RMPS
Making Moral Decisions:
Ecology and Environment
Intermediate 2
5921
September 1999
HIGHER STILL
RMPS
Making Moral Decisions:
Ecology and Environment
Intermediate 2
Support Materials
CONTENTS
1. Teacher’s/Lecturer’s guide
2. Student’s guide
3. Moral Stances
4. Depletion of Resources
5. Pollution
6. Possible Responses
7. Treatment of Animals
8. Student Activities
9. Suggested Further Reading
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
1
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
2
1. TEACHER’S/LECTURER’S GUIDE
These support materials allow students the opportunity to consider moral issues from
within the topic Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2). The issues to be studied
relate to:
 Depletion of resources
 Pollution
 Treatment of animals.
Individuals arrive at moral viewpoints and make moral decisions because of a variety
of factors. Sometimes decisions will have been carefully considered while at other
times they will be more unconscious and instinctive. Our early moral decisions may
be based on little more than childhood experiences. Later, the influences coming
from peer groups, the media and society will generally modify and amend these. But
whatever the influences, the process of reaching a moral decision on what we ‘ought’
to do in a specific situation, involves wrestling with a number of important questions.
For example, what values and principles should I consider and what is their relative
importance? Does freedom or justice or consideration for others take precedence over
everything else? Am I considering the interests of everyone involved, not just
following my own personal inclinations? How do I know if I’m doing the right thing?
In order to help with these and other similar questions a number of theories or stances
have been developed which purport to demonstrate the best way of making moral
decisions. Utilitarianism, for example, claims that actions are right or wrong to the
extent that they tend to increase or diminish the general happiness. Ethical egoism
says that a person’s one and only duty is to obtain for him or herself the greatest
possible balance of good over evil. In this unit the areas are to be studied from the
perspective of:
 Religious authority
 Egoism
 Utilitarianism.
The approach adopted in the unit does not assume any special link between morality
and religion. It does acknowledge that many regard religious teaching and religious
authority as an important element in the process of moral decision making. It also
acknowledges that religion has played an important part in moral learning. The fact
that some argue that morality does not require religious belief does not mean that
morality has nothing to learn from religion. Many central moral ideas, attitudes,
qualities of character have in fact come to general awareness only or mainly through
religious teachers.
Within Ecology and Environment each issue contains an outline of relevant
background information emanating from the physical and social sciences. In relation
to ‘Depletion of resources’, some possible viewpoints are presented which reflect
each of the three moral stances – religious authority, egoism and utilitarianism. In
addition each stance is described in some detail.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
3
The issues dealt with in the area of Ecology and Environment have arisen because of a
number of factors. Some have arisen because of deliberate uncaring acts, for
example, the deliberate discharge of chemical effluent into a river with no thought for
the plant and animal life in the immediate environment. Other issues have arisen
because of ignorance or as the result of a series of actions which no one actually
intended. Knowledge of what the problems are and what can be done to rectify them
is an important part of this unit. Equally important is a consideration of the attitudes
towards the natural world which underlie them, and make it possible for human
beings to behave in a thoughtless way.
The title of the unit, Making Moral Decisions, carries with it the implication that the
process of moral decision making is largely a cognitive and rational one. This is not
intended to deny the importance of our feelings and emotions. They will have an
important part to play. Inevitably, from time to time, we will be attracted and
repulsed by hearing of certain actions committed by individuals or groups. In
education however, as in life generally, we need to go further and try to understand
both our feelings and the values which direct them consciously and unconsciously.
We also need to feel that, despite the variety of beliefs, values and principles which
form part of the context of our growth and development, we are able to make up our
own minds on the personal and social issues which affect our lives.
Crucial for the development of moral maturity is the need to try and distance
ourselves from all external pressures and reflect critically on the opinions of others,
endorsing some, rejecting others, and eventually forming a conclusion of our own.
The development of the ability to evaluate issues will therefore be at the forefront of
activities with students. The study of moral issues can never be a purely descriptive
exercise. Students should first of all be able to describe the three stances and explain
their general importance for moral decision making. When analysing students should
take care to outline the viewpoints clearly and explain how each of the viewpoints
relates to one or other of the stances. Students will also be expected to discuss both
sides of a given issue and to reach a conclusion supported by valid reasons. Students
are required to:
 Demonstrate understanding of the three moral stances
 Analyse moral issues based on these stances
 Evaluate moral issues.
The issues to be studied cannot be seen in isolation. They involve elements of
science, technology, politics and economics, as well as ethics. Students should not be
expected to give detailed accounts of all of these, but they should have a firm grasp of
the background factors so that they can make reasonable comment on the moral
aspects of the issues.
Teachers will have their own preferences for the organisation of the course and the
allocation of time within it. Many like to run issues concurrently while others prefer a
more discrete approach. Running issues concurrently helps students to see the
relationships more easily and thereby improve their understanding, while the discrete
approach allows for clearer progression and better opportunity for assessment.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
4
Teachers will have their own strategies and preferred ways of organising learning. A
recommendation to include variety, however, is an important one given that students
will inevitably have different learning styles. Students should be encouraged to make
use of their own life experiences when exploring and reflecting on issues, and to seek
views from a wide range of sources including books, video material, and from
recognised specialists in the areas being studied. Since ethical issues are grounded in
real problems their study will benefit from the use of visual materials. These can help
to introduce and clarify ideas and viewpoints while at the same time they can illustrate
and explain the context in which the issues have arisen. Group and class discussion
will also be important so that students can, in dialogue with others, talk through
different responses before coming to their own conclusions.
