Different Moral Theories Callender

Philosophy & the Environment 148

I. Utilitarianism (Mill !entham" no# !randt $en% Utilitarianism has &een the dominant ethi'al theory in U.$. p(&li' poli'y over the last )* years tho(+h it has &een stron+ly atta',ed over the last 'o(ple of de'ades primarily on the +ro(nds that it does not +ive s(ffi'ient prote'tion to the individ(al. Utiliatrianism is a version of Conse-(entialism. The latter states that one sho(ld .(d+e an a'tion morally &y its 'onse-(en'es that one sho(ld do #hatever ma/imi0es the +ood. 1n a'tion is ri+ht if its 'onse-(en'es if its 'ontri&(tion are no #orse than its alternatives2 'onse-(en'es. Th(s an a'tion may &e ri+ht even if its 'onse-(en'es are very poor so lon+ as the alternatives are #orse. 3hat is the +ood4 5or (ltilitarians the +ood is #elfare. 3hat is #elfare4 Mental state of happiness4 $atisfa'tion of a't(al preferen'es4 $atisfa'tion of rational and informed preferen'es4 1n a'tion is ri+ht if it ma/imi0es total or avera+e #elfare. (i% s'ope6 Conse-(entialist theory needs to &e 'lear a&o(t pre'isely #hat the 'onse-(en'es are. (ii% a/iolo+y6 Conse-(entialist theory needs to provide a s'heme for determinin+ the relative val(e of 'onse-(en'es. This theory of val(e is 'alled an a/iolo+y. The term (tility is (sed to refer to any ,ind of val(ed o(t'ome (from #hi'h 'omes the term 7(tilitarianism7%. There are a n(m&er of different possi&le a/iolo+ies dependin+ (pon ho# #e (nderstand #elfare. 3hat they share is the ass(mption that a''epta&le a/iolo+ies #ill ena&le (s not simply to ma,e 'omparative eval(ations &et#een different options &(t also to ran, order options in terms of their (tility. !oth so8'alled hedoni' and preferen'e satisfa'tion a/iolo+ies ass(me that everyone9s (tility is to &e #ei+hted e-(ally in assessin+ the net (tility. (iii% de'ision r(le6 The de'ision r(le tells the de'ision ma,er #hi'h option is the ri+ht one +iven the val(ed 'onse-(en'es f(rnished &y the a/iolo+y. The theory has somethin+ to say a&o(t the distri&(tion of ine-(alities it seems even tho(+h the a&ove prin'iple is not itself a distri&(tional prin'iple. That is the prin'iple of de'linin+ mar+inal (tility mi+ht allo# that the :pain2 'a(sed a ri'h person &y ta,in+ some of his money and +ivin+ it to a poor person is offset &y the :pleas(re2 o&tained &y the poor person as a res(lt. 1

