MORAL THEORY,
MORAL STANDING,
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
OR WHY ALL POLICY DECISIONS
ARE MORAL DECISIONS
Woods Hole, October 4, 2005
Claim One: Morality is inescapable. Your
decisions and actions embody and implicate
moral judgments whether you realize it or
not.
Therefore: All policy decisions are moral
decisions.
Claim Two: The more you try to avoid or
ignore moral theory, the more you increase
the chances that you become a prisoner of
bad or inconsistent theory.
Therefore: Knowing a little moral theory
may prove very liberating.
Claim Three: On the other hand, it may not.
The present state of ethics is one of rich
work but much controversy. What is right,
what is correct, what is true is elusive at
best.
Therefore: if you are cynical about ethics, I
will do little to vanquish your suspicions.
Claim Four: but that doesn’t get you off the
hook. See Claim One.
A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM
-- a state of affairs, event or condition that
we do not understand and cannot adequately
explain
A SOCIAL PROBLEM
-- a state of affairs or condition that we judge
to be undesirable and/ or morally
unacceptable. Something is a social problem
if we decide that we--society-- would be better
off if the state of affairs, event or condition
had not happened or had happened
otherwise, and that it should be changed.
SOLUTION TO A SCIENTIFIC
PROBLEM:
Solving a scientific problem involves gaining
additional knowledge and developing an adequate
theory that allows us to explain the state of affairs,
event or condition in question. The problem is
solved when the ignorance is converted into
understanding, when we can answer the question,
“Why?”. The scientific method is the best method
we have to solve scientific problems.
SOLUTION TO A SOCIAL PROBLEM:
Solving a social problem involves eliminating,
ameliorating, or reducing to a tolerable level
(one that is no longer undesirable or morally
unacceptable) the incidence or severity of the
problematic condition or state of affairs.
1. Solution as GOAL -- the new condition
from which the problematic aspect has
been eliminated.
2. Solution as POLICY —the actions that
will bring about this new condition.
Solving a social problem, then, has two
elements.
• We first have to agree on the goal to be
achieved: the new condition in which the
problematic aspects are sufficiently
eliminated or reduced.
• We then have to agree on a policy: the
course of actions by which to achieve this
goal.
Proposed Solutions
The Filter
Model for
Solving
Social
Problems
Scientifically feasible
Technologically feasible
Economically feasible
Morally feasible
A satisfactory
solution to a
social
problem has
to be able to
pass through
all of these
levels of
filters.
Politically feasible
Administratively feasible
SOLUTION =Policy to be
implemented
ETHICS (moral philosophy) is the
study of MORALITY, of our moral
principles, values, norms,
obligations and practices.
Normative not descriptive
Prescriptive—action guiding
Morality is to be differentiated from
religion, law, the prudential and
etiquette
“We are discussing no small matter, but how we ought to live.”
Socrates in Plato’s Republic
The central concerns of moral philosophy are to determine:
1. The nature of the good or valuable (and the bad or evil or
disvaluable)
2. What is right (and wrong)?
3. How one should live; what is the good life for a human being
4. Moral character: the qualities or virtues of a moral person
including moral motivations
5. What should we do (what should we not do); what does morality
requires of us; that is, what is the nature and scope of moral
obligation?
THE AIMS OF MORAL THEORY
Practical Aim—the main practical aim of a
moral theory is to discover a decision procedure
that can be used to guide correct moral reasoning
about matters of moral concern. (Timmons, p. 3)
Theoretical Aim—The main theoretical aim of
moral theory is to discover those underlying
features of actions, persons, and other items of
moral evaluation that make them right or wrong,
good or bad. (Timmons, p. 4)
Key to the practical aim is
The Hunt for ….
A PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT ACTION
A general principle that tells us when an
action is right or wrong
UTILITARIANISM
(a type of consequentialism or teleological theory)
Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832
John Stuart Mill 1806-1873
Intuition—morality is about improving the world; moral
action should concern itself with making the world a better
place
As one philosopher has put it: the core idea is that “the better a
state of the affairs the better the action that produces it and the
more moral reason there is to perform that action.”
(Frances Howard-Snyder, “The Heart of Consequentialism” p. 126
Five Components of Utilitarianism
Theory
1. Consequentialist/Teleological — the
moral value or rightness of an action is a function
of its consequences; of how it changes the world
2. Maximizing –the morally right action is the
one that brings about the best consequences; that
maximizes value in the world
3. Theory of Value —tells us which
consequences count; what determines the
value of the consequences of action
In general, utilitarianism is a type of welfarism: what is
valuable is the welfare of individuals with moral
standing
Classic formulation--what makes a state of affairs good
or valuable is pleasure and the absence of pain
Contemporary formulations-- what makes a state of
affairs good is the satisfaction of desires and preferences
and the absence of frustrated ones or the general
increase in human well-being; pluralist, objectivist
theories of welfare.
