Watch me feel.
Watch me find beauty in everything.
I am human.
I can only be.
I can live or die but always be.
I am human.
Watch me kill.
I am a predator at my own will.
I am human.
But what am I?
Am I good or evil or neither?
I am Human.
But what do I do?
I breathe and sleep and walk and run.
I consume and produce and create and dream.
But what am I?
In many aspects of society, the theory of utilitarianism is well sought after. The premise of always doing what is best for the greatest number resonates an especially honest exterior regarding utility virtues. However, relative to environmental problems, the theory does not always appropriately apply. With differences between contingency and non-contingency affecting the state of being of the environment, from a utilitarian perspective, it is nearly impossible to benefit the environment without precise “calculation” (Jamieson). Environmental issues revolve around preserving the environment and preventing as much devastation and excess use of natural resources on the planet as possible. Yet, with pleasure-seeking ways and a utilitarian approach, humanity benefits in the end much more so than the environment does. “We are cognitively and motivationally weak creatures, with a shortage of time, facts and benevolence.” (Jamieson 169)
As discussed by Dale Jamieson in “When Utilitarians Should Be Virtue Theorists”, rather than being an act-utilitarianism who is guided by the acts which bring about the most optimum outcome pertaining to their acts, instead one should be an indirect utilitarian, or one who focuses more so on “motives, maxims, polices, rules or traits” (Jamieson 168). This view point of how to handle environmental issues makes much more sense because the topic includes such things as endangered species and rainforests being cut down for housing developments and what not, and of course global warming “climate change, ozone depletion and mass extinctions.” (Jamieson 163) Another relevant problem is the fact that utilitarianism is usually the greatest good and happiness for the greatest number but centering on pleasure fulfillment. When dealing with environmental problems, pleasure is usually at the bottom of priorities and preservation at the top. If anything, utilitarianism promotes greed, over-consumption, draining resources dry for the here and now and other selfish qualities. “While Korsgaard castigates utilitarianism for its environmental obsessions, many environmental philosophers see utilitarianism as a doctrine that celebrates consumption rather than preservation.” (Jamieson 164) It is difficult to say what exactly is the right way to handle these situations but the greatest good for the greatest number is most certainly not it.
According to Jamieson, the difference between contingency and non-contingency circulates around the use of calculation versus that of behavioral virtues. With reference to the environment, clearly non-contingency would be a much more appropriate approach in terms of looking at environmental issues one case and a time and using virtuous considerations with each to make the best decision. “Non-contingency requires agents to act in ways that minimize their contributions to global environmental change, and specifies that acting in this way should generally not be contingent on an agent’s beliefs about the behavior of others.” (Jamieson 167) Contingency would prove to be most difficult when figuring out if an endangered species needs protection using a mathematical approach. “This should lead us to give up on calculation, and giving up on calculation should lead us to give up on contingency. Instead of looking to moral mathematics for practical solutions to large-scale collective action problems, we should focus instead on non-calculative generators of behavior: character traits, dispositions, emotions and what I shall call ‘virtues’.” (Jamieson 172)
Another lacking quality of utility is the aspect where it is the end that justifies the means. This should be understood as it does not matter what desolation you have to permit to reach your goal, as long as in the end you reach it. “Other environmental philosophers argue that utilitarianism cannot account for the value of biodiversity, ecosystems or endangered species, and go on to condemn the theory for ‘sentientism’ and ‘moral extensionism’. According to these critics, rather than presenting us with a new environmental ethic, utilitarianism is the theory that has brought us to the edge of destruction.” (Jamieson 164) This brings to question the idea of utility being a virtuous theory at all especially regarding environmental issues. “Utilitarianism is a universal emulator: it implies that we should lie, cheat, steal, even appropriate Aristotle, when that is what brings about the best outcomes.” (Jamieson 160) It is almost impossible to respond to this quote with a positive light in terms of the environment and its relating issues.
Utilitarianism is impractical when dealing with the environment; virtue ethics are much more accessible. In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. This view contradicts virtue ethics and deontological ethics. “Rather than beginning with the principle of utility and then demanding that people become gods or angels in order to adhere to it, they start from a picture of human psychology which they then bring to the principle.” (Jamieson 169) The theory of Utility expects everyone to make unfeeling decisions over issues that require compassion and empathy. Virtue ethics is a much more superior approach because it is, in essence, a case by case understanding and evaluation over environmental issues. “Non-complacency should lead a utilitarian to moral improvement in two ways. First, she should be sensitive to the fact that circumstances change. What is the best motivational set in an analog world may not be best in a digital one. Second, a utilitarian should constantly strive to shape his motivational set in such a way that his behavior is ever more responsive to particular situations.” (Jamieson 173)
Utilitarianism is an unrealistic approach to environmental issues. In terms of the environment and from a utilitarian view, when the end justifies the means it translates to evil acts on the planet are acceptable as long as everyone is happy in the end. The environment’s best interest is thrown aside as the greed of humanity is satisfied. “… human beings are transforming Earth in ways that are devastating for other forms of life, future human beings, and many of our human contemporaries.” (Jamieson 160) This direct opposition to virtue ethics is clear, as is not a virtuous path to what may seem to be a common goal and common good of society. The transfer of responsibility and moral obligation based on meeting the demands of society and constantly getting ahead, makes utilitarian an inferior approach to virtue ethics in regards to environmental issues.
Jamieson, Dale; When Utilitarians Should Be Virtue Theorists. Cambridge University Press. Utilitas Vol. 19, No. 2, June 2007
No comments:
Post a Comment