Learning strategies will therefore take a number of forms such as:
 Gathering information and viewpoints from books, video, CD-ROM
 Student presentation
 Teacher/lecturer presentation
 Class and group discussion
 Role play
 Direct teaching
 Report writing.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
5
2. STUDENT’S GUIDE
These materials are intended to help you study some of the ethical issues and
responses from within the topic Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2). It is
recommended that you supplement the materials with a variety of others in order to
develop and extend your knowledge and understanding. Some useful resources are
included in section 9. The materials will help you by:
 introducing and explaining some key issues and ideas within the area of study
 describing three moral stances
 applying the moral stances to the issues
 suggesting activities and questions for discussion.
The broad issues to be studied are Depletion of resources; Pollution; Treatment of
animals. The issues will be studied in relation to the three stances – Religious
Authority, Egoism and Utilitarianism.
The materials explore the issues and discuss the importance of the ethical dilemmas
involved. Background information is provided in relation to each broad issue. There
is discussion of different viewpoints based on the moral stances. You will be asked to
explain how various viewpoints on the issues relate to the moral stances. You will
also be expected to come to your own conclusion by discussing both sides of an
argument and supporting your opinion with reasons.
You will need to be able to:
 describe what the moral stances are
 explain why they are important in moral decision making
 apply the stances to each broad issue
 outline viewpoints on each broad issue
 show how the viewpoints on the issue relate to the stances
 discuss both sides of an issue you are given
 reach a personal conclusion on the issue and give reasons which support it.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
6
3. MORAL STANCES
Making moral decisions is essentially concerned with the process by which we make
up our minds about questions of right and wrong. It’s about deciding whether certain
actions are right or wrong. Although it might seem easy to decide what is right and
wrong in some situations, in others it is not so straightforward. Every situation is
different and, as a result, the way you approach a situation and decide what is the right
course of action may be different every time. Many of the problems we face as
individuals or as a community are very complicated and it is often quite difficult to
know what is the right decision to make. Over the centuries certain theories have
been developed about the best way to make moral decisions. This unit introduces
three of these – religious authority, egoism and utilitarianism.
RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY
When someone has a religious faith this directs how he or she responds to moral
issues. In other words the teaching of the religion exercises authority over the
person’s actions. The authority can be seen in terms of the teachings of the faith as
revealed by a divine being. In Christianity for example, God’s revealed teaching is
there to guide Christians when they make moral decisions. The basis of this teaching
is that God is believed to be all knowing and all good, therefore what he commands us
to do, the way he wants us to live, must be the best thing for us. It must also be in our
own best interests to follow his commandments precisely because he knows what is
best for us. At the same time since God is perfect, following his commandments must
be the best way to achieve fairness for everyone and for the whole of creation. God
lays down the rules for how people should lead their lives and he is uniquely placed to
do so because he is the one who created the world in which people’s lives are to be
led.
The teachings of a religion may also come through inspiration. Many Christians
believe that God actually speaks to them, or does so through Jesus. This may be quite
literally through a “voice from above” though it is more likely to be through some
other means. For example, interpreting certain things which happen to you as God’s
way of getting a message across. Imagine you are a Christian, for example, praying to
God about whether you should go to a particular country to take up a new job. As you
watch TV one day, you are astounded to realise that the country you are considering
has been mentioned on TV several times that day. While many might think that this is
just coincidence, a religious person may interpret it as God “speaking” to him or her.
Much of a religion’s teaching about right and wrong is to be found in its scriptures or
holy books. There are direct rules about how you should live, such as the Ten
Commandments in Christianity and Judaism and the Five precepts of Buddhism.
There are also many stories and parables connected to the lives of religious leaders
which the religious believer can learn from. Religious people believe that their holy
books guide them in the right way in life, and in most religious faiths, the written
teachings of their scriptures are the highest form of religious authority.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
7
Also religious authority may be taken to mean the teachings of the church. For
example, in the Roman Catholic Church the teachings of the Church’s magisterium
and the Pope are treated with great respect and importance. In the Church of
Scotland, the General Assembly meets each year to discuss issues and make
recommendations to the Church in order to guide Christians along the right path. This
is particularly important in relation to moral issues which are not specifically covered
in scriptures such as nuclear weapons and organ transplants which arise as a result of
scientific and technological advances.
Within all of these individual reflection is also important. Each religious person
combines a number of sources of religious authority when trying to make a moral
decision, and by prayers, study, discussion and thoughtful reflection, the religious
person tries to work out what God wants her or him to do in any given situation.
EGOISM
This stance says that a person’s most important duty is to do what she thinks is in her
own best interest. Although the egoist may try to help others on occasions, being
moral really means doing what’s ‘good for me’, not necessarily in the short term, but
certainly in the long term over the person’s life as a whole. Something is in my
interest if it promotes my general health and well-being. This has to be distinguished
from selfish which means getting what you want all the time. For example, I may
want to stay in bed one morning but I recognise that to do so might mean losing my
job and that would be against my best interests. Egoism is a theory which says that a
person’s one and only basic duty is to obtain for himself the greatest possible balance
of good over evil. Ideally, if everybody’s own personal advantage did not hurt
anyone else then the world would be perfect place. In practice, however, doing
something to further our own interests can sometimes result in someone else being
hurt even though we cannot foresee this at the time.
On the other hand it can be argued that all our actions are egoist because no matter
what we do, things which do not appear to be in our own interests, actually are. For
example, many people have sacrificed their own lives for others - this is often seen as
the most selfless act that someone could carry out. However, it could be argued that
people do this in the hope of a reward. If they are religious, then their hope is that
they will be rewarded for their sacrifice by being sent to a heaven of some sort. If
they are not religious, then it might be argued that they have acted in such a ways so
that they might “live forever” in a different way - as people remember their “selfless”
actions throughout the ages.
