StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Environmental Ethics - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This paper 'Environmental Ethics' tells that The ideas of Freeman and Kalman about cost-benefit analysis are largely similar, except for a few differences that will be discussed next. In general, Freeman argues that the objectives of environmental policy can be founded on economic productivity…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER96.6% of users find it useful
Environmental Ethics
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Environmental Ethics"

Environmental Ethics Question The ideas of Freeman and Kelman about cost-benefit analysis are largely similar, except for a few differences that will be discussed next. In general, Freeman argues that the objectives of environmental policy can be founded on economic productivity or appropriate cost-benefit analysis, or on several other objectives, like attainment of technologically viable extent of emissions regulation, human health protection, and security. Both Freeman and Kelman state that, unless an environmental development can be linked to quantifiable cost and benefit, it could not be considered as an economic representation of an ethical cost-benefit analysis. Both Freeman and Kelman believe that economic productivity in the field of environmental regulation necessitates that the minor benefit of environmental development in each aspect be evaluated against its minor cost. Both authors have provided different categories of costs and benefits obtained from ecosystems, and more universal environmental principles. However, Steve Kelman does not agree with Freeman’s argument that cost-benefit analysis can be related to objectives mentioned above (e.g. human health protection, security, etc.). According to Kelman, regulatory judgments concerning the environment, security, and health are moral issues, and hence analysis of cost and benefit is improper since it necessitates the implementation of a poor moral mechanism. Kelman strengthens his position with several illustrations, majority of which concern individual or private judgments. He claims, in these circumstances, supporters of cost-benefit analysis, like Freeman, should abandon any moral doubts about human rights violation, deception, and corruption. These arguments about cost-benefit analysis can be used in addressing the poor food manufacturing process of fast-food companies, as discussed by Eric Schlosser. In his article, Schlosser gives a series of accusations against the unethical practices and processes of fast-food companies, such as refusal to give medical privileges, creating modern-day slavery, aggressive marketing to gullible children; these are the strategies employed by fast-food companies to maintain high profitability. Given this, and an idea of the arguments of Freeman and Kelman, cost-benefit analysis in this case may or may not be appropriate. Using the similar premises of Freeman and Kelman, cost-benefit analysis may be appropriate in determining how fast-food companies have powerfully changed the agricultural sector of industrialized nations, such as the United States. These fast-food companies, like McDonald’s, have generated marginal benefits to agriculture by centralizing production. However, because of this production consolidation, farmers and small enterprises are vanishing. There are also drastic alterations in animal domestication and food production which caused spates of food-related diseases, like the foot-and-mouth disease, mad cow, bird flu, and others. This situation, according to the arguments of Freeman and Kelman, may be subjected to cost-benefit analysis because of the nature of its effect to environmental policy. However, in terms of actual threats to human health, in accordance to Kelman’s arguments against the moral deficit of cost-benefit analysis, the case of poor food production practices is unviable. The unethical way fast-food companies conceal to the public the actual health perils of their products substantiate Kelman’s argument. Furthermore, the industry of meat packing even benefits more from government protection or immunity. Question 2 According to Christopher Stone, corporations should not be socially responsible because they are inherently irresponsible. The primary justification Stone provided is that nobody, from the ordinary citizen to large organizations, has a basic idea of the nature and requirement of corporate responsibility. In order to develop a model of his argument, Stone raises fundamental issues and thoroughly strives to address these issues himself. Some of the issues are the identification of the corporate problem, the nature of big businesses, and the needed regulations to have power over corporate behavior and reduce unfavorable impacts of the absence of corporate responsibility. Stone presents indefinite explanations of these issues. Stone, in trying to come up with feasible values and ideals, vigilantly balances objectives, operations, and nature of organizations with the norms, principles, and demands of society. Although he recognizes that the law serves an important and somewhat powerful function in stirring up corporate responsibility, he refers to the more significant argument that the law single-handedly can by no means build the basic foundation of corporate responsibility. The primary explanation for this point is that the law is largely imprudent. In the trade and commerce sector, policymakers are constantly formulating new regulations with regard to new circumstances or state of affairs which take place. Government bureaus are constantly amending their policies. Even the market cannot guarantee corporate responsibility by supporting businesses which are observed to operate conscientiously. Stone’s argument about corporate social responsibility can be used to strengthen Freeman’s economic approach to environmental ethics. According to Freeman, in the point of view an economist, the ecological system is a limited asset which improves human wellbeing. The environment’s economic difficulty is a minor portion of the general economic crisis, that is, how to organize or handle human affairs in order to satisfy people’s physical or material requirements and demands even with paucity. Every resource that is important to human beings