While anthropocentric perspectives are very detailed and took great consideration they have shortcomings. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states, the best action is the one that maximizes utility. Taking this approach thinking about consequences is how one would make decisions. That the right option for actions are the ones that give the most overall happiness. The consequences of our actions are important, they do matter, however, having a utilitarian viewpoint means that only consequences matter. The shortcoming with utilitarianism comes into play when dealing with justice. According to utilitarianism, someone who is not guilty can be accused of a crime they did not commit on the basis that it is better for the rest of the environment. …show more content…
Environmental ethical approaches are the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral relationship of human beings too, and also the value and moral status of, the environment and its non-human contents. To my understanding Beyond Anthropocentrism is interested in how getting ideas for how we should extend moral standings to nonhumans, and cannot agree on which nonhumans should have intrinsic value to be included in our morals. So, I am here to help the student group move beyond anthropocentrism. Personally, I believe that the less complex the viewpoint is,the better. The two approaches that I find least complex are sentiocentrism and relational …show more content…
Rolston’s intrinsic value has a larger set, which includes other species, ecosystems, and the biosphere. Rolston’s view are radically the opposite of Singers. This way of thinking is called ecocentrism. Ecocentrism is very complex, decisions are rationed for the best interest for the environment. Moreover, ecological concerns are central with this approach, holesticly it sees little importance in individuals; ecocentrists are concerned only with how individuals influence ecosystems as a whole. Humans have a responsibility to all biological life because humans are able to perceive form thoughts, and are the most consuming. Human’s action towards the ecosystem is the most threatening. Since, the eco system is such a huge provide for humans, humans mean less to them than they mean to them. Living beings are just a small part of a biosphere. Many people suggest that this approach is too demanding for it to be an ethics practice. The responsibility that this would require for humans is just not realistic. Understanding how to live without harming other living being is a lot to ask
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
Onora O’Neill in her text “Environmental values, Anthropocentrism and Speciesism” discusses first different views that give humans an ethic through two utilitarian thinkers (Bentham and Mill), and then in her turn tries to come up with an ethic that protects the animals and the environment by also protecting humans.
Utilitarianism concerns itself with promoting the best outcomes for the greatest numbers in order to be ethically acceptable, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach which aims at results of actions regardless of how they are carried out. Utilitarian monsters, a term coined by R. Nozick, are those who “get enormously greater gains in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose. For, unacceptably, the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility”.(The Utility Monster, 2011)
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
This essay seeks to apply the ideas of Punishment and Utilitarianism to the speech made by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations on behalf of the Vietnam War veterans. The normative idea of utilitarianism purports that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”, thus it is submitted that firstly utilitarianism focuses on the subjective pleasures, satisfactions, or preferences of the actor and secondly, it requires the aggregation of all of the subjective goods of individuals and it considers as best the outcome in which the total of individual satisfactions is maximized. The speech delivered by John Kerry brings to the fore issues regarding the various moral implications and the utility of the actions of the American soldiers during the war. This essay examines whether the a utilitarian view of the defence of torture and punishment inflicted by the American soldiers in the Vietnam War provides a viable argument for justifying torture on those grounds. The speech by Kerry raises important issues which criticise a utilitarian view of the war by claiming that it ignores the core value of justice and retribution. The essay shall first detail the concept of Utilitarianism and shall then proceed to describe the role it plays in assigning penal sanctions, concluding with an analysis of both these concepts within the context of Kerry’s speech.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
An ethical dilemma that Industrial Engineers are often faced with is attempting to balance costs with quality and safety. Industrial systems engineers are pressured by company management to design processes that are cost efficient, time constrained, and produce a high quality output. This puts the engineer in a tricky balancing act in which they are trying to make every stakeholder happy. Taking risks in order to create cost efficient solutions is not specific to only industrial engineers, but applies to all disciplines of engineering, making this topic a relevant discussion. However, this conflict is especially true in a manufacturing setting where industrial engineers thrive, machine operators are often overworked, products are made in high
Ecological theories and environmental ethics are reciprocally and dynamically linked. Inquiry into this thesis can provide epistemological and ethical insights for ecologists and environmental philosophers. First, for ecologists it clarifies that environmental ethics is not purely a normative corpus that we should adopt under the pressure of an environmental crisis. Ethical conceptions participate in the genesis and evaluation of ecological theories. Second, environmental philosophers have tended to focus on how ecological sciences could inform environmental ethics. I emphasize, in turn, that it is valuable to analyze and to discuss how ethical conceptions can and do inform ecological sciences.
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.