BAXTER AND SAGOFF ON
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
3 Approaches to the Environmental
Issues
(1)
(2)
(3)
Free market approach: allow the mechanism of the
free-market to determine what to do – pursuing
efficiency or wealth-maximization.
Baxter’s Spheres of Freedom: maximize
satisfaction of human preferences without treating
anyone as a mere means.
Sagoff’s civic values approach: protect those
cultural, historical, aesthetic and moral values that
matter to communities, not collections of
individuals.
Baxter and the Spheres of Freedom
Principle



Baxter’s view about our duties to the environment is
based on a principle he uses to resolve all moral
and political issues.
The Spheres of Freedom Principle: every person
should be free to do whatever s/he wishes in
contexts where his/her actions do not interfere with
the interests of other human beings.
Example: it is okay for me to litter so long as it does
not interfere with the interests of other humans.
Consequences of the Spheres of
Freedom Principle



The only role of government and the legislation
government passes is to keep humans from
interfering with the interests of other humans
wherever possible.
Laws that prevent individuals from harming
themselves (but not others), sometimes called
paternalist laws, have no place in a just society.
Government must enact legislation that will prevent
some members of society from harming others
through pollution or other acts/effects.
What Value Does The Environment
Have?




Only human beings have inherent moral worth.
Thus, any non-human animal, plants or non-living
thing has no value except insofar as it is valuable to
human beings.
Example: if no one were to value an ecosystem in
Indiana, then it would have no value at all.
But to the extent that a human does (or perhaps
would) find something valuable that thing has value.
Making Decisions with Baxter
In determining what to do when it comes to
environmental policies and decision making a
business owner (like anyone else) must:
- choose a policy or decision that yields greater
human satisfaction than any alternative decision.
- exception: that choice can not treat some human
beings as means to achieve the ends of other human
beings.
 This exception will be critical as we will see.

The Free Market Approach



Key tenet: the value of anything is expressed by the
willingness of someone to pay for it.
The market adds up the total preferences people
have and assigns a price to it – this is its true worth.
In the context of doing what is right or just
according to market values our goal is this:
distributing goods and services in the most efficient
way so people get more of what they want to buy.
Results of the Free-Market Approach



Anything that the market cannot assign a value to
has no “real” or “objective” value, only subjective
value (and can be ignored).
Goal of the approach is to make the market more
efficient and maximize wealth.
Example: pollution should only be prevented if
collective preferences value clean air over other
things (like cheaper prices).
- In other words, pollution should only be prevented
if people are willing to pay the costs.
The Free-Market Approach Contrasted


Incompatible with Sagoff’s community values
approach since the free-market approach claims
that what is important for a community doesn’t exist
over and above what individuals want.
Incompatible with Baxter as the free-market
approach allows treating some as means for the
ends of others (e.g. Wal-Mart’s reverse auctions).
Sagoff’s Civic Values Approach



Concedes that the free-market approach works for
things that don’t have value in and of themselves –
manufacturing yo-yo’s, whether pens should have
black or blue ink, ice cream flavors, etc.
Since all of the above are just matters of subjective
preferences, the market does an excellent job of
assigning worth to them.
However, many valuable things are not just a matter
of preference: human welfare, cultural and social
history or tradition, aesthetic value, etc.
Sagoff’s Civic Values Approach (cont.)



Environmental issues are ones that impact noneconomic values like aesthetic value (beauty of the
environment) and human welfare (health).
When we evaluate whether to allow pollution we
must balance it against what is best for the
community.
This requires studying short and long-term impacts
on health, desirability of living in a polluted
environment, and long-term good for the community.
Sagoff’s Radioactive Waste Case




Community concerned about radioactive waste
dump in their community, given increased outbreaks
of leukemia.
NY State officials and local corporations argue that
community members are being irrational.
The reason? Community members supposedly would
be unwilling to pay for the costs of a clean
environment – they would rather risk leukemia.
More likely to be endangered by smoking.
How Should We Respond to this Case?
Free-Market Response




How would the free-market approach respond?
F-M: what is the collective preference – are people
willing to pay for the costs of clean-up to get the
benefits they perceive?
The officials of the State of New York and local
corporations are using this model to argue that
using site as waste dump does maximize the
satisfaction of human preferences.
They claim community unwilling to pay for cleanup.
How Should We Respond to the Case?
Baxter




How would Baxter respond?
Baxter: what would create greater satisfaction –
clean-up or not?
If we think not cleaning-up would create greatest
satisfaction we must ask does that treat the
members of the community as a means?
Only difference between Baxter and the freemarket approach is the side-constraint of treating
people as ends.
How Should We Respond to the Case?



How would Sagoff respond?
Sagoff: what best promotes communal values in the
short and long-term? Will failure to clean-up the
radioactive waste be detrimental to the community?
This approach diverges from both Baxter and the
free-market approach by being unwilling to
maximize satisfaction of preference through market
values.