Utilitarianism of Environmental Ethics: A Critical Review

This journal article analyzes the effect of utilitarianism on the ethics of environment and business. It discusses the traditional ethical theories and the need for environmental ethics. The article also highlights the criticisms of utilitarianism and its impact on stakeholders and corporate social responsibility.

Running head: BUSINESS ETHICS
Business Ethics
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1BUSINESS ETHICS
Environmental Ethics
The journal that has been chosen for a critical review is “Utilitarianism of
environmental ethics” by the author Valentinov. It highlights the effect on the key issues of
business ethics (Valentinov 2017). The ethical component that has been analyzed is regarding
the concept of utilitarianism on the ethics of environment and business. Environmental ethics
highlights on the facts that are ought to inhabit the world. The concept of environmental
ethics raged as a reaction to the causes for the growth of environmental crisis as the
transformation of the forests in Australia into pine plantations. However, as per the journal
environmental ethical theories have an effect on the stakeholders and the corporate social
responsibility. Issues of Environmental ethics particularly affect the environment of the
corporations. Ethical theory majorly focuses on the surroundings of how a corporation works.
Over the years, there have been traditional ethical theories that were not being able to provide
an enough amount of the relationship (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). The purpose for the
motivation of the environmental ethics was a reason to originate the ethical theories to
achieve better results in their work. Utilitarianism is considered to be as the most common
and traditional form that is treated to be both a theory of the right and theory of the good.
Such ethical issues are used in companies majorly. It affects the However, the key theme of
understanding the utilitarianism is by applying the ethical theories.
The concept of utilitarianism is generally engaged with a bunch of economic theories
that proves that individuals in their best form when they are able to track and fulfill their kind
of preferences in the free market (Beatley 2017). According to the journal, utilitarianism has
played a significant role in the process of protecting the ecosystems, wildlife and species.
Several ethicists on various grounds have criticized this key theme of environmental ethics.
Environmental ethics have distanced themselves from the theories of tradition like morality
and by denying the significance of intrinsic value theories. In defense of a Utilitarian

2BUSINESS ETHICS
Environmental Ethic, organisms and human beings chiefly depend on the services of
ecological, natural and wild organisms (Percival et al. 2017). These wild organisms and
natural system alters the climate and the biochemical cycles that are an essential source of
food, produce and protect fertile soils for controlling pests and increasing the genetic
material. The components of utilitarianism should respond to the specific number of claims
that the environmental ethicists have made concerning the nature of the utilitarian ethics. Due
to the environmental problems and ethics, all the corners and spheres get affected. However,
the claim of utilitarian ethics have formed a general criticism of this kind of ethics that can be
applied. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics identifies the pain and suffering of the organisms
that does not support human humanity (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). It has been argued
that utilitarian ethics has ignored the values and rights of some ethicists who believe that life
creates possess. This is considered to be a virtue of utilitarianism instead of a liability (Braito
et al. 2017). The journal has discussed the concept of utilitarians, which has legal rights,
ecosystems and value species that have been identified. The existence of such rights and
values are of a special kind. These rights and values have proved to be a complicated problem
for the environmental ethicists as they did not succeed in convincing the policymakers that
micro-organisms, trees and communities have the right kind of values that makes the
situation a direct moral concern. It has been observed that utilitarianism have encouraged a
healthy argument related to the features of a satisfactory environmental ethic (Mill 2016). A
utilitarian environmental ethic will not restrict culling when the objective is to promote the
welfare of the population in the purpose of protecting the ecosystem (Lucas, Van Wee and
Maat 2016). It has been argued based on a point that the ones interested in the sufferings and
pain of the individuals will have to abstain from predators and hunting. Educators and
environmental ethicists have the object to teach utilitarianism on the grounds that it will be
flawed in such ways that will have nothing to do with the issues of the environment. The

3BUSINESS ETHICS
ethical difficulties that are encountered in public medicine and education in the nature of such
an ethic (Braito et al. 2017). Educators identify the fact that environmental ethicists
encounter both the philosophical and practical problems when the attempt made is to be
subject of direct moral concern. Any ethic that focuses on the communities, species and
ecosystem rests on the foundations that since these are incorporeal entities. Therefore, the
value of individuals does not have greater values as compared to the values of species to
communities and the ecosystem (Percival et al. 2017). Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that
is applied in the evaluation process of ethics and the environment that is looked for an
outcome (Hourdequin 2015). Bentham has argued that deals with environmental ethics is
important in the theory of utilitarianism. Bentham stated that he would look after the pleasure
of both humans and animals. Utilitarianism is the biggest issue in the environmentalism since
it is a fact that it does not provide any inherent value to the environment. This method is
beneficial for the concept of global warming as well if animals and other organisms are
considered (AM and Francis 2017). According to utilitarians, the overall process of executing
things for decreasing the carbon footprint results in the protection of the environment
(Gasparski 2017). This theory covers and researches each of the case individually if the
reason is harming the environment around. However, every environmental ethicists believes
that in a valid environmental ethic should encourage and accept the intrinsic values. It can be
observed from this explanation that there is no kind of alternative to a utilitarian
environmental ethic (Hourdequin 2015). On the other hand, it can be observed that without
the emissions that are produced in the country, many individuals would have led a different
lifestyle over the years. Maximum number of environmental ethicists believe that a proper
environmental ethic is treated to be that one which makes other organisms like ecosystems
subjects of proper and direct moral concern (Ozturk et al. 2016). This way it has been
determined and proved that the scope of environmental ethics is an academic discipline.

