This week we tackled some broad ethical perspectives in the history environmentalism. For instance, consequentialism is where the ends justify the means and the goal to maximize the “good” for the greatest number. This approach is concerned with outcomes. For an extreme example, if the goal was to slow population growth, then very gruesome means could be “ethically” enacted to achieve this purpose. On the other hand there is nonconsequentialism, where the actions are fundamentally “ethical” or not. For instance, preserving basic human rights and making sure that human beings get enough to eat are “right” things to do, and if these actions lead to exponential population growth, so be it. Also among these traditions of ethics is virtuism, which emphasizes collective moral character.
Specifically regarding the environment, there are two competing anthropocentric ethical traditions that came to the forefront in the 19th century. Conservationism is a utilitarian approach, promoting efficient USE of nature and resources so that they can last longer for human benefit. Preservationism regards nature as a “sanctuary for human inspiration” in which natural areas should be left untrodden and sublime for humans to experience leisurely and should be protected from harvesting and industrial use.
The dilemma with these ethical traditions is that I agree with ALL of them. We “should” try to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number, but also we should act ethically. I believe that the “means” and the “ends ” matter, and they matter nearly equally. When the ethics of means are ignored, drastic unintended consequences might abound, but when the ends are ignored, nothing gets resolved. I think that we should preserve AND conserve. I want the San Franciscans to get their water AND visit the Hetch Hetchy Valley. There is really a cost-benefit exchange and I think economics plays a huge tole in the debate between conservationism and preservationsism because there are giant opportunity costs both ways.