3orries. Can #e ma,e interpersonal 'omparisons of #ell8&ein+4 3hose #elfare 'o(nts4 This &ears dire'tly on the animal ri+hts iss(e. 1vera+e vers(s total happiness4 This &ears dire'tly on the pop(lation iss(e. $ho(ld pleas(re from 'rime 'o(nt to#ard the total (ltility4 Inno'ent person 'ase" :happy2 slave so'iety 'ase and so on. Utilitarianism s(ffers from many more 'on'erns and diffi'(lties than merely the a&ove. !(t it remains a stron+ ethi'al theory &e'a(se in prin'iple at least one 'an simply 'al'(late the ri+ht thin+ to do. ;ne is +iven a 'lear +(ide to a'tion (in theory% and one is also a&le to identify the points of disp(te very 'learly. II. <i+hts Theories (=o&&es >o',e <o(ssea( ?ant @o0i',% <i+hts are a 'ompli'ated set of permissions and 'onstraints. 1 ri+ht for yo( to do A (say stri,e% implies a 'orrelative d(ty on others to not interfere #ith yo(r performan'e of A. <i+hts8&ased theories spe'ify (i% the moral ri+hts that individ(als are said to en.oy or have nat(rally (ii% the le+al ri+hts that sho(ld flo# from these moral or nat(ral ri+hts and (iii% an ar+(ment to the effe't that any rational person #o(ld re'o+ni0e the moral for'e of these 'laimed ri+hts. <e+ardin+ (iii%B >o',e said that #e 'an per'eive them and the 1meri'an De'laration follo#ed s(it sayin+ that they #ere self8evident. ?ant +ave another ans#er ma,in+ (se of the idea of e-(al respe't for rational a+ents. Contra't(alists say they are .(stified &e'a(se a rational +ro(p of people #ill a+ree to live &y a 'ertain set of moral r(les. Dependin+ on the theory ri+hts may &e a&sol(te or not a&sol(teCthat is morally overridden or not. !(t (s(ally they 'o(nt m('h more than a 'onse-(entialist #o(ld ever allo#. 1. >i&ertarian Theory. (1% >i&ertarian theories limit the s'ope of p(&li' poli'y and hen'e +overnment sharply and hold that poli'ies are .(stified only to the e/tent that they prote't the life li&erty and property of 'iti0ens a+ainst interferen'e &y others. The sole role of +overnment is to provide these prote'tions. >i&ertarian theory holds that the rational person #o(ld o(t of p(re self8interest &e #illin+ to form or .oin asso'iations that had as their p(rpose the se'(rin+ of these prote'tions. In parti'(lar it is 'laimed that rational self8interest 'ompels one to .oin s('h self8prote'tion asso'iations. (D% >i&ertarian theory limits itself to the re'o+nition of vario(s non8interferen'e ri+hts.

>i&ertarians sometimes e/plain their ethi's &y sayin+ that it .(stifies only ne+ative ri+hts that it levies only ne+ative d(ties i.e. d(ties of non8interferen'e #ith others. ;(r o&li+ations as 'iti0ens are not to do anythin+ that #o(ld violate someone else9s ri+hts not to &e interferred #ith. 3e are not o&li+ated to perform any positive a'tions on &ehalf of others. In point of fa't many li&ertarian ethi's do levy 'ertain positive d(ties. (E% >i&ertarian limits ;n'e #e +et &eyond ri+hts and d(ties of self8prote'tion it &e'omes diffi'(lt to .(stify (on li&ertarian +ro(nds% any e/tension of state po#er into other areas of life. >i&ertarianism dra#s rather sharp limits (pon #hat p(&li' a(thorities may do and leaves a +reat deal of dis'retion to the private de'ision ma,er. It is (sef(l to 'onsider e/a'tly #hat sorts of 'oer'ive environmental le+islation a li&ertarian 'o(ld (and 'o(ld not% 'onsistently a''ept. Coer'ive le+islation 'oer'es an individ(al or individ(als in order to se'(re a res(lt of some sort. $('h le+islation 'an &e 'lassified in terms of its intended +oal(s% of the 'oer'ion6 F prevent harm (or ris, of harm% to other individ(als. F prevent self8harm (paternalism%. F prevent offense to others (e.+. n(isan'e la#s%. F se'(re a &enefit for others. F se'(re a &enefit for oneself. >i&ertarians are 'onsistently a&le to s(pport only le+islation that is intended to prevent one individ(al from harmin+ others. They 'annot s(pport environmental le+islation that does not have this intent e.+. n(isan'e la#s si+n ordinan'es et'. !. E+alitarian Theory. E+alitarians a''ept the validity of li&ertarian ri+hts" ho#ever (nli,e li&ertarians they #o(ld e/tend the terms of the so'ial 'ontra't to in'l(de 'ertain positive ri+hts #hi'h e+alitarians term 7opport(nity ri+hts.7 (1% 1r+(ment for the terms of the e+alitarian 'ontra't. >i&ertarians ar+(ment for a so'ial 'ontra't that in'l(des only ri+hts of non8interferen'e &y ima+inin+ the so'ial 'ontra't that individ(als in a 7state of nat(re7 #o(ld 'onsent to. E+alitarians similarly as, #hat sort of 'ontra't #o(ld individ(als 'onsent to" ho#ever they ima+ine a rather different 'ontra't(al sit(ation. This sit(ation #hi'h <a#ls d(&s the 7ori+inal position 7 is one in #hi'h individ(als are rational (i.e. they see, to ma/imi0e their o#n +ood% &(t they 'hoose the terms of the 'ontra't from a position of fairness spe'ifi'ally they deli&erate on the terms of the 'ontra't from &ehind #hat <a#ls d(&s 7a veil of i+noran'e 7 as re+ards their parti'(lar interests lia&ilities so'ial 'lass family #ealth et'. 3hat #e +et then as a so'ial 'ontra't is the one that rational persons