should have the capacity to be traded and purchased in markets. Hence, for instance, if the food chain is regarded as an input to a mechanism of production, it evidently requires abandonment of social responsibility, necessitating even more thorough knowledge of underlying components in intricate ecological processes. Stone’s argument could also strengthen Shrader-Frechette’s statement about academics’ environmental advocacy. It is primarily the issue of objectivity that has to be evaluated against Stone’s account of social responsibility. Shrader-Frechette talks about the notion that objectivity is not attained by a neutral stance, or in Stone’s terms, ‘acting responsibly’. It is neutrality, according to Shrader-Frechette (1994), that has to be evaluated against the idea of advocacy. She states that environmental advocacy is “taking a stand on a specific, practical issue and defending that stance as rational and ethical rather than merely pointing out the assets and liabilities of alternative positions, rather than merely maintaining a stance of informed neutrality” (p. 179-180). Hence, objectivity stipulates that, as academics, they should refrain from ‘acting responsibly’ and allow the essentials or information to reveal themselves. This implies that the academic should, with the purpose of being objective, “represent indefensible positions as indefensible and less defensible positions as less defensible” (Shrader-Frechette 1994, 182). Question 3 Biological patents, as discussed by Claudia Mills, are ethically wrong in the point of view of Freeman and Solow. Patenting biological species, according to Mills, is chronically controversial. Based on Freeman’s arguments about environmental ethics, the repercussions of remarkable technologies, such as biological patenting, are tremendous, if subjected to a thorough cost-benefit analysis. First, this technology could put in peril the food security of billions of farmers all over the world, specifically those in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, who rely on their personal breeding abilities and hoarded seeds to use other variants on their farms. Using Freeman’s argument, it can be assumed that biological patents are destined to expand from genetically modified agricultural produce and really deplete or abolish humans’ food supply. As Mills underlines, biological patenting requires genes from genetic parasites that have the ability to jostle genomes, and thus it is possibly very dangerous to the health and wellbeing of all living things. This then supports Freeman’s contention that what is at stake with ecological modification is not simply whether people should allow genetically modified foods. Biological patenting is ethically wrong in the basic sense that our value system and our life are being situated under irresponsible commercial domination. Similarly, biological patenting is ethically wrong for Solow. He compellingly stated that a sustainable economy improves and sustains the wellbeing or functionality of an ordinary citizen over different periods of time. The wellbeing attained by a person apparently relies significant on the chances s/he was given. But too much tampering of the environment becomes unethically wrong. In the case of biological patenting, it is ethically wrong to use up reserves of a nonrenewable resource to acquire quick-fix economic advantages, and to focus on biological patenting and other substitute technologies. Genetic modification, as discussed by Palumbia, is also ethically wrong in the point of view of Freeman and Kelman. Certainly, according to Freeman, even advocates of economic assessment have revealed that their methods are not able to assess systemic principles such as ecosystem conditions and purposes. Arguing that, although people have numerous short-term and opposing whims and demands, real choices embody, to a certain extent, the actual dedication of a person as suggested by whatsoever other wants they are eager to surrender in quest for a specific value. Hence, it is ethically wrong to, in Freeman’s view, to alter the ‘intrinsic value’ of organisms through genetic modification. For Kelman, different rights or obligations are not unqualified. Still, each has a natural moral force in order that, if rights or obligations do not oppose each other, the morally appropriate action is the action that mirrors an obligation or values a right. If rights or obligations are opposed, a moral decision, on the basis of rational consideration, should be reached. But in the case of genetically modified foods, the rights and obligations of biotechnologists and individuals who are the main preservers of genetic materials and possessors of conventional knowledge, conflict with each other. Genetic modification becomes ethically wrong in this case since the main protectors of the environment remain impoverished, whereas those who exploit their intellect and resources become affluent. References Freeman, A. Myrick. “The Ethical Basis of the Economic View of the Environment,” The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1994. Kelman, Steven. “Cost-Benefit Analysis: An Ethical Critique,” AEI Journal on Government and Society Regulation, pp. 33-40. Mills, Claudia. “Patenting Life”, (n.d.) Palumbia, Stephen. “The High-Stakes Battle Over Brute-Force Genetic Engineering” American Scientist, 2001. Schlosser, Eric. Fast Food Nation. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. Shrader-Frechette, Kristin. “An Apologia for Activism: Global Responsibility, Ethical Advocacy, and Environmental Problems”. In Ethics and Environmental Policy: Theory Meets Practice, edited by Frederick Ferre and Peter Hartel. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1994. Solow, Robert. Sustainability: An Economist’s Perspective. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1991. Stone, Christopher. “Why Shouldn’t Corporations be Socially Responsible?” (n.d.) Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Environmental Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1429358-environmental-ethics
(Environmental Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1429358-environmental-ethics.
“Environmental Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/philosophy/1429358-environmental-ethics.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Environmental Ethics

