately. They dismiss the idea that aggregating costs and benefits
3 Economic Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship
3.2.1 The Ethics and Values
Economists use preferences as the normative criteria in studies dealing with an individual’s choice between alternatives. In that way, a decision is determined by individual preferences. In analysing policy choices, we assess the normative criteria
from some ethical position. The ethical basis for economics is utilitarianism, which
is the principle of assessing the values (moral correctness of an action) where utility
refers to the balance of pleasure and pain of an individual. Pleasure increases the
utility of an individual and, vice versa, pain reduces it. The entire utility of individuals is known as welfare. Normative economics does take account only of the utilities
of human beings.
Common and Stagl (2005) stated that there is no difference at all between ecological economics and neoclassical economics – both are anthropocentric, as well
as utilitarian. For many environmentalists, especially deep ecologists, this is unacceptable and arrogant because it denies other living things any intrinsic value,
namely, any value outside of their value to humans (Beder 2011). Beside of purely
ecocentric or biocentric aimed academics dealing with consequences of human economic activity, there are world authorities that strongly emphasise not only environmental (crisis of climate change) but also social (poverty) issues caused by modern
culture’s anthropocentrism (Francis and Bartholomew 2017). Explained simply by
Pope Benedict (2009) – when ‘human ecology’ is respected within society – environmental ecology also benefits.
There are some differences between ecological economics and neoclassical economics in the way that human pleasure/pain is to be measured. Neoclassical economics considers each human individual to be the sole judge where the change of
its utility is measured only in terms of the preferences. These preferences are taken
as a given, bearing in mind consumer sovereignty is not subject to any moral evaluation. Ecological economics does not treat individual preferences as sovereign or as
the only source of normative criteria (Common and Stagl 2005).
Carroll (2016) claims that the environment and environmental issues are both
moral and spiritual issues. He argues that defining environmental questions in this
way is not new but dates back at least to the philosophical writings of Aldo Leopold
in the United States and his famous ‘land ethic’ essay, published in 1948. Leopold
(1949) worked out a new approach towards the value of nature which could be
called (for now) neo-anthropocentrism, where nature not only has value for man but
also for its own value (Androvičová and Rácz 2017).
Mainstream economists take a very specific view of the term ‘value’, which
relates to the exchange value of a commodity rather than any broader concept that
might include aesthetic, spiritual and ethical dimensions. When environmental
economists speak of valuing the environment, they mean giving it a market price
based on supply and demand and individual preferences (Beder 2011). Neoclassical
economists do not concern themselves with moral, political and ethical concerns
because they assume that the market is an ethical system and that political decisions
should be made separately. They dismiss the idea that aggregating costs and benefits
3 Economic Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship