i need help with this project

A nonconsequentialist ethical theory that claims an act is to be evaluated in terms of its accordance with a specified set of rules.

dialectical

Describing a specific mode of argument; also a term characterizing an interdependent relationship between or among two or more things.

emotivism

A meta-ethical view that claims ethical statements are merely expressions of one's emotion toward a given act, not based on facts or moral realities.

ethical egoism

An ethical view that argues acts should be done out of a person's self-interest.

Golden Mean

The middle, or mean, between two extremes; prominent in Aristotle's discussion of virtue.

inductive

Describes a kind of reasoning in which a conclusion is based on a set of reasons that do not conclusively establish that conclusion.

intuitions

A general term used to refer to views that are spontaneous or not necessarily the result of considered, rational reflection.

justified belief

A claim that a person holds on the basis of evidence and reason sufficient to claim that the belief is warranted or legitimate.

knowledge claim

The assertion of something as factual or objectively true.

logic

The study of arguments and how they are put together.

noncognitive

Describes a meta-ethical view that denies there are moral facts, or real moral truths; the denial that moral claims can be determined to be true or false.

opinion

A subjectively based claim that does not necessarily appeal to reason or evidence.

premise

A reason put forth in argument to support a claim or conclusion.

psychological egoism

The view that people, in fact, do whatever it is that maximizes their utility.

relativism

The view that moral claims are relative to an individual or community, and do not have objective value or truth.

rule utilitarianism

A consequentialist ethical theory that claims an action is right if it is in accordance with a rule that generates the greatest good for the greatest number.

A linguistic unit of meaning designed to assert something; often said to require both a subject and a predicate as minimal components.

soundness

The characteristic of a deductive argument that is valid, and the premises of which are true.

utilitarianism

A consequentialist ethical theory that evaluates moral claims in terms of their outcomes, and to the extent these outcomes generate the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

The characteristic of a deductive argument requiring the truth of the conclusion if the truth of the premises is accepted.

virtue ethics

An ethical theory that focuses on the character of the agent in evaluating moral behavior, in contrast to utilitarianism or deontology; often associated with Aristotle.

Chapter 1 Flashcards

Chapter 2

Ethical Questions in the Public Square

Women suffragists cover a billboard to advertise a 1914 demonstration.

Courtesy Everett Collection

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

•Discuss the interdependent relationship between ethics and law.

•Describe different sides of the issue of prayer in public schools and apply ethical theory to the problem.

•Explain how ethics can help resolve conflicting values within a society.

•Describe how ethics can be understood in the context of a historical issue: women's suffrage.

•Apply ethical theory to a contemporary social issue: the regulation of pornography.

Now that we have discussed the basics of ethical theory, we can apply them to actual situations, and see what they have to say about moral issues in specific, concrete situations. This approach has two practical advantages. First, by seeing how a specific ethical theory can be applied to an actual issue, we will see how the theory can better help us understand what the real problems are. Ultimately, we may not solve these problems in a way that will satisfy everyone, but we should have a much better grasp of the problems themselves. This will help us focus our ability to think about these questions more critically and eliminate some of the detours, side issues, and irrelevant parts of the debate that may interfere with our understanding of the questions.

Second, by applying the various theories to actual moral problems, we will also come to better understand the theories themselves. It is one thing to understand what a basic ethical position is, but it can be very helpful to see how that ethical position works in dealing with difficult ethical questions.

In this chapter, we will look at questions that arise when individual rights are threatened or violated, as well as instances when one person's rights may infringe upon another person's rights. As examples, we will look specifically at school prayer and pornography. We will also look at a historical debate over a woman's right to vote. This historical discussion should help us realize that some ethical questions can be resolved, and that talking, and arguing, about them may lead to significant changes in people's lives.

Each discussion will present a debate on a specific topic. For example, we will give an argument for why prayer should be allowed in public schools, and then look at the counterargument for why it should be restricted or prohibited. After presenting the debate, we will show how these positions relate to the ethical theories in Chapter 1—in this case, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. On other occasions, we may apply the same theory in two different ways, to demonstrate that a specific ethical theory may give quite different results in some cases. This will help remind us that although ethics provides guidance and insight into moral issues, very rarely does it offer solutions that everyone will accept. We will then look at some of the results of the debate and the theories involved, and some of the implications that may emerge from those results. After each specific issue is treated in this way, we will briefly discuss a different, but related, question that will make clear some of the larger issues involved.

A Brief Review of Ethical Theory

The ethical theories being applied in this chapter are discussed at greater length in Chapter 1, but as a quick reminder, here are the basics of the three classical ethical theories:

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of an act in terms of its consequences: Act utilitarianism emphasizes the act itself, and whether what one chooses to do will produce, given any other alternative, the greatest good for the greatest number of those affected by that choice. Rule utilitarianism focuses on whether the choice conforms to a rule that, in general, produces the greatest benefit for the greatest number of those affected. Because it focuses on the results of an act in its evaluation, utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of ethics.

Deontology

Deontological theories focus on duty, and the rules one is required to follow to be moral; this can be seen in the etymology of its root word deon, a Greek work meaning "necessity" or "obligation." Deontology does not regard the results of an act as relevant to the moral evaluation of that act, and is thus a nonconsequentialist theory of ethics.

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character—the virtue—of the agent in evaluating its morality. Thus, instead of looking at the results of the act (as in utilitarianism) or the necessary rules that constitute morality (as in deontology), virtue ethics turns its attention to the person carrying out the act, and whether that act demonstrates, adds to, or subtracts from the virtue of that person.

In addition, there are other approaches to ethics that were also discussed. Particularly significant for the current discussion is relativism:

Relativism

Relativism argues that there are no objective moral truths, but that any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a single person or a larger group, such as one based on language, culture, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community.

2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?

Woman wearing a niqab holding up her European passport.

Remy de la Mauviniere/Associated Press

Many French Muslims saw the ban on full-face veils as a restriction of their religious freedom.

Laws, for a given society, are designed to guarantee those rights recognized in a society, as well as guarantee the security of those who live in it. Debate has raged for thousands of years about what specific rights and responsibilities are involved here. Some argue for a minimal state that does little but guarantee contracts and protect the safety of citizens by providing secure borders and such minimal services as police and fire departments. Others argue for a much bigger role for the state, insisting that the state function to provide health care, education, parks, libraries, unemployment support, and many other social services to support a well-functioning and productive society. Of course, there are also many positions in between these two.

Often individual or group ethical principles conflict with the laws that govern the state in which the person or group lives. As we know from history, one might be a member of a religious minority in a society where virtually all the other members of the society follow a distinct religious tradition, or even in a country that has an official state religion. But even in a society that is diverse and places a high value on tolerance, this issue can arise. Whenever a society enacts laws, there is the potential that those laws will conflict with the views of some of the individuals in that society. For instance, a state may outlaw a drug, or ritual, that a group living in that state regards as sacred and fundamental to its religious practice. In 2011, France outlawed the wearing of full-face veils (the niqab) (Erlanger, 2011); many French Muslims (and others) objected to this as a restriction of religious practice, while the French government saw the law as fundamental to preserving traditional French culture. Numerous such examples of this kind of conflict—between a state and the values of those who live in that state—can be found throughout the world. The issue this raises for ethics is how one deals with the confrontation between one's morals and the laws of one's state when the two conflict.

A state cannot survive if people choose to ignore its laws, but does that mean a person must either leave the state—if that is even possible—or accept laws that are fundamentally at odds with his or her most profound ethical (and possibly religious) views? Traditionally, in a democratic society, citizens have the right to organize, express their opinions, and use the democratic process to change, eliminate, or enact laws. But while that seems to be a theory with many attractive features, it may be a daunting thing to accomplish. Ethics helps us clarify our ethical choices, but can it help us with having our ethical choices respected? Can it show us how we can guarantee that our moral views aren't violated? And can it give us any guidance when there is a harsh contradiction between one's moral viewpoint and the laws of one's society? These are difficult questions that arise within ethics, and particularly when ethics is combined with an examination of the political process. They may be difficult to answer, but they are good questions to keep in mind when thinking about ethics and the moral values one's state chooses to enforce as its rules and its laws.

2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools

Prayer is a particularly personal topic, and thus the role of prayer for an individual has led to some of the most divisive arguments over religious practice, such as prayer in public schools. Here, will we look at this debate, and then apply the theory of utilitarianism in two different ways to clarify the issues involved.

