Ethics and Philosophy of Fracking: Balancing Present and Future
This paper examines the ethical and philosophical dimensions of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), focusing on the tension between meeting today's energy needs and protecting future generations. Drawing on utilitarian, pragmatist, rights-based, virtue ethics, and care ethics frameworks, the paper evaluates fracking's economic benefits — including job creation, energy security, and lower costs — against its environmental harms, such as water contamination, air pollution, and habitat destruction. The analysis also engages with the philosophy of temporal proximity, questioning how much moral weight we owe to those who do not yet exist. The paper concludes by advocating for investment in renewable energy alternatives as a means of satisfying competing ethical obligations.
- Introduction: Frames ethical tension between present and future energy needs
- Temporal Proximity and Moral Concern: Debates moral obligations to temporally distant future generations
- The Benefits of Fracking Today: Utilitarian and pragmatist case for fracking's economic benefits
- The Future Impact of Fracking: Rights-based and virtue ethics critiques of environmental harm
- Alternatives to Fracking: Ethical support across frameworks for renewable energy investment
- Conclusion: Synthesizes competing ethical claims, calls for informed dialogue
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Systematically applies multiple ethical frameworks — utilitarianism, pragmatism, rights-based theory, virtue ethics, and care ethics — to a single real-world issue, demonstrating breadth of philosophical literacy.
- Grounds abstract philosophical arguments in concrete economic and environmental evidence, such as job creation statistics and documented environmental harms, making the analysis accessible and credible.
- Maintains a genuinely balanced structure: it presents the strongest case for fracking before presenting the strongest case against it, rather than stacking the argument from the outset.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of multi-framework ethical analysis, in which a single policy question is evaluated sequentially through several competing moral lenses. Rather than selecting one ethical theory and advocating for it, the author uses each framework to illuminate a different dimension of the problem — a method characteristic of applied ethics writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an introduction that frames the central tension, then devotes a section to the philosophical concept of temporal proximity before moving into two substantive analytical sections: one defending fracking's present benefits and one critiquing its future harms. A penultimate section on renewable energy alternatives follows, and a conclusion synthesizes the competing ethical claims. This pro/con-then-synthesis structure is well-suited to applied ethics papers.
Introduction
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has become an integral part of the global energy landscape. This process has allowed for the extraction of oil and gas from previously inaccessible resources, leading to economic growth and improved energy security. However, the fracking industry is not without its ethical and philosophical dilemmas. The central question at the heart of this issue is how to balance the lives and needs of today's people who benefit from the fracking industry with the lives and needs of future generations.
Temporal Proximity and Moral Concern
The ethics of temporal proximity involve the moral weight we place on individuals and generations based on their proximity to us in time. Parfit (1984) discusses this idea in the context of obligations to future generations, arguing that we should not discount their well-being simply because they are temporally distant. This principle is aligned with the idea of impartiality, which posits that moral concern should be equally distributed among all individuals, regardless of their proximity to us (Singer, 1972).
However, some philosophers argue for a degree of partiality based on proximity, suggesting that we have a stronger moral obligation to those closer to us in time (Nagel, 1970). This perspective could justify prioritizing the needs of present generations over those of the future. This debate between impartiality and partiality highlights the complexity of the philosophical and ethical implications of temporal proximity in the context of the fracking industry.
References
Aristotle. (350 B.C.). Nicomachean Ethics. (W. D. Ross, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Howarth, R. W., Ingraffea, A., & Engelder, T. (2011). Natural gas: Should fracking stop? Nature, 477(7364), 271–275.
Jacobson, M. Z., Delucchi, M. A., Cameron, M. A., & Frew, B. A. (2015). 100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energy & Environmental Science, 8(7), 2093–2117.
Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
Nagel, T. (1970). The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.
Stevens, P. (2012). The 'shale gas revolution': Developments and changes. Chatham House, Briefing Paper EERG BP 2012/04.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.