4. Scope —the effects of action on the good of all
beings with moral standing count equally.
Utilitarianism is impartialist and universalist.
Universalist— “the values of the consequences of
our actions on all individuals who will be affected
by them are counted as morally relevant”
(Timmons, p. 104)
Impartialist– “every individual whose welfare will
be affected in some way by one’s actions is to count
equally.” (Timmons, p. 104) --a notion of equal respect
5. Principle of Right Action —the right
action is that alternative that would bring about
the greatest net total of pleasure and the absence
of pain (or satisfied/frustrated preferences or
maximum well being)
Net total welfare (utility)= (aggregate pleasure/X
produced – aggregate pain/-X produced)
Timmons’ formulation (p. 106)—“An action A is
right if and only if A has as high a utility as any
alternative action that the agent could perform
instead.”
Attractions of Utilitarianism
1. Making the world a better or more valuable place seems
intuitively compelling.
2. Welfarism seems an intuitively plausible theory of value.
Morality does seem to be about human well being.
3. Practical rationality as a strategy of maximizing value
seems compelling.
4. It provides a fairly clear cut decision procedure.
5. It contains what many find an attractive idea of equality
as impartiality.
Objections to Utilitarianism
1. The appearance of a clear cut decision
procedure is an illusion. The utilitarian
method for decision making cannot be
operationalized. Many problems here.
2. At least in its hedonistic form,
utilitarianism has a crude and
unconvincing theory of value.
3. In a wide range of cases, utilitarianism violates
our moral intuitions and produces morally wrong
results/prescriptions.
i. punishment example —utilitarianism may
require we punish the innocent
ii. medical sacrifice example –utilitarianism might
require we not respect a person’s bodily integrity or
even life
iii. distributive justice example –since it is concerned
only with the aggregate, utilitarianism might require
we violate our sense of fairness and equality
iv. promising example –utilitarianism might require
that we violate certain moral rules such as promise
keeping
4. Utilitarianism is too demanding, overly
demanding, to be an acceptable moral theory.
i. because our own welfare counts no more
than that of anyone else affected by our
actions, the theory does not permit us to give
sufficient priority to our live projects and
interests. You wouldn’t want to raise your
child to be a utilitarian.
ii. The supererogation objection—since
utilitarianism requires us to bring about the
most good we can, there is no room for acting
over and above our duty
5. Utilitarianism does not properly
respect the individual. Some
individuals, their interests and wellbeing, may be sacrificed for the benefit
of others and this is wrong. (related to
#3)
Utilitarianism replies to its critics—
especially to criticism #3
1. Bold denial --Why trust our moral intuitions
anyway? If the theory is compelling for other
reasons, why give authority to intuitions?
2. Appeal to remote effects --many of the
objections assume fanciful or overly abstract
examples. Examples more true to life, if
properly filled in, would not lead to
counterintuitive results.
3. Develop more sophisticated versions of
utilitarianism —rule utilitarianism, two level
utilitarianism, etc.
4. Rejection of the criticism of
overdemandingness—why should morality not be
demanding? No one promised you a rose garden.
5. Rejection of criticism of lack of respect for the
individual—notion of lack of equal respect cuts
both ways. Costs are borne by others regardless.
Deontological Theory
1. In contrast to consequentialist/teleological
theories, the right (what is right to do) is
not specified in terms of the good (theory
of value).
2. The focus is on constraints—acts that are
wrong to do regardless of the good
consequences that might obtain from
doing them—acts that are wrong in
themselves.
3. Moral weight rests on the agent’s avoidance of
wrongdoing rather than on the wrong of the act
as such. (agent-centered/relative reasons)
4. The moral responsibility of the agent is restricted
to what she does and does not include what she
might allow to happen (not act to prevent)—the
act/omission principle or doing/allowing
principle.
5. Moral responsibility is also restricted to what the
agent intends to do, not what happens as an
unintended result, even if it is foreseen—the
principle of double effect.
Rights Theory
(a form of deontological or non-consequentialist
theory)
Immanuel Kant 1724-1804
John Locke 1632-1704
Kantian Intuition: human beings have a value or
dignity in virtue of which they deserve respect and
this requires treating them in certain ways that does
not violate this value or dignity regardless of the
consequences of doing so.
The General Approach of Rights Theory
1. The goal of moral action is to do the right thing,
to do one’s duty.
2. There are certain actions that are not morally
permissible, even if doing them would maximize
the good (bring about the best overall state of
affairs). These actions are forbidden and doing
them is not the right thing to do, regardless of the
circumstances and possible consequences.
3. The constraint on action imposed by these
impermissible actions is grounded in recognition
that certain things have intrinsic value, and the
respect properly accorded that value.
4. For Kant, human beings have intrinsic value and
hence special dignity; in particular, the capacity of
humans to be rational and autonomous seekers of
value is the foundation of our intrinsic value.
5. Properly respecting human dignity and value
entails that one should never use a human being
merely as a means towards some end, however
good the end.