The egoist decides to act based on what he thinks will be of most direct benefit to
himself. This might result however, in a wide range of actions, because different
actions may lead to a variety of consequences. Also the same actions may lead to
different consequences in different situations. The egoist, however, tries to predict
what will ultimately be in his or her own best interests over the long term. Ethical
egoists argue that people should always openly pursue what is best for themselves.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
8
The egoist says that it is up to us to decide what is in our interest. Some things will be
in my interest and some things will not. It is up to us to decide ultimately, although it
is likely that human beings will have a lot of interests in common e.g. avoiding pain,
disease and misfortune, and seeking out friendship, love and fulfilment. So in reply to
the question, ‘What ought I to do in this situation?’ the egoist would say, ‘Whatever
is in my best interest.’ Egoism would appear to rule out doing things for others, that
is putting the interests of others before our own interests. For the egoist it seems there
is no need to have any sense of responsibility to anyone else unless perhaps it is in his
own interests of course. Some argue, however, that if we really want to get on in life
it is actually in our own best interests to help others and to observe common moral
duties and obligations; an “I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch my back” kind of
philosophy.
UTILITARIANISM
This stance is about ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’. All our actions and
rules should be decided upon by finding out which of them produces the greatest
amount of good for the greatest number of people. For the utilitarian something is
morally right if overall it can produce human well-being and happiness for most
people. These ideas were devised by two eighteenth century British thinkers,
John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. All our actions and rules should be decided
upon by finding out which of them produces the greatest amount of good for the
greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism says that no special importance is to be given to the happiness or wellbeing of the individual whose actions are to be directed by it. My own happiness and
well-being is not to be regarded by me as any more important than yours when it
comes to deciding what is right or wrong for me for anyone to do. Egoism is the
doctrine that we should put our own interests before those of others. But utilitarians
insist that everyone’s interests should be treated as equal. We must be concerned of
course about our own welfare too. But what matters is happiness in general and our
own happiness is as important as anyone else’s.
Some would argue that it is not always easy to predict accurately what the outcome of
an action might be. What you think might produce the greatest happiness for the
greatest number might actually produce the opposite. There is also the difficulty that
not everyone would agree on what happiness is. Some philosophers have asked
questions such as, Why should I treat my own interests as being on a par with others?
Why must I treat all others as being on a par? Can I not favour my family or my best
friends over other people?
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
9
4. DEPLETION OF RESOURCES
Background information
Most of what we term “Environmental Issues” has to do with the way that we treat the
Earth. Humans are only one of the species on this planet, but they are the most
powerful one. The effect of human existence can be felt almost everywhere on the
planet. Many complain nowadays that there are no real wildernesses left everywhere has been colonised by humans and made suitable for our use. For
example, the National Parks service in the USA recently reported that most visitors to
national parks never travel further than five minutes walk away from the car park!
Humans have always used the Earth’s resources for their survival - so why do many
environmentalists go on about the perilous state we are in just now? Quite simply, it
is the rate at which we are using the Earth’s resources that many are concerned about.
Most environmentalists are well aware that to survive we need to use the Earth’s
resources, but our pattern of use has changed so drastically in recent history that there
may now be a danger that the Earth will be exhausted of many of its reserves of
natural resources.
The reason for this change has probably got a lot to do with the rise of human
technology and the different lifestyles which this enables us to follow. For example,
in ‘primitive’ societies, the land was used until it was no longer able to sustain life but then the people who had used it moved on and left it alone so that it had time to
recover. A continual pattern of moving around made sure that no one area of land
was so exhausted that it would never recover. Also, primitive societies usually just
used what they needed and left the rest alone. There are limits to how much land you
can farm when you are using only hand tools! Most of the day would be taken up in
the search for food, or in agricultural effort. As technology developed, people found
that they could get more from the land for less effort, and they didn’t need to move
around so much. The technology increased the yield of the land, which meant that
people could have more children, who needed more food, which meant more land
needed to be farmed and so on. As the amount of time needed to carry out tasks
related to basic survival decreased, because technology meant things could be done
faster and more efficiently, people had the time to work out even better ways of
making life simpler and getting more out of the Earth for less effort.
All of this led to ‘industrial revolutions’ where humans developed further the ability
of technology - in the shape of machines - to do the work they had previously done
manually. Just recently a tractor has been invented which ploughs fields 24 hours a
day. It is ‘driven’ by a computer which finds its way around using a global
positioning system based on satellites! Harvesting used to take many people a good
while - the combine harvester meant that it could be done in a fraction of the time.
Even simple things like artificial fertiliser have changed drastically how we use the
land. There is no longer any need to let the land take a ‘rest’ - it can be used
continually by the constant application of artificial fertiliser.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
10
Even simple things like fishing have ‘benefited’ from technology. Simple nets have
now been replaced by vast, man made fibre nets which last longer, are stronger and
can catch more fish. Also, the skills of the fisherman in knowing where are the likely
places to haul in a good catch are no longer necessary. Sonar equipment, backed up
by powerful computers can track large shoals of fish and enable them to be caught
quickly and efficiently.
As far as energy production is concerned, you have already seen that, in nuclear
energy, we have ways of producing vast amounts of energy which rely on very small
amounts of raw materials. From the time when humans first realised that some
‘rocks’ could be burned giving out heat and light, we have come to a situation where
every day, vast amounts of raw materials from the Earth ‘go up in smoke’ to fuel the
ever-increasing demand for energy.
