October, 20, 2014
In this assignment the theory that was chosen will be the utilitarian that applies to our respecting the environment. The utilitarian theory is that of J. S. Mills and environmental ethics. Utilitarian supports the position is that human interests are no more important or if no greater moral concern than the interests of the worth or their intrinsic value. “Utilitarianism has a two part theory there is the theory of good and the theory of right which compasses the greatest good is happiness and the freedom from pain. Holistic ethics acknowledges that we have duties to humans, holistic ethics place the good of the whole such as community, state, government etc. Ahead of the welfare of individuals, species, and environment” (Wolff, 2008 p. 10). Meaning that the acts that will promote the greatest good or the (principle of utility) are morally right and acts that reduces happiness and/or acts that promotes pain is morally wrong. We have to respect our environment for the future generations to come. Theory Explanation
The basic principle of Mills utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle an action is right insofar as it maximize general utility that Mill identifies with happiness his goal is to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals (Mills, ). Mills defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Mills argues that pleasure can differ in differ in quality and quantity and pleasure are either higher or lower. He further goes to explain that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility (principle of unity), that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. “Utilitarianism offers a very straightforward and direct way to evaluate behavior. When given a choice between two acts, utilitarianism states that the act that should be done is the one that creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Philosophers (and economists) often use the term wisely to express this quality utility is the satisfaction one gets from something” as quoted by (Mosser, 2014). Application
We owe it our future generations of people that we are not to undermine their opportunities for human and sentient life. People do have human worth and rights and our actions will undermine their opportunities for living, we wrong them with our actions that hinders there today or tomorrow. The basic question would be whether we have a moral duty to all of the future and what sacrifices are morally required of us? Would be to conserve, preserve, protect and most of all to recycle. “To express the theory through the weak sense entails saying that some action, the unavoidable ones are neutral, that is neither right-or-wrong; in the strong sense is to say that every action is either-right-or-wrong and that everything that is not an action is neutral morally” (Brounaugh, Jan., 1975 p. 175). Objection
The objection is whether we as humans have a duty to humans as well as all sentient species, “today we have become... aware to all future generations a right to a fair share of non-renewable resources [that] out destruction of the environment eventually has serious impacts upon the quality of life in the future. Moral duties to future people therefore contribute to the justification of conservationist environmental policies relatig to various aspects of culture” (Saugstad, 1994). In concluding utilitarianism is a two part theory, theory of good and the theory of the right. Which compasses that the greatest good is happiness and the freedom from pain and suffering. The acts that will promote the greatest good or the (principle of utility) are morally right and acts that reduces happiness and/or acts that promotes pain is morally wrong and that not all environmental ethics...
References: Bronaugh, R. (Jan., 1975), Utilitarianism alternative.
Saugstad, J. (June, 17, 1994). Do we have a moral responsibility towards future
Generations of people?
Please join StudyMode to read the full document