utilitarianism and environmentalism in ethics

Is utilitarianism an effective approach to environmental ethics? Behaviors that demonstrate personal and collective responsibility to the environment can lead to tangible short-term and long-term objectives that benefit a large number of people. Reducing pollution, limiting deforestation, preserving natural resources, protecting sensitive ecosystems, and mitigating climate change bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, what John Stuart Mill (2017) refers to as summum bonum, the fundamental principle of utilitarianism (p. 1). Therefore, most environmentally conscious policies, business practices, and personal behaviors can be viewed in utilitarian terms.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory, which essentially means that its proponents focus more on the consequences of actions than on the motivations for the actions (Haines, n.d.). There are several types of utilitarianism, including act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism suggests that any act is morally right when it leads to consequences that are better than (or no worse than) any other potential action (Singer, 2003). Rule consequentialism suggests that any act is morally right when it follows the rules that reflect the best interest of the society (Haines, n.d.).

The foremost founder of the comprehensive theory of ethical utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. Mill thoroughly outlined the core principles of utilitarianism, discussing the importance of promoting human happiness and pleasure as central ethical goals. Moreover, Mill traces the origins of utilitarianism to Epicureanism, the ancient Greek philosophy that stressed the value of higher human pleasures such as the pleasure inherent in learning, freedom, or peace. Once happiness or pleasure is established as a reasonable aim of all ethical theories, then all acts can and should be evaluated purely with regard to whether they cause happiness or whether they cause pain. An act that causes happiness has ethical merit or utility; likewise, an act that causes pain does not have merit or utility. Acts can also be ranked according to how much happiness they create within all affected persons, measured by the “greatest happiness principle,” (Mill, 2017, p. 5). The greatest happiness principle can also be applied to broader ethical problems, such as evaluating an act according to whether it leads to more people experiencing positive results. According to utilitarian principles, an act that benefits one million people would be preferable to an act that only benefitted ten people.

Utilitarianism has sometimes been used to justify resource exploitation, by focusing on short-term gains rather than on the long-term impacts of human economic activity or industrial development. Yet there is nothing inherent in utilitarianism that necessitates a short-term or narrow focus. Utilitarianism offers the potential for a more robust ethical heuristic, one that proves that long-term promotion of human health and well-being are directly dependent on environmental responsibility. Short-term economic growth also benefits relatively few numbers of human beings, mainly those who already possess wealth and power. The vast numbers of people on the planet are bereft of wealth and power. To promote the greatest good for the greatest number, it becomes necessary to promote sustainable economic growth. Sustainable economic growth means growth that occurs in accordance with promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. As Wolff (2008) points out, “When anthropocentric arguments are used to defend destructive and unsustainable environmental policies, the benefits to humans are nearly always exaggerated and/or the costs of environmental degradation to present and future human beings are underestimated,” (p. 10). Utilitarianism shows that it is unethical for governments and corporations to be the primary beneficiaries of resource exploitation or policies enabling deforestation or pollution.

Furthermore, utilitarianism shows that it is unethical to engage in any human activity that destroys the beauty, integrity, or health of an ecosystem. The environment has inherent value and utility, not just as a resource that can be used for economic means, but also as a resource that gives people pleasure. People derive pleasure from playing and swimming on a clean beach, from walking through a pristine rainforest, or drinking from a clean mountain stream. On the contrary, people experience suffering when they live in polluted environments, when their food sources are threatened, when weather patterns create safety hazards, and when their water is contaminated by industrial waste.

Viewed with a utilitarian point of view, environmental responsibility is an ethical act. It is ethical to act in accordance with environmental sustainability because doing so promotes clean air and water, which can be enjoyed by a greater number of people than polluted air and water. It is also ethical to act with responsibility to the environment because the acts of each individual or corporation have the potential to impact people in other regions of the world.

Businesses and governments have consistently used the utilitarian perspective to justify resource exploitation. Likewise, the utilitarian perspective can be too easily manipulated to suggest that the “greatest good for the greatest number” is not environmental responsibility but economic growth at all costs. Yet it is actually difficult to argue that environmental responsibility does not promote better consequences overall than unbridled economic growth. Utilitarianism is not the problem; distorted views on what constitutes the greatest good are the problem. However, utilitarianism can be complicated to apply in real life. Some issues related to environmental responsibility are not straightforward, requiring complex ethical evaluations. For example, if genetically modified rice would instantly feed and sustain the lives of a million people but might wipe out a population of bees, it would be difficult to use a utilitarian argument to justify the rice. On the one hand, the rice would save lives in the short run. On the other hand, the long-term repercussions of losing an entire species of local pollinator might lead to even worse human consequences.

One of the strongest objections to environmental utilitarianism is that the theory values human happiness more than on the rights or inherent value of non-human species (Wolff, 2008). While this may generally be true, utilitarianism does allow for a more nuanced conversation about environmental ethics by showing that clean air, clean water, biodiversity, and healthy ecosystems ultimately promote the common good of all people.