Now, all of this would be fine if it happened in isolation, but it doesn’t. Life on Earth
is an intricately balanced system where cause and effect are not always very clear.
What is known however, is that the human impact on the Earth’s resources is great
and that perhaps this will lead to effects which we don’t at the moment understand or
won’t be able to control.
Many environmentalists point to effects which they believe are already taking place.
Some are on a global scale and others are more local. For example, an entire village
in England may soon have to be ‘moved’ because it was built on top of old salt mines.
These mines were ‘worked out’ long ago, but the support structures left in place to
keep the land above stable is now crumbling. Large areas of land are beginning to
sink. Also, many fishermen report that their catch is getting less and less, and that
fish are ever more difficult to find, even with their new technology. Some believe that
we have just fished too much. Many farmers also begin to report that their land is
starting to yield less and less, even with the application of ever more fertiliser perhaps it is just ‘giving in’!
Since the beginnings of the industrial revolution in what has come to be known as the
developed world, our use of raw materials has increased very sharply indeed. Applied
technology means that more and more resources can be ‘won’ more and more easily.
So much so, that many of the industries which are involved in the extraction of raw
materials are finding that their business is getting harder and harder because the raw
materials are almost exhausted. For example, the last tin mine in Britain closed on 6
March 1998. The company found that tin was becoming far too difficult to get at,
because the richer seams had been used up, and they were down to much more
difficult seams to work. This made the business uneconomic, and the government
refused to help out, because it believed that this would be a waste of public money.
Likewise, in the 1980’s the coal mining industry in the UK began to crumble. The
rich pickings of the past were increasingly more difficult to come by - returns of coal
for the effort put in just wasn’t worth it, and many miners began to lose their jobs.
Also coal from other countries was cheaper because they were new reserves and
easier to get at. At any rate, it was probably true that coal reserves were decreasing in
the UK. At the moment, oil reserves seem relatively strong, but of course that can’t
last for ever. Many scientists predict that North Sea oil will run out early in the next
century.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
11
It’s not only Earth resources like fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas and their derivatives)
which can run out. Any material can run out! Products like iron ore, copper, and a
vast array of basic chemical materials all have to be mined from somewhere and they
can’t last forever. Even substances like water can run out. We all know about the
droughts (and hose pipe bans) which seem to take place in England every year, and
we think that we in Scotland are alright because of the amount of water we get as rain!
However, it is not as simple as that. The total amount of water which is available for
use in practical terms is not necessarily as much as we think, and as the water table is
lowered through over-extraction, the quality of the water decreases.
Apart from this we would have to include all kinds of other materials, including living
things. For example, Britain used to be covered in forest. Most of this was removed
soon after the middle ages to provide fuel and building materials for the increasing
population. Remember, it can take a tree a hundred years to fully mature, but it can
be destroyed in less than an hour. It has been estimated that it takes a whole forest to
make the UK’s Sunday newspapers - and that’s just one country’s papers!
And of course there’s the depletion of food stocks too - animal and vegetable. This
can be because we take too much of something and don’t allow it to recover. That’s
why governments are sometimes keen to limit the amount of fish we can take. It’s
why net sizes have to be at a particular level so that the young fish can get away and
keep the stocks going. But it can also be because we “push” the land so hard that it
cannot keep up with the demand and so returns less and less for our efforts.
What this means in practice is that often we have to work harder, dig deeper for our
resources. For the land, it means that marginal land is more likely to be used than it
was previously. For natural resources it could mean that the quality of the materials
lessens and we need more of them to do the same job. And for us it may mean that
we need to look for alternative sources for our resources.
Depletion of the Earth’s resources is therefore a serious threat to life on Earth. The
fact is that there is only one planet Earth, and when all that we can use has been used,
then what will we do? Many people are very excited about the apparent discovery of
water on the moon, which was reported on 5 March 1998, because it means that in the
future we could live there. At the moment there is hope that the moon will also
contain other natural resources which we could start to use as the Earth’s run out. The
race to develop these is now on.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
12
5. POLLUTION
Background information
Pollution is where materials, or their by-products, or waste, affect other things. There
are several types of pollution:
 By-products of natural functions, for example our own bodily waste and that of
other animals.
 By-products of industrial processes.
 Intentional or accidental release of materials into unsuitable environments.
Pollution is most obvious to humans when it is visible. For example, litter is a very
obvious example of pollution, as is land which is spoiled in some way or water which
is not ‘clean’ looking. Oil spillages, like the Exxon Valdez oil spillage in Alaska
some years ago are also very obvious.
We can see many of the pollutants which go into our atmosphere - smog is one good
example. However, the problem with pollution is that it is not always visible. In
March 1998, a river in England became polluted. This resulted in the deaths of
thousands of fish and meant the end for one trout farm. No-one could see the
pollution but is was deadly. In India some years ago, a cloud of gas escaped from a
chemical works in Bhopal, killing many and blinding others - it was invisible.
Many of the pollutants which affect the land do not become apparent until they get
into the food chain. For example, mercury from batteries which had been thrown
away, then buried in landfill sites, had leaked into the surrounding water. It only
became obvious that this was happening when high levels of mercury were found in
plants, fish and animals - including many which we eat. In the same way, high levels
of PCB’s, dangerous chemicals were only discovered to be present at sea, when they
were found in high concentrations in the fatty tissues of fish. Some people believe
that substances like this cause brain diseases in marine life, and are often to blame for
the phenomenon known as beaching, where whales and dolphins sometimes swim
ashore, where they die.
