Anthropocentric Ethical Approaches
Utilitarianism










In general Utilitarianism would not ascribe any particular rights to the environment.
However, Utilitarianism as consequentialist and relative ethical theory would argue
that we should aim to preserve the environment only when it would benefit the
majority of the greatest number of people. This means that that we should care in the
environment to the extent that it has extrinsic value.
Surely it is in the interests of the majority to address global warming. Therefore,
Utilitarians may argue that global warming is a key issue for utilitarianism. This is
because despite the fact that burning fossil fuels may benefit humans here and now,
in the long term it will not benefit future generations.
Therefore, we could advocate a reduction in the use of cars and increase in the use of
bicycles on utilitarian grounds.
However, Bentham and Mill’s versions of utilitarianism (act and rule utilitarianism)
could lead us to different conclusions on how useful Utilitarianism is for
environmental ethics
Bentham’s is associated with act utilitarianism, which is more likely to weigh the
amount pleasure generated for the majority in a particular and isolated situation
(using the hedonic calculus), rather than looking at the issue in a holistic way. Thus,
an act utilitarian might argue that the burning of foil fuels actually generates the
greatest pleasure for most people in the here and now, as opposed to taking a more
long term and holistic view.
In relation to animal rights an act utilitarian might argue that if there is one pig and
five starving people then killing the pig would be justified to produce the greatest
happiness for the five people, as opposed to looking at the long term damage meat
eating could cause humans and animals.
Mill, however is associated with Rule Utilitarianism, which focuses on general rules
to bring about the greatest good for the community. Mill believed that intellectual
pleasures should override physical pleasures. Regarding environmental ethics, rule
utilitarianism would argue that global warming is a direct result of people choosing
to make their physical lives easier here and now instead of taking an intellectual
approach to the long term decline of pleasure that would be caused as a result of
global warming. Mill also advocated the view that there should be general rules
established to facilitate a utilitarian approach to life.
Thus, a utilitarian would have to ensure that any environmental damage actually
had long term benefits to humans.
The utilitarian approach does not see the environment as having intrinsic value. We
should only care about the environment because of it’s extrinsic/instrumental value
to humans. This is Peter Singer’s argument.
Peter Singer argued in favour of animal rights from a utilitarian perspective. It could
be argued that it is utilitarian NOT to eat meat. This is because as a source of food
meat does not feed as many people as grain does. If we were being utilitarian in our
approach to agriculture we would not waste grain that is desperately needed in the
third world, feeding our cattle and we would convert all pasture land into arable
land.
Situation Ethics – Not useful in environmental ethics



Taking this approach on an issue such as global warming would require us to have
in depth knowledge of the cause and effects of global warming as each action would
have to be judged on its own merits. It could be argued that this does not make
situation ethics a useful approach to environmental ethics as it is far too relative and
teleological. Environmental ethics needs universal rules as issues such as global
warming is an issue for everyone.
Situation ethics is teleological and it is about performing actions that will produce
the most loving results. However, we do not really know what would produce the
most loving results regarding the environment as the environment is unpredictable
Because situation ethics takes a relative position this means that it could used to
argue for or against environmental issues. It is impossible to come to any clear
conclusions with environmental ethics as it is situationist.
A situation ethics argument in favour of environmental ethics

Where there is direct evidence of harm, we should do what ever we can to avoid it.
So, if environmentalists and climatologist have evidence that changing temperature
of our planet is having and will continue to have a detrimental effect on life on earth
then the most loving thing to do would be to stop global warming to avoid suffering
in the future
 Regarding use of the earth’s resources situations ethics would argue that if we are
using finite resources so carelessly that it will cause problems for future generations
then we are obliged to seek alternative forms of energy.
 Regarding new roads being built such as the Newbury Bypass in 1996, situation
ethics could have argued that although this new road would have saved some people
time in their journey to work, it actually caused many small businesses to go out of
business, many species of wildlife to lose their home, the loss of forest space that
many people enjoyed walking in and in the long run the road would just encourage
more people to use their cars, which in turn would contribute to global warming and
the increased use of the earth’s finite resources. Therefore, building the dam would
not be the most all round loving thing to do.
In relation to animal rights, situation ethics may argue that using animals for medical
research is the most loving thing for humans as medical research can cure dieses and thus
improve the quality of life for humans However, the problem here is that situation ethics
may be extended to animals and thus it would be very difficult assess whose right to the
most loving thing would take precedence.