4BUSINESS ETHICS
However, it is too narrow to serve the needs of the present and the future policymakers of the
environment (Campbell 2016). The concept of environmental ethics should not formed with
the means of practical concerns but the arguments of the ethicists appeal to the moral of the
species. Other ethicists and educators argue that utilitarianism has destructive policies and
methods of the environment that leads to degradation. Rights and traditional utilitarian is
based on ethics that can be put to use for rejecting the practices that are frequently blamed for
endorsing (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). Therefore, such policies can proved to be
unethical from the perspective of a utilitarian. Generally, environmental ethics is treated to be
a part of the philosophy of environment that is considered in extending the boundaries of the
ethics, which includes humans to including the non-human world. It has been claimed by the
critiques that utilitarianism is a concept used to test the products on animals as those same
tests were supposed to be carried out on human beings (Mill 2016). In the argument, it was
observed that utilitarianism was not considered to be an effective means of ruling the
activities. This have been claimed that placing animals on the same moral reasons as humans
refers to a situation of their ability to suffer. Ethicists compared the intelligence of human and
animals. However, the ethicists of environment have highlighted proper focus on the limits of
utilitarianism and described the term in a manner that refers to be an oxymoron. Utilitarian
ethics can be supportive towards the strong environmental policies. These ethics have not
produced an environmental ones that consisted of broad appeal (Braito et al. 2017).
Utilitarianism is identified as a theory of technology and ethical activities that are the results
of the activities opposed to the action itself. An argument can be stated saying that the
approach of Bentham to act as utilitarianism does not employ a degree of duty and justice
(AM and Francis 2017). No such guidelines exist concerning as to what can be done in these
specific situations where the necessity of something else is beyond the pleasure of the
majority of humans. The fossil fuel of the environment supplies is depleting steadily.

5BUSINESS ETHICS
Therefore, there is a conflict that arose between preserving the natural resources and
providing efficient energy to the world and, as it is complicated for institutions to do so
without preserving fuel.
On the other hand, consideration did not exceed for restoring the natural resources and
the company as an ethical understanding for the welfare of human beings over the existing
surroundings and environment as fossil fuels cannot experience pleasure. Such kind of an
implication makes it tough for individuals to utilize the activities that are related to the duties
(Mill 2016). Rule of utilitarianism accepts the rules and principles of utility. Further, it was
argued that the concept of justice should be exercised in environment and society. However,
it is not easy to conclude by stating that the concept of utilitarianism is the best possible
method to environmental ethics. Ethics states a sense of duty that acts as an element in the
process of decision-making.

6BUSINESS ETHICS
References:
AM, A.F.A. and Francis, R.D., 2017. The trouble with leadership: theories of good and
troubled leadership and their ethical implications. In The Palgrave Handbook of Leadership
in Transforming Asia (pp. 143-162).
Beatley, T., 2017. Environmental ethics and the field of planning: Alternative theories and
middle-range principles. In Values and planning (pp. 20-45). Routledge.
Braito, M.T., Böck, K., Flint, C., Muhar, A., Muhar, S. and Penker, M., 2017. Human-nature
relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour. Environmental Values, 26(3), pp.365-
389.
Campbell, T.D., 2016. The legal theory of ethical positivism. Routledge.
Filip, I., Saheba, N., Wick, B. and Amir Radfar, M.D., 2016. Morality and ethical theories in
the context of human behavior. Ethics & Medicine, 32(2), p.83.
Gasparski, W.W., 2017. Environmental Political Philosophy. Routledge.
Hourdequin, M., 2015. Environmental ethics: From theory to practice. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Lucas, K., Van Wee, B. and Maat, K., 2016. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility:
combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation, 43(3),
pp.473-490.
Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383).
Routledge.

7BUSINESS ETHICS
Ozturk, A.B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Hua, N., 2016. The role of utilitarian and hedonic
values on users’ continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking
environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 57, pp.106-115.
Percival, R.V., Schroeder, C.H., Miller, A.S. and Leape, J.P., 2017. Environmental
regulation: Law, science, and policy. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Valentinov, V., 2017. The Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian
interpretation. Journal of business ethics, 142(1), pp.25-35.