Of course, pollution is sometimes deliberate, but these cases are thankfully few. What
is more difficult is pollution which results from activities which humans have decided
are necessary for our continued survival. For example, when fossil fuels are burned,
they release lots of chemicals which then interact with other chemicals in the
atmosphere. When mining work is done there are a lot of products (the spoil) which
are also produced but which are not needed. This can be polluting material.
Even everyday activities have their polluting consequences! When cows eat grass
they give off a lot of gas. This gas, known as methane (Ch4) can have potentially
very damaging effects on the atmosphere. Even our own breathing can be a cause of
pollution! The CO2 which we produce, unless balanced out by other factors, can alter
the state of the atmosphere!
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
13
Some pollution is therefore an unavoidable feature of life on Earth - whatever we do
has consequences for the natural world. Just existing produces a certain amount of
pollution. The main point according to many environmentalists is that we should try
to reduce pollution to a minimum, by avoiding things which are unnecessary.
But why is pollution such a problem? Well obviously where pollution is visible it
affects our quality of life. Most people prefer litter-free streets to wading their way
through other people’s rubbish. Where it is invisible it can cause results which we
can’t predict or control, and again affect the quality of our lives. It can even be
directly harmful to life on Earth. Exactly how harmful pollution is likely to be is
related to a number of factors for example:
 The kind of material. Some materials are by their nature more dangerous than
others, and if they succeed in getting into systems which can effect life this can be
very serious indeed. Examples here might be poisonous chemicals.
 How long lasting the material is. Some pollutants don’t last long because they are
broken down by natural forces. Others last much longer for example nuclear
waste cam last for thousands of years.
 The amounts and concentrations of the pollutants. Obviously if a lot of pollution
is around, then it is much more difficult to deal with than if there is only a little.
Similarly, many kinds of pollutants are less dangerous if they are widely spread
than if they are narrowly concentrated.
 The circumstances of the pollution matter too. For example, a large unplanned oil
spill can be quite devastating for marine life, and can be difficult to deal with
because of our own limits within the marine environment. Whereas pollution on
land is perhaps easier to contain and remedy. Also if the pollution is long-term
and largely unnoticed, this can mean that by the time we have responded to it
much damage has already been done.
For many, the big issue surrounding pollution is that it can have more than just local
consequences, it can have global ones. Instead of just affecting the environment of a
particular area it can affect the systems and processes which make our planet work the
way it does, and in particular in such a way that it enables our planet to support life.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
14
6. POSSIBLE RESPONSES: Depletion of resources/Pollution
Religious authority
From the perspective of religious authority a range of responses will usually be
possible even within one religion. The notes for this unit concentrate on responses
from within the Christian tradition but responses from within other religions are
equally valid.
According to Christians the Earth belongs to God. The Christian believes that the
Earth is the ‘property’ of its creator, God. Because of this there must be certain rules
about how we treat it. Obviously, if you are looking after something for someone else
you take special care of it because you want to hand it back in good condition. If you
have ever looked after someone else’s pet during a holiday then you know what this
means - its always far more worrying for you that it might die while in your care than
any pet of your own! Christians believe that God is the creator of everything that
exists, and so everything is his - only he therefore has the right to do anything with it
or to it. Christians believe that God created everything with its own right to existence,
and that God gives value to everything in his creation.
Humans are God’s special creation, the highest form of life on Earth. Christians
believe that when God created the creatures which live on Earth he made humans last.
He gave humans the responsibility of looking after the rest of the Earth. This is called
‘Dominion’ - humans are the most advanced species on Earth and so have the greatest
responsibility towards the Earth. Christians believe that only humans are ‘made in
God’s image’. There are a lot of different ideas about what this might mean, but most
Christians are agreed that it means humans have a special role to play in looking after
the planet.
According to some Christians the Earth was originally a paradise. In the Adam and
Eve story, which many Christians understand symbolically, God gave humans the
‘power’ over the natural world. But they didn’t have to worry too much about what
this meant because everything they needed was there. They didn’t have to work or
farm - all their needs were met effortlessly by the world in which God had put them.
However, mankind disobeyed God’s command and as a result God punished him.
This punishment took the form of being thrown out of the paradise God had created.
After this humans had to work against the Earth to struggle for their survival.
Christians call this ‘the Fall’ - where man ‘fell out’ with God. From this point on, all
humankind’s relationships with the natural world would be more difficult.
All through the Christian Bible, God sends people to try to make up after the fall.
They try to remind people of the perfect relationship between humans and God (and
so between humans and the Earth) which existed before the fall. However, again and
again humans briefly make up then go their own way again. This making up was to
take the form of an agreement, or a covenant, between man and God. When this
covenant was fully established everything would be paradise again. But it never
really happened because mankind continually chose to go his own way and not God’s.
In practice this would mean that the humans relationship with the natural world would
always be strained. This would continue until man and God made up their
differences.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
15
For Christians Jesus should be the model for a successful covenant. Christians
believe that Jesus pointed the way to making the relationship between God and man
right again. Jesus repeatedly demonstrated his own power over the natural world.
When humans accept the teachings of Jesus, and follow them, the covenant between
God and humans will be back in line, and the human relationship with the rest of the
natural world will be right again.
Some Christians believe that how we treat the natural world is important but nowhere
near as important as how we behave towards God. The only way to sort out
environmental problems is to get the relationship with God right. So Christians
should not concern themselves with environmental activism, but with prayer and bible
study. This will lead to changed attitudes, which in themselves will lead to a different
view of the Earth and to the end of environmental problems. So humans can take the
view that the treatment of the Earth is secondary to how we get on with God. If we
sort out our relationship with him, that will change our attitude to the world we live on
and so we will behave differently. This difference in behaviour will mean that we
treat the Earth with more respect and so our environmental problems will disappear.
