UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Baxter
“People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”
Stephen E. Schmid
1
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Strategy
•
To argue that an optimal level of pollution can be achieved in
balance with and by appeal to human satisfactions.
Stephen E. Schmid
2
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
What Are Our Objectives?
•
•
We say we want to reduce pollution, to clean the air.
•
Asking these questions demands that we ask larger questions
about the goal of these environmental actions.
•
What is the community goal?
But, what do we mean by “clean”? How clean is clean? Why
rid the atmosphere of greenhouse gases since the atmosphere, in
effect, depends on them?
Stephen E. Schmid
UW-Rock County
3
Environmental Ethics
Four Goals Framing Problem of Pollution
1) Spheres of Freedom: “every person should be free to do
whatever he wishes in contexts where his actions do not interfere
with the interests of other human beings”
2) “Waste is a bad thing.... [no] resources, or labors or skills,
should be wasted....”
3) Every human should be considered as an end in themselves and
never a means. Every human should be treated with dignity and
respect.
4) Every individual should be afforded the incentive and
opportunity to improve his/her share of satisfactions.
Stephen E. Schmid
4
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Save People, Not Penguins
•
“My criteria are oriented to people, not penguins. Damage to
penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is...simply
irrelevant.... In short, my observations about environmental
problems will be people-oriented, as are my criteria. I have no
interest in preserving penguins for their own sake.” (520)
Stephen E. Schmid
5
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
It’s Selfish to Treat Humans as the
Only Things of Value
Baxter agrees it is selfish, but this approach is the only place to start
1. People think and act anthropocentrically
2. The position advocates the preservation of flora and fauna to the extent
humans depend on them
3. What is good for humans is good for penguins, namely clean air among
other things
4. How could humans administer any other system except by and through
human agents
5. If penguins are to count in the calculus of the ends of social organization,
then how much to they count? how do penguins express their preferences?
6. In asking the question “What ought we to do?”, we are asking a
particularly human question unique to human inquiry.
Stephen E. Schmid
6
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Private and Collective Actions
•
Decisions by human agents are either collective or private
•
Each human agent is free to act privately in any manner they
wish (spheres of freedom)
•
•
Jones can feed the birds or himself to bears
Collective decisions can be made only by those who can enter
into the deliberation process, namely humans
•
•
Penguins cannot vote
Baxter denies that penguins can have representatives and
that these representatives’ preferences are more weighty
than “selfish” humans
Stephen E. Schmid
7
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Baxter Rejects....
•
“I reject the proposition that we ought to respect the “balance of
nature” or to “preserve the environment” unless the reason for
doing so, express or implied, is the benefit of man.”
•
“I reject the idea that there is a “right” or “morally correct” state
of nature to which we should return. The word “nature” has no
normative connotation.” (521)
•
Baxter thinks these types of questions are meaningless and
have no answer.
Stephen E. Schmid
8
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Normative Definitions
•
Since there are no normative definitions of a natural state, there
can be no definition of clean air, pure water, or pollution except
by reference to human needs
•
Hence, the “right” amount of air pollution is that amount which
allows a knowledgeable society to thoughtfully pursue its
satisfactions for the greatest number of its citizens
Stephen E. Schmid
9
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Optimal State of Pollution
•
The goal of environmental measures is to arrive at an optimal
state of pollution
•
“How do we define and attain the level of pollution that will
yield the maximum possible amount of human satisfaction?”
(521)
•
How much will pollution control cost? Are the costs worth loss
of satisfactions?
Stephen E. Schmid
10
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Distinguishing Dollars from Resources
•
Resources are the wealth of a nation and are vitally important
•
•
Dollars are claims on those resources and are trivial
Resources include: labor, technological skill, capital goods, and
natural resources
•
Resources can be combined in various ways to produce goods
and services
•
Resources are limited
Stephen E. Schmid
11
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Saving the Environment Will
Cost $X Million
•
•
Baxter thinks most people confuse dollars and resources when
claims arise about how much an environmental action is going to
cost
•
If a dam costs $X million, that means the dam will divert or
use that many resources
•
Dollars are shorthand for describing how many resources will
have to be diverted from one or more areas to another
Controlling pollution requires a trade-off between resources:
some goods will have to be given up in order to control or clean
up pollution
Stephen E. Schmid
12
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Optimal Level of Pollution?
•
“As a society we would be well advised to give up one washing
machine if the resources that would have gone into that washing
machine can yield greater human satisfaction when diverted into
pollution control.... And so on, trade-off by trade-off, we should
divert our productive capacities from the production of existing
goods and services to the production of a cleaner, quieter, more
pastoral nation up to–and no further than– the point at which we
value more highly the next washing machine or hospital that we
would have to do without than we value the next unit of
environmental improvement that the diverted resources would
create.” (523)
Stephen E. Schmid
13
UW-Rock County
Environmental Ethics
Concerns
•
Baxter’s position results in everything but humans having
instrumental value
•
Only humans have intrinsic value and are ends in themselves
•
Might it be possible to use resources without generating
pollution? Is there always a trade-off?
•
Would Baxter agree or disagree with French’s suggestion about
changing accounting costs?
•
What motivation is there for a society to pursue policies that
protect the further future or guarantee satisfactions for the further
future?
Stephen E. Schmid
14