Does utilitarianism provide an appropriate standard against which to judge environmental protection policies?
Utilitarianism belongs to the family of consequentialists which branches from ethical doctrine embedded in the consequences and outcomes of an action to judge the action being taken, rather than an agent’s initial intentions. The utilitarian theory was originally developed by the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) who believed that the only way to maximize an actor’s level of well-being or utility, which is similarly likened to happiness, is to act out “the greatest good for the greatest number.” (Bentham, 1907). The theory is based on the premise that, an act is considered to be morally good if its consequences result in an overall good for the majority and bad or unethical if it results in an overall bad. The theory focuses on the consequences of an act rather than the action itself. Today utilitarianism in the form of cost benefit analysis has become a key part of policy development and “served as the theoretical underpinning for wide-ranging environmental health policies” (Resnik et al., 2018, p.31) It is worth noting that, this paper is theoretical and for that reason it is impossible to discuss how the theory applies to all areas of environmental practices, however, what it does do is counteract the caricature of utilitarianism in theory by diminishing the negative attitudes directed towards this ethical principle, and why it is still widely accepted today.
According Simmonds, the common features of utilitarianism theory is; a) utilitarianism is monistic, in that it proposes one supreme principle (the principle of utility as governing all moral questions) b) its basic principle requires us to maximize a singular goal, even if this goal is created through different versions of utilitarianism c) it is a version of consequentialism where the claim that the moral rectitude of an action is a function of its expected consequences and lastly d) it is individualistic on the basis that it judges actions, laws and institutions by the impact upon the lives of individuals, even if a goal is a collective one, the degree to which it is accepted is to the extent that positive consequences are apparent in the individuals lives. (Simmonds, 2013)
The singular goal referred to, for classical utilitarianism was to maximize “happiness” which was known as a hedonic state. Bentham argued that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. They alone point out what we ought to do and determine what we shall do;” (Bentham, 1987, p.6) It was later that Mills extended these sovereign masters, where he argued that the nature of pleasure has a role to play in how agents perceive their preferences and desires. He claimed that utility is not just pleasure and pain alone but can also be recognised in terms of the quality and intensity. He explored utilitarianism further making the claim that as agents we not only to consider the quantity but also the quality of our choices, for example: “a person may prefer to maintain a sense of dignity even when this leads to a loss of overall pleasure”[1] (O’Neill, J., Holland A., & Light A., 2008, p.19) This line of thinking has become predominant in recent debates where theorists have perceived utilitarianism discussion not always a matter of right or wrong but the satisfaction of preferences and desires as the ultimate goal to be maximized. Given the multidimensional debate, the arguments that will be discussed will be dependent on the choice of terminology as to whether an agent adopts preferences, well-being or happiness at the utilitarian indicator.
In relation to environmental protection, one of the most constant things in life is change. Following the rapid growth of economic activity in the last few centuries due to industrialization and subsequent rise in urbanization, the interaction between human progress and the environment has increased more than four times in the last century.[2] The need for environmental protection has become an increasing concern as a result of human activity and the use of natural resources comes at a cost. Meanwhile, governments through environmental protection agencies have over the years embraced the concerns raised by various parties by creating and implementing numerous rules and regulations aimed at protecting and preserving the environment. However, these regulations have also been noted to limit the liberty of the citizens they are supposed to protect. For instance, in the United States, liberal politicians have argued that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has over-expanded its policies and now threatens the liberty of citizens due to regulatory restrictions that affect economic freedom and access to the free market. As such, although the environmental protection policies have generally attempted to reduce the economic impact on the environment towards ensuring the safety of all, the current environmental protection approaches seem to cause many problems.