Other Christians take the view that there is no point in worrying about ‘the
environment’ because God will renew it all anyway when Jesus returns. The second
coming of Christ will be a time when there is a “new heaven and a new Earth”. It
would be wrong for humans to try to do what only God can. Jesus will return, judge
humanity’s actions and sort the natural world out accordingly.
Other Christians take a more practical view. They believe that our relationship with
the Earth is actually part of the process of making the relationship between ourselves
and God right. If we continue to mistreat the world which God gave us, then no
matter how much prayer and Bible study we do, our actions will give us away. They
will say that ‘the fall’ was actually humans making themselves God-like, by relying
on their own power rather than accepting God’s. Our present poor treatment of the
natural world is a continued example of the misuse of our own God-given abilities to
keep ourselves in charge of the Earth instead of its rightful master, God. These
Christians then would say that involving ourselves in activities designed to lessen our
impact on the planet, and put right our environmental wrongs is actually part of
making up with God.
Christians then can use ‘religious authority’ to support a range of viewpoints. The
Christian Bible could be used to support all of them. No Christian would deny that
we should pay attention to how we treat the Earth, but they would disagree about what
was the best way in practice to ensure that we do what God would want us to do.
There are some Christians who might simply take a more emotional (they might say
spiritual) approach. They might simply say that God must look at the damage we are
doing to the Earth he gave us and be sad. He gave us the power to do with is as we
pleased, and look at the mess we’ve made. So if you are going to base your moral
decisions on religious authority you might be able to take several courses, all easily
supported by religious authorities. You would have to decide for yourself if issues
like the greenhouse effect, pollution and the over-use of the Earth’s resources was
really what God had intended when he created the world.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
16
Egoism
The egoist would need to firmly identify what would give him most pleasure or be
most to his advantage. For example, let’s say a new form of oil was discovered which
was easy to extract and would cost next to nothing. It would also create no
greenhouse gases. You would imagine that the egoist would be quite happy. But let’s
say that this oil was under his ancestral home (in which his family had lived for
centuries), and that to get at the oil, his home would have to be destroyed.
Now of course, that’s a pretty obvious dilemma, but the treatment of the Earth throws
up many more subtle ones than that. The egoist has to work out what is most to his
advantage, so he would have to look very carefully at what the possible outcomes of
any environmental activity were likely to be. For example, many of the activities we
engage in by their very nature result in pollution. The activity itself might produce
benefits but the results don’t. The egoist would need to work out if the benefits
outweighed the drawbacks so that he was left in a position of advantage at the end of
it all. There’s no point in the egoist supporting the production of CFC’s because they
are going to make certain products cheaper for him, if those CFC’s are going to
destroy the ozone layer increasing his chances of getting cancer just by walking in the
street.
It might also depend on how long-term a view the egoist takes. Perhaps if he has no
family he will only worry about the short-term effect of certain activities. If he does,
perhaps he will realise that the continued survival of his own family is to his greatest
advantage at the end of the day. This might mean that he would not support some
potentially environmentally damaging activity even if it brought him benefit now.
Utilitarianism
The largest part of the world’s population is in developing countries. It is exactly
these countries which are trying very hard to help themselves improve the lives of
their inhabitants. However, many environmentalists claim that what they are doing is
following the same destructive path which the developed world has already followed,
and which will result in even more problems for the planet on which we live.
Although in the short-term their activities will produce the best for the greatest
number, in the long-term they will produce the opposite for an even greater number!
For example, increased use of fossil fuels by developing countries as they industrialise
will produce benefits, but the extra amount of greenhouse gases created will
ultimately damage the environment even further.
In what used to be the Soviet Bloc - the countries of Eastern Europe allied to the
USSR - there is a great deal of effort being put in at the moment to help themselves
improve economically and so compete more equally with ‘the West’. However, many
claim that this race towards economic improvement is being carried out with little
regard to the environment - and also to the quality of people’s lives in the countries
themselves. There are many reports of very serious pollution as a by-product of
industrial processes which are out of date, and which were ‘outlawed’ in the West
many years ago because of their harmful consequences. Although, even in these
countries, these practices are producing benefits for the vast majority of the country’s
inhabitants, it could well be at the expense of the few who are involved in these
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
17
industries. From a utilitarian perspective such activities should be supported in one
sense - because they produce the best for the most - but in another sense a careful eye
would need to be kept on what was happening to the minority.
Also, the trouble with pollution, is that is doesn’t always affect only the producers of
it. For example, industry in Britain produces gases which actually have harmful
consequences in other countries - is a country’s government really going to pay for
any necessary changes just so that another country is not affected by their activities?
It is unlikely. The utilitarian would have to take the broader view. He would look at
how many people were likely to be affected, no matter where they were, and then act
accordingly. This would mean, for example, that in this particular situation, the
utilitarian would expect the British government to foot the bill for an environmental
clean-up, even though the British people would get no direct benefit.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
18
7. TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
Background information
Humans are the most complex and developed animal on the planet. We are most
definitely “in control” of the earth. Although many other animals are better than
humans at many different things (for example no human so far has been able to swim
as fast as even a slow dolphin!), all in all humans have the greatest number of abilities
which, when combined, make them (for better or worse) the dominant species on
earth.
Human dominance has been put down to a number of things:
 Human brainpower
 Human communication skills
 Human ability to develop and use appropriate technology.
Whatever the reasons for the prime position of mankind on earth it is a fact. All other
living things can be affected by mankind for better or worse.