6. One way of recognizing that humans have
intrinsic value is to say that we have certain
rights in virtue of which we deserve certain
types of treatment.
7. Rights so recognized function as shields or
trumps preventing blocking certain actions as
morally permissible, even if these actions
would produce a great deal of good or value
in the world.
Rights also privilege our doing certain things.
(Claim rights and liberty rights)
7. Principle of Right Action--the
right thing to do (and hence our
moral duty) is to act so as to respect
and not violate the rights of any
rights-holder.
Attractions of Rights Theory
1. Rights theory accords with many of our
intuitions about justice, fairness and
equality and our feeling that we deserve
respect.
2. Rights theory appears to provide clear
rules that have a familiar structure similar
to that of the law and of certain religious
systems (the Ten Commandments)
3. Rights theory is universal in that all
humans are seen as having equal rights, and
so it provides a powerful platform for
criticism of repugnant behavior anywhere
in the world.
4. Rights theory is not over demanding as a
morality. As long as we do not violate the
rights of others, we are free to pretty much
do as we wish.
Objections to Rights Theory
1. Rights Theory rests on controversial claims
about intrinsic value and who or what has it.
2. Just what rights there are and who has them is
indeterminate and controversial.
3. Rights promote a moral culture that is atomistic
and legalistic. “The language of rights tends to
transform every relationship into a legalistic
one.” (Pojman, p. 203)
4. Rights claims can conflict and it is not
clear how to adjudicate such conflicts.
5. Respecting rights can at times hinder
bringing a great deal of good into the
world. This may seem counterintuitive.
6. Rights theory may be under demanding
morally.
The issue of scope:
Consequentialism--Who or what is or
can be affected by our actions?
Rights Theory—Who or what has
rights?
More generally-Who or what is or can be affected in a
morally relevant and significant way?
Whose interests need we consider?
THE MORAL COMMUNITY
--to be considered part of the moral community means
that one’s claims and interests deserve due regard when
other members make decisions about what to do.
To be part of the moral community means that you have
MORAL STANDING
--to have moral standing means that affects on you of the
actions of others are morally relevant—you count in the
scope of the theory
CONTINUUM OF POSITIONS
WHAT HAS MORAL STANDING
1. Anthropocentrism –only humans have moral
standing
2. Enlightened Anthropocentrism --only humans
have moral standing, but the interests of future
generations of humans must be counted. How they are
to be counted equally or partially discounted is a matter
of some controversy. This view is informed by the
secular version of the stewardship attitude towards
nature.
The remaining positions are all informed by the nonanthropocentric attitude towards nature.
3. Sentientism —the interests all animals capable of
minimal consciousness and experience count; the ability to
feel pain is the most basic form of experience; all pain
counts equally.
“Pain is pain, and the extent to which it is intrinsically
bad depends on factors like its duration and intensity,
not on the species of the being who experiences it.”
(Singer, 14)
4. Reverence for Life/Biocentrism —the
interests of all living things count, whether
animal, plant or otherwise. Everything alive
has an interest in staying alive, and that
should count as a morally relevant interest.
Interests are equated with ends, goals, a good
of its own.
Whether the interests of every living thing
should count equally is disputed by reverence
for life proponents.
5. Holism —certain collections of
individuals are objects in their own rights
and have interests that should count
morally. The previous positions count only
the interests of individuals. This position
counts the interests of holistic or collective
entities (as well as or instead of those of
individuals) as morally significant.
Holistic positions --focus on different
holistic objects
i. Species —species as such, as opposed to the
individuals that comprise them, have morally
significant interests
ii. Wilderness —wildernesses, as a particular types
of ecosystems with a special kind of value, has
morally significant interests over and above the
interests of the individuals/biota that comprise
them.
iii. Ecosystem Holism --any and every
ecosystem, as opposed to the individuals
that comprise it, has morally significant
interests.
Ecosystem health is a key concept here
connecting to the notion of ecosystem
interests.
iv. Deep Ecology –an extreme form of
ecosystem holism—the ultimate object of
moral standing is the biosphere as a
whole—desire “to preserve the integrity of
the biosphere for its own sake, irrespective
of the possible benefits to humans that
might flow from so doing.”(20)
As Callicott discusses it, Deep Ecology advises
us to take a “deep” ecological view of the
self and see the self/other and the
human/nature distinctions as blurry at best.
• At the limit, this position considers the
Earth as one encompassing ecosystem
and turns into a kind of planetary
holism. (Gaia theory).
• At least as I interpret it, Aldo
Leopold’s “The Land Ethic” is a
variant of Deep Ecology. Callicott
would not agree.
Two Final Claims
1. You cannot make environmental
policy without invoking one or more
moral theories. If you combine two or
more in one decision, you need to be
able to explain apparent
inconsistencies.
2. You cannot make environmental
policy without taking a position on the
question of moral standing.