For example, in 2015, the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019) lowered the air quality standards for “ozone from 0.075 ppm to 0.070 ppm” as a means of promoting public health and providing additional protection for children and those with asthma (Reitze, 2015, p.1). The agency noted that lowering the ozone standards would result in “numerous benefits that would outweigh the costs”, due to the reduced costs of health and improved air quality.[3] (Reitze, 2015, p. 3) From a utilitarian perspective, one would argue that the lowering of ozone standards by the EPA was justified since it was not only an effective way of protecting the health of children and susceptible populations, but it would also lead to significant reductions in healthcare expenditures. The justification of this argument is due to the fact that about 7.7 percent of the entire United States populations is asthmatic, with about 5 percent this population living with a severe form of the condition which indicates that they are more sensitive to the effects of ozone when compared to those with mild symptoms[4] (Resnik et al., 2018). With such a high prevalence of asthma, reduction of the ozone standard to 0.060 not only benefits those with asthma and other citizens such as family members, but it is also likely to result in a significant reduction of health costs.
Additionally, a 2009 report by the EPA revealed that lowering the ozone standard would cost businesses about “50 to 90 billion dollars annually by the year 2020”, while at the same time saving about “48 to 87 billion dollars per year” in healthcare costs based on a 7 percent discount rate [5](EPA, 2009, p. 4). However, as with other environmental policies, the for or against argument of the environmental policy is largely based on cost-benefit analysis and the expected benefits to the environment. As such, opponents of the 0.060 ozone standard have argued that the reduction will not lead to the EPA’s estimated annual savings in healthcare costs (Pyle, 2011)[6]. Studies examined showed the policy could force businesses to incur costs of up to one trillion dollars each year, in addition to more than “7.3 million” job losses (Resnik et al., 2018, p.8). These statistics indicates that while utilitarian focused on health aspects are likely to promote the policy, a utilitarian who accepts the veracity of industry economic estimates could argue that the EPA’s decision to lower the ozone standard to 0.060 is not justified because the economic costs far outweigh the public health benefits. The findings show that even though a utilitarian approach is effective in providing guidance during policy development, it does not in itself provide a mechanism through which ideological or methodological controversies can be resolved (Resnik et al., 2018, p.32)
What this example demonstrates is that cost benefit analysis comes in many variations and conventional cost benefit analysis is not favourable amongst agents who position themselves on ethical grounds. As E. J. Mishan defines it “in cost-benefit analysis we are concerned with the economy as a whole, with the welfare of a defined society, and not any smaller part of it”[7] (Mishan, 1976, p.11) but then what cost benefit analysis does is commit individuals to take responsibility for ones actions, even after identifying the various course of actions an agent can take, the basis in which ‘lower the ozone is not the correct one’ is determined by the assigned values to benefits and harms of any given result. In such examples, The United States’ Environmental Protection Agency has adopted the grounds of rule utilitarianism where “depending on the moral importance we attach to the right or duty involved, cost-benefit questions may, within wide ranges, become irrelevant to the outcome of the moral judgement.”[8] (Kelman, p.353)
The argument in support for the actions undertaken by Environmental Protection Agency is based on the Utilitarian theory which argues that an act is ethical if it results in the common good of the majority. Regardless of whether the decision to lower the ozone level standards will yield the expected results, reducing population is not necessarily the only common good sought after. Reducing the ozone layer standard will help reduce medical conditions reducing from air pollution. This will in turn promote better health for individuals and reduce the cost of offering quality medical care. Although the decision may have a negative impact on organizations required to maintain the standards, an overall good where people lead healthier lives as a result is likely to be the end result, thus making the decision morally correct.