Which leads us to animals. Issues surrounding the treatment of animals have been far
more in the public eye in recent times. From fox hunting to the BSE crisis, humans
have been taking stock of their relationship with the non-human world. The
Treatment of Animals does not just cover obvious cruelty to animals, it involves a
whole range of issues where human power has been wielded over the animal world in
a way which many think is wrong - harmful to both the animals and to human society
too.
There are many source books which go into very great detail about a variety of animal
issues. It will only be possible here, in the information section, to raise some of the
major concerns which those interested in the treatment of animals usually have. We
will then use the moral stances as a way of exploring the broad concepts of the
relationship between humans and animals more clearly.
Generally speaking, issues within this area can be split into the following categories:
Cruelty to animals
 Do we have the right to keep pets in our homes? Most people probably don’t
think very much of this, but is it cruel?
 Are some farming practices cruel? Veal crates are all but outlawed in the UK but
not so in other European countries. There has been a lot of debate recently about
the transport of live animals from the UK to Europe where they are slaughtered.
There are regulations about how often they should stop and be fed and watered,
and about how long they should be driven without a rest. But recent
investigations have shown that these regulations are not always adhered to.
 Blood sports have been in the news recently. Do we have the right to hunt
animals for sport?
 What about zoos? What are they for and can their existence still be justified?
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
19
The status of animals
 This includes the idea of using animals to eat. Is this just a normal thing to do?
 It also includes animals being used for their furs or other products, like ivory.
Many of the products which come from animals can make lots of money. For
example, the Musk Ox was widely hunted for its scent gland which was used to
make perfume. But even although this gland is very small, and could be
surgically removed without danger to the Musk Ox, the animals were often killed
just for this small part.
 It also includes the very difficult topics of the use of animals as subjects of
experiment. While far fewer cosmetic experiments take place these days, medical
experiments still go on. Do we have the right to use other living things in this way
for our benefit?
 It also involves making sure that animal species do not become extinct. Animal
extinction has been common throughout history. Do we want to see even more
occur?
There are of course, many people who believe that animals are just things - there to do
with whatever we want. At the other extreme there are people who believe that
animals should have exactly the same rights as humans. Some people go even further
and say that animals should have more rights than humans. For many people, the
welfare of animals is just a passing interest, for others it has become their way of life.
many people feel so strongly about some of these issues that they have devoted their
entire lives to them. Some have been prepared to go to prison because of their support
for animals. Others have gone so far as to bomb places where they think animals are
not well treated.
People who are interested in the treatment of animals are keen to show that they are
not cranks or extremists, but that they are simply concerned for the welfare of
creatures who cannot speak for themselves. Animal welfare activists believe that we
should all care about the welfare of animals for two main reasons:
 Every living thing has rights of its own
 When we mistreat anything it does damage to us too.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
20
Possible Responses
Religious authority
For the Christian any form of cruelty has to be looked at with concern. Christians
follow a way of life which is based on the notion of loving others, and care for all life.
Christians are called by their faith to be peaceful - even when someone hits them they
are supposed to, “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) in other words meet violence
not with hatred, but with love. Jesus also commanded them to “do to others as you
would like them to do to you” (Luke 4:31). This means that if you do not want
someone to be violent to you, then you should not be violent to anyone else.
Christians also believe that the strong should protect the weak - not exploit them or
mistreat them. To do so would be a misuse of power.
Of course, some Christians think that this applies only to other humans. But many
believe that it could apply equally well to animals. This is because Christian teaching
never specifically excludes animals from any of these requirements, and because
animals are a very good example of what might be termed, “the weak”. If a Christian
is to live a life which involves peace, non-violence and not being cruel, then that
would have to apply equally to animals as to anything else.
The Christian believes that animals are part of God’s creation and so they should be
free from cruelty. Nobody has the right to be cruel to any of God’s creatures.
(Genesis 1: 24-25)
On the other hand some Christians might say that animals exist for human use - the
Bible says so, where it puts mankind in charge. The Bible allows humans to eat meat
Romans 14: 14; 1 Corinthians 10: 25) and to use animals as servants of mankind - so
in a way the Bible says that a certain amount of cruelty is unavoidable and God will
accept it. Perhaps the Christian can make the distinction between individual acts of
cruelty and more general acts where cruelty is not the aim, just a regrettable sideeffect. So, for example, blood sports are cruel in a sense, but they are a good way of
maintaining the balance of species in the countryside.
Many Christians believe that as animals are part of God’s creation they should be
given the same rights as any other living thing in that creation. This would mean that
they should not be eaten, used for experiment or treated in any other way which
might be thought of as abusive or undignified. For such Christians, animals have
rights of their own, not just in relation to how beneficial they are for humans, but
because they are valuable in themselves.
However, this area is a lot more complicated than it at first seems. Some Christians
would argue quite strongly that although animals should be treated well, and do have
rights, those rights can be ignored where they come into conflict with human need.
So, for example, carrying out a medical experiment on an animal would be justified if
it could be clearly shown that such an experiment would have beneficial results for
humans. Many Christians believe that humans are of greatest value to God, and so
anything which produces good for them must be a good thing. If this means
occasionally lowering the status of animals, then this would have to be accepted.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
21
This does not mean that Christians value animals in themselves any less, it just means
that animals are valued less than humans.
Egoism
An egoist might say that any abuse of an animal is acceptable, provided that it is in his
or her interests. Using animals for medical experiments is probably the best example
of an activity which would be likely to lead to human benefit or advantage. Using
animals in medical research helps us to find out whether drugs work or not, and tests
out new theories and new ways of treating certain illnesses and diseases.