#o(ld a+ree to #hen #e have stripped a#ay all of the traits that #o(ld tend to &ias the a+reed (pon 'ontra't a+ainst rational persons #ho la', the trait. (D% Positive <i+hts and ;pport(nities. E+alitarians ass(me that persons in this ori+inal position #o(ld 'hoose a so'ial 'ontra't that in addition to providin+ for li&ertarian prote'tions #o(ld provide individ(als #ith a reasona&le share of primary +oods the thin+s that ma,e a de'ent life possi&le. Primary +oods in'l(de food shelter se'(rity and some dis'retionary in'ome. They also in'l(de opport(nities to learn to #or, to 'omm(ni'ate and to in'rease one9s allotment of other primary +oods. !e'a(se the positive ri+hts re'o+ni0ed &y e+alitarian theories provide opport(nities as #ell as prote'tions they are often des'ri&ed as opport(nity ri+hts. $ome e+alitarians spea, of their theories as e-(al opport(nity theories. !asi'ally the terms of the e+alitarian theory +(arantee a minimally de'ent life and an opport(nity to 'ompete e-(ally for a &etter than avera+e life. Clearly providin+ everyone #ith a reasona&le share of primary +oods #o(ld re-(ire re'o+nition of 'ertain positive d(ties on the part of others to provide these +oods &y ta/ation or other s'hemes. >imits of e+alitarianism. E+alitarians s('h as <a#ls ass(me that persons in the ori+inal position #o(ld not ne'essarily 'hoose a stri'tly e+alitarian so'ial 'ontra't inasm('h as the nat(re of mar,ets and need for in'entives mi+ht di'tate that some ine-(ality in the distri&(tion of primary +oods mi+ht have the effe't of providin+ more for every&ody. !(t e+alitarians #o(ld insist (pon an e-(al distri&(tion (nless everyone #o(ld profit from an (ne-(al distri&(tion of primary +oods. (E% Entitlements vs. +oals. !e'a(se of the &road s'ope of the ri+hts that e+alitarian 'ontra'ts re'o+ni0e vi0 opport(nity ri+hts as #ell as non8interferen'e ri+hts e+alitarian theories r(n (p a+ainst the o&vio(s fa't that #e live in a #orld of s'ar'ity. $o'ieties are (na&le to provide everythin+ that 'ontra'tors mi+ht desire. There m(st &e some ran,in+ or prioriti0in+ of opport(nity ri+hts. E+alitarians often distin+(ish &et#een entitlements and +oals the former &ein+ those opport(nity ri+hts that a so'iety in virt(e of its #ealth is o&li+ated to +(arantee the latter &ein+ those opport(nity ri+hts that a so'iety is not in a position to +(arantee &(t #hi'h it is o&li+ated to #or, to se'(re. In effe't the la&or of so'iety is to t(rn +oals into entitlements. In a relatively #ealthy so'iety li,e o(r o#n ed('ation and health'are are ar+(a&ly entitlements primary +oods to #hi'h #e sho(ld have a le+al ri+ht inasm('h as they are prere-(isites for opport(nities that so'iety 'an afford to satisfy" in other less #ealthy so'iety they may only &e +oals. The 'r('ial point here is that for e+alitarian theories there has to &e a prioriti0in+ of opport(nity ri+hts.