On the other hand, Langlois[9] (1982) notes that one of the biggest weaknesses of cost-benefit analysis is the over-emphasis on social decision and social costs while ignoring the impact on established entities such as businesses whose interest also needs to be taken into consideration during policy development. In essence, environmental policy analysis based on utilitarian ethics tend to focus more on the population health and environmental protection as opposed to welfare of businesses, such as the EPA’s ozone policy. On the contrary, to make this assumption there has to be prior judgement to how to measure a person’s utility. This again, leads us back to the subjective element of the utilitarian debate. Cost benefit analysis is about weighing up costs and benefits, the process in itself does not presume everything is either a cost or a benefit. As Hubin pointed out “CBA itself does not make that decision for us. It is true by definition that to care about X is to have a preference regarding X, but we can care about X without thinking X is merely a preference. CBA assumes nothing about the nature of values, other than that they sometimes come into conflict and that no matter what we do, we will in effect be trading them off against each other.”[10]
In addition, utilitarianism seeks to achieve a common good for the majority, depending on the outcome. When determining the acceptable levels of emissions, a business is allowed, the decision is made with consideration to the business, regardless of the impact that the emissions have on the public and people in general. The limit set for emissions is intended to achieve a common good for all businesses and industries. Although the act of limiting businesses may inconvenience some organizations, it is ethically correct as it results in the overall benefit of the business. The controlled emissions protect the target audience from harmful emissions. Since the target audience are the future customers, maintaining good health favours the business as it ensures constant demand for goods and services. Businesses on the other hand continue to manufacture products and services, despite their activities causing harm to the environment and endangering people’s health. Under utilitarianism, the decision to allow some emissions favours the businesses and although damaging to the population, it achieves a common good as it creates employment and provides access to various goods and services. It is because of these and more reasons that cost benefit analysis is an unfalsifiable hypothesis, where weighing up moral ethics under an unspecified criterion, it is hard to define what is deemed as ethically incorrect.
Utilitarianism assumes that organizations or individuals given the responsibility to make decisions will do so based on the desire to achieve the common good and not on their personal preferences. State intervention is used as a safety measure to ensure that the market that exist favours not just businesses but also the consumer. State intervention however creates the problem of environmental goods becoming classified as public goods. Since utilitarianism operates on the basis of a common good, natural resources could end up being depleted because using them results in an overall good to the general public. This is especially the value of things, living and non-living is often determined by their usefulness to human beings.
One element of this dilemma is then, how do we maximize the satisfaction of people’s interests? As rule utilitarianism makes the claim that acts which conform to the general rule are those that should be promoted for the good of everyone, even if the consequences are not the best. (Winter 1989) How are we to know what is the common good for everyone? Making such decisions required two levels of moral thinking that have were initiated with Hare, when he argued that at a critical level moral agents are permitted to consider all the knowledge that would enable them to weigh up the costs and benefits of action’s that would satisfy the most people as well as achieving the best consequences, and then our intuitive level whereby we operate under normal conditions of ignorance towards the future and in moral education, by putting confidence in our simple principles that we believe will lead to the right actions. [11]The former of these two levels is used to select the principles that are adhered to in the second level. However, how do we demonstrate what is the correct decision to make and how do we know it’s the best decision? Is the ability to be able to reason and act as rational agents an intuitive process for human beings? For the consequentialist given any plausible account of doing the right thing it would be obvious what decision the agent should make, but then, the utilitarian would argue that if sacrificing one person’s life would save five others it is plausible to do so. Utilitarianism has been criticized on ethical grounds for encouraging the trolley problem, but there are constraints on what we can oblige an agent to do to realize certain goals.
Advocates such as Smith and Hayek argue that neo-classical notions of perfect competition that provides the basis for free market ideology and theorems of welfare economics, the nature of markets are reliant on the role of prices to signal information across agents and allows them to engage with these economic systems. Within welfare economics, cost-benefit analysis is demonstrated by applying dollar values to goods and services to measure how strong a person’s preference for that good or service is dependent on how much they are willing to pay for it. When it comes to environmental protectionist measures however it is hard to quantify the value of having pure water, cleaner air, noise pollution etc., therefore this is commonly accumulated by hedonic pricing methods where proxy goods in the market are indicators to estimate the price of that good. For example; property prices are in part a function of the quality of the surrounding environment, and comparisons are made by individual’s preferences to choosing a property next to an airport for instance or a similar property in a different location. Secondly, contingent valuation methods can demonstrate how much individuals are willing to pay as well as what they’d accept in compensation for its loss in the market.