The egoist might have no problem with farming practices or blood sports, or any of
the other issues raised at the beginning of the information section under this heading.
For example, although veal crates are widely considered to be very cruel, the egoist
might say that they are perfectly acceptable because they are the best way of
producing very good quality meat.
However, an egoist could actually take a different approach. The BSE crisis for
example, has shown - in many people’s opinion - that certain farming practices can
actually lessen the quality of the product. Although intensive farming produces low
cost meat, it might be that the processes have the side effect of producing meat which
is more dangerous. The egoist would have to ask himself which was most to his
advantage - cheap, plentiful meat, or more expensive, safe meat? From this, you can
see that even the egoist might oppose certain practices towards animals which many
regard as cruel. It is not always easy to say without any dispute what leads to
‘advantage’. What the egoist wants is whatever is in his own best interest. Something
which might ultimately threaten his or her life is not going to be in her best interest.
Utilitarianism
As far as cruelty is concerned, it would be difficult for the utilitarian to justify it as a
direct act in the normal course of things. It would be difficult to show how an
individual act of cruelty might benefit the greatest number of people.
Perhaps one example however, might be the culling of cows following the BSE crisis,
or the killing of chickens which were believed to have been carriers of “Hong Kong
flu”. In each of these cases, cruel acts were carried out so that the greatest good could
be secured for the greatest number of people. A utilitarian would also gladly support
the shooting of a dog with rabies, because this would remove a very serious potential
threat from a great many people. The utilitarian could also justify the keeping of
animals in zoos because of its value for educating people about the living world and
making them more concerned to preserve the environment in general. So a utilitarian
could ‘accept’ a degree of cruelty to animals if the ultimate outcome of that cruelty
was benefit for a great many people.
The utilitarian would also have to be sure that what value we give to animals will not
result in treatment of them which ultimately leads to disadvantage for the greatest
number. For example, if all animal experiments were outlawed tomorrow, on the
grounds that animals have the same rights as humans then it is possible that a lot of
scientific experiments would have to end. This could mean, in theory, that there
might never be a cure found for the likes of cancer, and so many people would
continue to suffer.
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
22
8. STUDENT ACTIVITIES
1. What, in your opinion, is the most serious environmental problem facing Earth
today? Discuss this in groups.
2. Think about the part you play in the treatment of the Earth. Discuss how you
contribute to the problem and how you could contribute to the solution. Try to
focus on everyday activities rather than unusual ones.
3. ‘Deep ecologists’ believe that the Earth has rights, just as we do. Draw up your
own charter of rights for the Earth. What will you include? How would you
enforce it?
4. The Gaia Hypothesis suggests that the Earth is a living organism. If this were
true, what differences do you think this might make to the way we treat it?
5. Find out about, and make your own short report on the nature and extent of the
problems relating to depletion of the earth’s resources. For each of these areas,
write a short paragraph explaining how a Christian might respond.
6. In relation to the problem of pollution, what different viewpoints are possible from
the perspective of (a) egoism and (b) utilitarianism?
7. Some people believe that environmental issues have nothing to do with people’s
behaviour, or their morality, but that they will be solved by science. How far do
you agree with this?
8. How far do you agree that religious believers have been slow to respond to
environmental issues?
9. How might a Christian justify experimenting on animals?
10. On what grounds might (a) egoism and (b) utilitarianism object to the
mistreatment of animals?
11. In your view, which of the moral stances is most likely to lead to the ‘best deal’
for animals?
12. Outline the arguments for and against blood sports. Are some blood sports more
acceptable than others? Why or why not?
13. Debate the following issue: “This house believes that animals should have the
same rights as humans.”
14. “Cruelty to animals can never be justified.” How far do you agree?
15. “Those who base their moral decisions on religious authority are likely to be
confused.” To what extent do you think this is true in relation to the treatment of
animals?
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
23
9. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
General Environmental Issues
1. ‘Ecology Facts’ by Michael Allaby. Hamlyn 1986 ISBN 0 600 39723 0
2. ‘Turning the Tide’ by Bellamy & Quayle. Collins 1986 ISBN 0 00 219368 X
3. ‘The State of the Environment’ OECD 1985
4. ‘Christian Ethics in a Secular Context: Ecology and Environment (H)
(HSDU 4458)
Discuss with your Geography/Biology teachers!
Religion & Environment
5. ‘Green Christianity’ by Tim Cooper. Spire 1990 ISBN 0 340 52339 5
6. ‘Tending the Garden’ by Granberg-Michaelson (Ed). Eerdmans 1990 ISBN 0
8028 0230 3
7. ‘Greenhouse Theology’ by Ron Elsdon. Monarch 1992 ISBN 1 85424 153 2
8. ‘Christianity & Ecology’ by Breuilly & Palmer (Ed) Cassell 1992 ISBN 0 304
32374 8
9. ‘Our World: Religion & Environment’ by Joe Walker. Hodder & Stoughton 1994
ISBN 0 340 60549 9
Animals
10. ‘The Status of Animals’ by Paterson & Palmer (Ed). CAB 1989 ISBN 0 85198
650 1
11. ‘Animal Theology’ by A Linzey. SCM 1994 ISBN 0334 00005 X
12. ‘In Defence of Animals’ by P Singer (Ed) Blackwell 1985 ISBN 0 631 13897 8
13. ‘Their World: Religion & Animal Issues’ by Joe Walker, Hodder & Stoughton 1999
ISBN 0 340 72116 2
RMPS: Making Moral decisions: Ecology and Environment (Intermediate 2)
24