Download Ethical Theory and Environment - III Lecture #5 Major Ethical

Ethical Theory and Environment - III
Major Ethical Theories
Reading Assignment:
Lecture #5
Environmental Ethics, Chapter 2, pp. 17-29
Study Outline: Use or modify /expand outline as necessary, based on your approach the reading.
Emphasis:
I.
Highlights of three major ethical theories, natural law, deontological ethics, and
utilitarianism are addressed.
Natural Law Ethics
A. Claims:
1. Nature itself has purpose, or telos, which is discoverable
2. Each part of nature (e.g mineral, biological) has a function and purpose; Agood@
exists when it is allowed to function toward fulfilling its role or purpose B i.e. allowed
to be what it was designed (purpose) to accomplish (end)
3. Structure and mechanism is not separable from its (ethically good) purpose or end
A. Historical Roots
1.
Aristotle (350 BC) B his Science and Ethics were integrated B because his Abiology@
integrated each of the following Acauses@:
a. Material cause - the substance or material (e.g. marble; organic molecules)
b. Formal cause - the idea existing behind the form (mental blueprint, genome)
c. Efficient cause - the agent that brings it to being (sculptor; genetic system)
d. Final cause - discernable purpose(telos) or end to which it points; built within it!!
Teleology (telos = end, or final purpose (function) for which it was designed)
Aristotle’s three fundamental activities of life:
____________________
____________________
_______________________
Question: How does Aristotle=s teleological approach integrate factual claims about
living organisms and ethical values?
2.
Thomas Aquinas (1250 AD) B synthesis of Aristotelian philosophy and Christian
theology:
a.
b.
c.
God=s plan in nature is expressed in the laws discovered by Greek philosophers
As science uncovers the telos of created things we can discover God=s purpose
Laws of nature reveal basis for descriptive and normative ethical behavior, which
we ought to follow B fulfillment of our natural potential (or Agood@) in harmony
with the natural world.
5.2
II. Utilitarianism
A. Claims:
1. An act is right if it=s consequences cause the greater good; or greatest good for greatest
number
2. All acts judged by their usefulness (utility) in producing good consequences
3. Two elements: a) establish intrinsic value (e.g. happiness) or instrumental value, then
b) judge value of all acts or things by how well they serve to achieve that value
4. Two versions: Good is either Apleasure over pain@ or Ahappiness by satisfaction of
desires@
B. Objections
1. Cannot define the Agood@ in an objective sense (indep. of human interests) or universal
sense (for all people at all times). How do we measure Agood@ or intrinsic value?
2. It follows that if Agood@ cannot be measured, to substitute other measures B e.g.
mortality rate, per capita costs, Acost-benefit analysis@ (tends toward utilitarian)
3. What is the Ascope@ of the Agood?@ e.g. for what vicinity? for how many generations
4. Is it right to ethically separate the act from consequences? e.g. just because extracting
a resource from a formerly natural area brings prosperity doesn=t excuse potential
moral wrongness of eliminating a species (e.g. spotted owl)
C. Applications or Expressions in Environmental Ethics:
1.
Environmental debates (and public policy decisions) are often framed by this ethic
2. Market-based policy decisions are based on maximizing overall happines (Ch. 3)
3. Suffering of animals (if have moral standing) must be included in judging
consequences
III. RuleBBased Ethics (Deontological) versus Virtue Ethics
A. Claims:
1. An act is right if it fulfills duty and respects rights in situations that we can control
or in which we have freely reasoned and chosen (intended) our actions to occur
2. One is not held responsible for consequences he/she can=t control (unlike utilitarian)
3. Immanuel Kant=s categorical imperative B act is right if all rational beings everywhere
would find it acceptable B i.e. a Auniversal maxim@
4. Treat people as rational, autonomous beings who have their own purposes and rights
B. Objections
1. Tension between utilitarian (right depends on consequences and may involve choice in
which rights of individual must be set aside in favor of the greater good.
> Example: Right of property owner may have to be secondary to flood control for a
city or for habitat for an endangered species
2. No account of what is good, valuable, or worthy B
> Example: A hermit could live autonomously and be very unethical without bad
consequences to others
3.
ARights seekers@ can take advantage of this ethic and simply legitimize Awants@
4. What about the nonrational beings which, by definition, would seem to viewed simply
as Aends@ w/o moral standing
5.3
C. Applications or Expressions in Environmental Ethics:
Deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics are seen as potential balancers in our
contemporary society in which democratic rule of the majority reflects utilitarian and must
be balanced with constitutional provision for the rights of the individual.
D. Virtue Ethics
1.
Emphasis: Doing (actions) versus Virtues (being; character)
2.
Virtues include courage, moderation, modesty, faithfulness, hopefulness, agape love
3.
Question: Suppose you have the option of either driving or bicycling to work.
Explain the motivation(s) of each ethic and the benefits of right doing that are realized
in each.
IV. Contemporary Perspectives on Teleology
Questions to Consider:
A. How does natural law ethics fare in the midst of contemporary thought?
B.
1.
Supports environmental and ecological claims that the "natural order" of ecosystems is
good, has purpose, and functions well if it is not disturbed by humans '
"Preservationists"
2.
Species level - every living thing has value in itself
3.
Objections to Natural Law:
a.
From Philosophers - "How can we know the telos of a human or an owl?"
b.
From Science (naturalistic) B moral (normative) claims cannot be inferred from
scientific
Claim: There "is<>ought" or "fact<>value" gap - derived from David Hume
c.
From Evolution - random mutations + selection produces change over time
Undirected natural processes do not function with an end (purpose) in
view. Instead, science should look backward to see Acause@
What applications of natural law ethics fit your approach to science and ethics?
1.
Allows for design and purpose in nature; consistent with Creation and His revelation
through Scripture (Thomas Aquinas)
2
If "evolution" mindset rejects "Natural Law" ethic, then how does it replace this ethic
with one that justifies caring for a natural world with its supposed purposeless?
5.4
III. Application Exercise:
Efforts to extend legal protection from humans alone to plant and animal species led to legislation in
the 1970's to protect the air, water, and endangered species. Below are listed summaries of the
typical arguments for extending this protection, each based upon one of the three major ethical
theories. Assign each argument to the ethical theory upon which it rests and then explain how the
claim(s) of each ethical theory are expressed in the rhetoric.
Argument #1: We need to conserve other species because they will be necessary for food, fiber,
medicinal benefits in the future
Argument #2: The consequences of species loss (e.g. in the Gulf via hypoxia) may have to be borne
in order that economic conditions of the Mississippi River communities continue to support the
residents via farming, etc.
Argument #3: According to Genesis, it is part of human responsibility to care for the Earth and the
creatures and therefore we must not destroy their habitats which provide the life support for them.
Argument #4: Living organisms may be viewed as part of an ordered system, or biotic community,
and the predictable interdependence within the community demands that we value and manage them
in such a way that the organisms and the whole can function as it was intended to function.
Argument #5: Biotic communities should be the focus of conservation efforts because it is within
these communities that each species has evolved and will continue to evolve by random mutation and
natural selection.