The impartiality of the utilitarian theory indicates that even when a decision is able to benefit some, it also leads to a decrease in welfare for others. Even when we address the issues of information failure within the market, there is no way to define what is good for an individual in terms of their preference satisfaction. If utilitarianism is solely concerned with utilising an individual’s welfare, it isn’t enough to assume that satisfying a person’s preference is always going to benefit the individual. As a theory, utilitarian doesn’t take into account what if a person has pure intentions that led to negative consequences and vice versa? it isn’t enough to assume that satisfying a person’s preference is always a benefit to the individual’s concern, as Mills stated “while the fool and the pig may be satisfied with their lot, the life that employs the higher faculties is a better life for a human being” (source) Mill’s highlights a major criticism for utilitarianism, that in nature the theory is individualistic, and how are we able to decide that individuals know what achieves well-being.
` For this reason, Mill’s was an advocate for preferences that improve the welfare and satisfaction of fully informed agents, he argued for an intercessor that are able to make competent decisions that individuals are not able to make for themselves. That when decisions are too be made “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not...(one's) own happiness, but that of all concerned. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator.” Mill’s rule utilitarianism provided a leeway to incorporate social ethics into our moral principles by stating that rather any preference being maximized (Bentham’s approach) to only preferences that have good outcomes. However, the reliant on governments is to assume that an individual can be informed to make decisions and desire certain preferences that may not have been a subjective choice before-hand. To rely on the state is too assume that, we can be informed to make preferences not because we prefer them but because we believe they are good and ultimately lead to better outcomes. However, even if we knew to be the case it’s not guaranteed that the total utility of making such a choice would outweigh the costs needed to carry out that choice and secondly, an individual’s choices are still determined ultimately by their preferences.
It is impossible to specify general rules concerning forms of intervention due to the fact that the types of intervention depend upon value judgements. If utilitarianism is to justify environmental protectionist policies, it must be able to provide an adequate account of the parties whose interests are relevant. Utilitarianism doesn’t provide an answer to environmental problems, what is does it create preconceptions of what we should think about markets and what we should think about states. As Bentham noted “if that party be the community in general, then the happiness of the community: if an individual. Then the happiness of that individual.”[12] However, this doesn’t solve the situation where conflict lies, all it does is make us aware that there are two kinds of interests at work.
Meanwhile, environmentalists have argued that utilitarianism worldviews are often anthropocentric, however by focusing on humans for the majority of this essay, it has highlighted that the nature of human beings makes reasoning a very contestable approach. Economics alone doesn’t offer us solutions because it hashes out the argument for environmental practices from a different view point, but ethics engages us to think about risks and distribution. As noted, it is often recognized that the value of environmental goods, animals and plants are dependent upon their relation to the important of human beings. However Singer has been influential in directing his attention to the obligation that utilitarianism has a duty to apply to both humans and all living things that make up the natural world. He stated that “if pleasure and the absence of pain are what matters in moral evaluation, it would be speciest to rule that the pleasure and pain of non-human animals is unworthy of moral consideration.” (p.27) However, many of Singer’s claims are from a utilitarian point of view, A deontologist would argue that animals with intrinsic value have rights to respectful treatment which in turn generates the moral value on our part as human beings to ensure that we treat animals with respect (Taylor, 1981).
The major limitation for utilitarianism when determining how to go about setting policies to govern trade-offs has to do with the fact that the theory only considers human’s happiness. This is despite the fact that human activity can have serious consequences to the environment and all life on it. The common good that utilitarianism tries to achieve is assessed in relation to what brings human beings happiness. It however fails to consider how something that creates an overall good for human can have negative repercussions for other living things. Take the case of the restrictions on carbon emissions for instance. The levels set are agreed upon by assessing what emissions can be released without causing harm to human beings. The happiness of humans supersedes that of animals and plants as the common good sought after is one that favours humans. When the harmful gases are released to the environment however, animals and plants are affected just as much as human beings. The melting ice caps destroy animal habitat among other repercussions arising from a utilitarian theory that only considers humans.