Environmental Ethics-Climate Change

This essay "Environmental Ethics-Climate Change" analyses the negative impacts of climate change on human health from events like rising sea levels, droughts, heatwaves, etc.... The essay discusses the fact that human activities are the principal reasons behind climate change.... hellip; The starting point of discussion about climate change is the consequences caused by the negative impacts of global warming....
8 Pages (2000 words) Essay

Environmental Ethics in Business

The paper “Environmental Ethics in Business” seeks to evaluate Environmental Ethics, which is an integral part of any sustainable development in today's world.... Businesses around the world are obliged to abide by all the ethics of environmental sustainability.... he whole world on an equitable basis has a right over the wholesome environmental conditions.... Infringing on the environmental rights by the USA and its businesses around the world is not acceptable....
3 Pages (750 words) Assignment

The Approaches to Environmental Ethics

The deep ecology approaches to Environmental Ethics include “self realization,” “biocentrism” or “anti-anthropocentrism” as these ecologists espouse democracy in the biosphere among all organisms within (Devall etc 1995, p67).... … According to Bill Devall and George Sessions (1995), “deep ecology goes beyond a limited piecemeal shallow approach to environmental problems and attempts to articulate a comprehensive religious and philosophical worldview" (p66)....
10 Pages (2500 words) Essay

Environmental Ethics. Assignment 2

This… The development of Environmental Ethics took place in 1970, in only some of the philosophical disciplines.... The development of this discipline was due to the increased effects of economic Environmental Ethics Assignment 2 Introduction Environmental Ethics is considered to be an important aspect of the sustainable ecosystem.... The development of Environmental Ethics took place in 1970, in only some of the philosophical disciplines....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Environmental Ethics. response 1

Humans protect the Environmental Ethics al Affiliation) The article revolves around animal rights and equality.... It brings out the relationships that exist between humans and animals.... The relationships, whether based on companionship, nutrition or work, are character-building interactions....
1 Pages (250 words) Essay

Environmental Ethics Assignment 2

This act of tree hugging culminated into movements aimed at environmental conservation, extending well into the contemporary society.... In order to fully understand the issue, the purpose and justification for zoos needs to be viewed, as it is from this perspective that the immorality, or otherwise, of the zoos… As such, zoos are primarily aimed at ensuring that wild life is preserved, and at the same time the forms of life preserved there are put in such a manner that they can easily be studied and observed by enthusiasts and any other party that may be interested in them 111)....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

Environmental Ethics. Assignment 7

This tendency causes some communities to be exposed to elevated risks, either directly or indirectly, while other communities are benefited… Robert Bullard argues that this unequal environmental protection is undermined by three basic types of equity- procedural, geographic, and social.... Moreover, this unequal protection is also attributed to class and color discrimination, resulting in disproportionate Although there are significant improvements in environmental protection, there still exist communities that continue to live in an unhealthy and unsafe environment....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Vegetarian Ecofeminist and Environmental Ethics

The paper "Vegetarian Ecofeminist and Environmental Ethics" discusses philosophical disagreement among different academicians like feminists and environmentalists.... The other approach to which vegetarian ecofeminists approach Environmental Ethics is the current meat production and consumption which takes place around the globe.... The first approach which ecofeminists advance is the moral standing of animals while the second approach is the “ethics of care” to the animals and the affectionate response to the animal well-being in case of suffering....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us