HOW+DO+WE+MAKE+USE+CHOICES+GIVEN+THE+VALUE+CONFLICTS?



** Two dominant approaches to environmental value choice-making **

An anthropocentric theory positing that value choices should maximize welfare for the most people, including people here now and people yet to come. The idea, "maximizing welfare," is considered an ethical primative (precept), similar to a scientific rule or law (e.g. gravity). If you take it //as law// that maximizing welfare is //"the right thing to do,"// then decisions must move toward satisfying that law or be considered unethical. This philosophy also has a //consequentialist// piece to it, in that the end - well-being - is the important part. An action isn't inherently good or bad. An action is simply a means to the desired end (well-being) and is judged good or bad by whether it moves the situation toward that end.
 * Utilitarian Anthropocentric Approach **[[image:click_more_details.jpg width="157" height="57" link="Utilitarian Anthropocentric Approach"]]

The authors explain that the utilitarian approach is the primary western approach for making environmental decisions, because it lends itself to using a monetary measure to value the respective alternatives (click this link to learn more). By using a dollar model to create "value commensurability," various alternatives may be compared for higher and lower dollar values. There are, however, serious problems with using the utilitarian model.
 * Dollar values are discovered through market comparisons, and not all environmental "goods" have a market value. The methods for estimating the value of such goods have several weaknesses. I agree. Market environmentalism and the political economy are looked at as solutions, but we have to look past the value of the dollar as well and figure out what intrinsic values other species have. Do we find a way to turn this intrinsic value into a dollar value so that people understand, or do we get other people to understand the intrinsic value? I also think market environmentalism and utilitarianism separates humans from nature and then environment. Who is to say we are separate? Why are we not PART of nature and he environment? -->Emily


 * Utility looks at aggregate maximum well-being, rather than the way the well-being and harms are distributed across individuals, demographic or geographically placed groups, current and present-time beings, or human versus non-human beneficiaries/victims. The authors suggest that there is nothing to prohibit consequentialists from valuing and considering distributive ends alongside maximizing ends. Two ways to do this are "priority view" and "telic egalitariansim." Click here for more information

It seems counterintuitive that utilitarians would place value in rights at all. - Max Rieper I agree Max. A classical Utilitarian approach seems to be very straightforward in determining the pain/pleasure outcomes and factoring in some political idea as "rights" doesn't quite fit. My guess is that for it to become a political right, it must have already previously been decided that it would have the best positive outcome for people. Also the fact that they can and do shift over time would give me more faith from a utilitarian standpoint to trust them as is and not need to dissect them first in order to use them in arguments.-Trisha Van Wig YES to all of you. By the time something is legalized into a "right," that is simply society institutionalizing the idea that something leads to well-being. The danger, of course, is that things change. And i totally agree with Michelle. - Sandy
 * Utilitarians "break ties" in arguments about values by appealing to "rights," and rights are politically created and can shift across time. Reliance upon them may not reflect actual maximum well-being. - After perusing all three wikibooks, I'm of the notion that politics is the last resort and probably the worst method towards achieving sustainability. Michelle Freeman
 * Consequentialism also has problems, including those we associate with the "ends justifies the means" thinking, e.g. some actions we might inherently view as bad acts are condoned because they move us toward the ultimate well-being goals. The authors say this view can exist only if you believe that there is one ultimate "good" (e.g. maximum well-being), and nothing else (protection of human life, of an ecosystem, etc) should be accorded protection from reaching the goal.

**Non-Anthropocentric Approach **  Mainstream alternatives offer two "ethical primitives": (1) that the class of beings to whom moral consideration is owed extends beyond human persons, and (2), nature has intrinsic value. Hence, maximizing welfare must mean maximizing welfare for nature; humankind can be seen as no more than a species within nature, and as such, the welfare of humanity is not to be credited with more (or less) value than any other subpart of the natural world. Assuming we can ascertain what is best for nature. A large assumption! - Max Rieper **The Authors Argue for a Pragmatic Approach ** The authors argue that the mistake of both the utilitarian environmental ethic, and its modern alternatives is a shared mistake. Both philosophies insists on mimicking methods of the natural sciences, looking for ethical primatives (precepts) from which other lower-order ethical claims can be derived. They suggest that this way of thinking infers one ultimate, absolute, ethical outcome for each posed dilemma, when in fact there probably is no such outcome, and all decisions will involve discomfort. Realism requires that we face this fact, and consider a form of ethical pluralism when considering the ethical implications of environmental decisions. Rather than forcing the discussion to cling to a limited number of "ethical primitives," they would ground decisions within historical context, acknowledge the difficult conflicts that exist, and consider particular beings and places within the context of their particular histories.
 *  A Third Way **

The authors point to three co-existing ethical decision-making foundations: (1) utilitarianism/ consequentialism, (discussed above) (2) deontology, which asks us to apply //principles// of action that are the moral principles for a particular context, and (3) virtue ethics, which asks what would a person of good moral character do in a particular situation, or in the case of policy-making, what a virtuous community would look like or do. 

 This appeals to me, much for the same reason the Moore reading appeals to me. Context matters. I've never adhered to a dogmatic philosophy because what works in some situations may not work for others. I think this is vital to remember in sustainability policies. - Max Rieper The context of the situation is always important to keep in mind when trying to find the best possible solution. However, it makes it difficult to apply policy on a case-by-case basis. - Trisha Van Wig 
 * **Deontologists** resolve value conflicts by asking which principle(s) have the most pull in the given context, e.g an activist may choose to spend time with her children while they are on school holiday, rather than working for her cause. She does not "trade off" values as utilitarians think. Rather she selects the appropriate value to implement //in the context//. Yet, in a different context, she may elevate her cause over family, e.g. protesting a toxic release may risk jail and time loss from family, yet the need to stop the release may justify the risk.
 * **Virtue ethicists** resolve value conflicts by remaining true to character, actually the opposite of value trade-off. Tricky to explain, an example is...for someone whose dignity is the important virtue, that dignity is lost by the mere discussion of a trade-off. This can be taken to the extreme, e.g. an environmentalist group may not sit down to talk with a polluting firm or a logging company, because "your character is judged by the company you keep." Is this similar to pharmacists that refuse to dispense the "morning after pill" based upon his/her religious beliefs? - Michelle Freeman
 * I would relate it more to two sides that are essentially trying to come to some sort of middle ground but one won't deal with the other, as per your example; anti-abortion groups wanting to ban all birth control, even though the end result of having easily accessible birth control is the result they actually want, less abortions.

The authors advocate for a pluralist ethical approach. They deny that one utility, one principle or one virtue need drive decisions. They similarlyl deny the necessity, or even the //possibility// of reducing all value decisions to one measuring stick like money or market value.


 * Instead, want to extend moral considerability to all living things, in order to provide an adequate account of conflicts within environmental policy. -I view this as extremely difficult to apply and implement as there is no universal definition of morals. If so, would not all citizens in the US have access to free and/or affordable healthcare? -Michelle Freeman

Yes, it seems that looking at things from several different perspective slows the process down (which is not what we need right now); however, it also seems like the only solution that will create long-term sustainability. -Kathryn

**And now for**
 * Enviro Ethics Tidbits & Trivia**