The interest of animals and other living things should count just as much as that for human beings. Other than assessing how the consequences will affect human beings, the overall good should factor in the needs of animals, plans and other nun-human things that exist and could be affected as a result. When seeking an overall good, the utilitarian approach should then factor how carbon emissions will affect marine life, plans on land and other animals, as well as human beings. Such a decision would however take up too much time or contain too many variables to be implemented practically. As such, utilitarianism is not always about achieving a common good, but rather, the perceived idea of what is a common good. The end results are not always a reflection of the best decision or action that could have been undertaken, but rather a reflection of what people in society consider to be good and acceptable.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, consequentialisms, deontology and virtues ethics highlights the incompatible positions in how to deal with environmental protectionists policies within the market. It is evident today that there is no infallible theory of the ethics for resource allocation, but this essay has aimed to highlight the nature of utilitarianism with brief comparisons with the deontological approach whose scope is beyond this essay. To date, there is no infallible theory of the ethics to determine resource allocation, and given the ambiguous of individual in a rapidly changing environment, there is no simple answer to managing agency between them and the state – “when principles conflict, it becomes necessary to balance competing concerns. There is no correct way of achieving this balance. Moreover, there is no consensus on how the different principles ought to be weighted, or on what weight should be given to the goal of maximizing health compared to other social goods such as education and environmental protection.”
Nonetheless, utilitarianism is considered justifiable as it is demonstrating the strongest claim for the most intuitive ethical standard, if we are utility maximisers whose decisions are based on welfare, then “efficiency in promoting human life is itself a valid ethical standard, and that alternative formal ethical approaches, as well as everyday ethical intuitions, present their own problems when applied to real world situations.” At some point we draw the line, make a decision, and get on with our lives, realizing that any real-world decision procedure inevitably will be of limited value. The problem of resource allocation and trade-off’s will be apparent for as long as incommensurable goods are able to be made commensurable within the world, and for this reason utilitarianism in most cases will be the most reliable resolution for those trade-offs.
Bibliography:
Bentham, J., 1907, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Retrieved 5/24/2020 from the World Wide Web: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/278
Resnik, D. B., MacDougall, D. R., & Smith, E. M., 2018, ‘Ethical dilemmas in protecting susceptible subpopulations from environmental health risks: Liberty, utility, fairness, and accountability for reasonableness’. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(3), pp.29-41.
Simmonds, E, N., 2013, “Central Issues in Jurisprudence: Justice, Law and Rights,” (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 2013) pp. 18–19
Bentham, J., 1987, “An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation” in Bennett J., 2017 (ed.) p.1-153
[1] John O’Neill, Alan Holland and Andrew Light
[2] FIND SOURCE FOR THIS
[3] Reitze Jr, A. W. (2015). ‘The National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone’. Ariz. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y, 6, pp.420.
[4] Resnik, D. B., MacDougall, D. R., & Smith, E. M. (2018). ‘Ethical dilemmas in protecting susceptible subpopulations from environmental health risks: Liberty, utility, fairness, and accountability for reasonableness’. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(3), pp.29-41.
[5] Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Summary of the updated regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 2009. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_summary11-5-09.pdf
[6] Pyle, T. (2011). EPA’s proposed ozone regulation could cost $1 trillion. US News and World Report. 2011 Aug 25; Available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/08/25/epas-proposed-ozone-regulation-could-cost-1-trillion
[7] Mishan, E. J., 1976, “Elements of Cost-Benefit Analysis,” 2nd ed., London: George Allen & Unwin.
[8] Cost benefit analysis: An ethical critique: Steven Kelman
[9] Langlois, R. N. (1982). ‘Cost-benefit analysis, environmentalism, and rights’. Cato J., 2, pp.279.
- [10] Hubin 1994, p. 172n
- Hubin, Donald C. 1994 “The Moral Justification of Benefit0Cost Analysis,” Economics and Philosophy 10 pp. 169–94 .
[11] HARE FIND A SOURCE
[12] BENTHAM, FIND A SOURCE – this is in the paid essay