Let's examine some of the arguments over whether organized prayer should be allowed in public schools and try to clarify the issues involved by distinguishing between "allowing" prayer and "promoting" prayer, as well as noting the difference between an individual praying privately and a group participating in an organized, coordinated prayer.

The Argument for Prayer in Public Schools

The relationship between a person and God is the most precious relationship of all. Society must respect that relationship, and, recognizing this, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits any interference with religion. Because prayer can be considered the most sacred right a religious person possesses, the government absolutely cannot, and should not, interfere with that right by preventing someone from praying. As the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (U.S. Const. amend. I). To prohibit school prayer is to prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. Thus, not only is eliminating prayer from public schools wrong, it is also unconstitutional. Moral and legal reasons demonstrate that prayer in public school should, therefore, be allowed.

Clearly, one's right to prayer is protected by the Constitution; however, there are many other benefits to allowing prayer in public schools. Religious values, such as honesty, charity, and nonviolent problem solving are important to a well-functioning society. Few places are more important than public schools to emphasize these values; indeed, public schools provide a tragic example of how these values have been neglected. Teenage pregnancy, STDs, gang violence, and drug and alcohol abuse are common in many public schools. Reminding students that these are wrong and that there are ways of avoiding them are valuable moral lessons students need now more than ever.

Students and teacher saying the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom.

Fuse/Thinkstock

Some would argue that since fewer people have objected to the custom of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, history and practice support allowing prayer in school.

This is not an argument for a specific religion's view to be imposed on public school students; that would, indeed, violate the language of the First Amendment and what is known as the Establishment Clause. Rather, the argument here is for voluntary prayer for students who wish to participate. This allows these students to exercise their religious rights and to promote important moral values. Furthermore, most religions promote the same kinds of moral values. The Golden Rule, for instance, can be found in many different religions and in many different cultures. To remind students to treat others as they would want to be treated establishes no specific religion and reinforces a value fundamental to a well-ordered and moral society.

History and current practice also support allowing prayer in school. From the founding of the United States, and for almost 200 years, public schools allowed voluntary prayer. Thomas Jefferson refers to the unalienable rights of American citizens as having been granted by their "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives maintain a chaplain, who begins each legislative session with a prayer; legal tender (money) in the United States reads "In God We Trust"; the Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase "One nation under God"; and presidents of both political parties frequently end speeches by saying "God bless America." Few people have seen these practices as violations of the First Amendment.

To prevent students from the exercise of their religion is to require students to obey the dictates of a nonreligious minority. A short prayer at a commencement exercise, at a football game, or at a school assembly not only reminds students of the importance of religious and moral values but is generally regarded to reflect the wishes of a large part of the student body in most public schools. Thus, to prevent it violates the Constitution and distorts the wishes of the students themselves, as well as their parents. To deny one the right to have prayer in public schools, therefore, is immoral and unconstitutional, prevents important moral lessons from being made and reinforced for a large group of students who may need those lessons, neglects the history of the United States, and conflicts with the desires of the majority of students and their parents. Therefore, prayer should be allowed in public schools.

The Argument Against Prayer in Public Schools

The United States is a remarkably diverse country, particularly in terms of its citizens' religious affiliations. In addition to the numerous Christian denominations, there are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Sikhs, and Native Americans with their varied spiritual practices. There are also many who do not identify with any religious affiliation, including agnostics and atheists. All Americans have the right to religious expression, or no expression, and to impose state-sanctioned prayer on them is to violate their constitutional rights. Parents have the right, as well, to have their views respected, and a student whose religious views (or lack of religious views) are at odds with those of a school prayer may not only be offended, but that student's constitutional rights are also being violated.

High school football team praying before a game.

Mike Brinson/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Opponents of prayer in school argue that prayer at school events could be seen as involuntary.

A prayer at a school assembly or football game may seem innocent enough, but if one's religious views are fundamental to that person, then a prayer that specifies a particular conception of God, or a particular relationship between a person and God, may well make that student feel singled out. On the other hand, if the prayer is so vague and general that it really offers very little specific content, it is not clear what purpose it serves; in addition, it will still impose a religious viewpoint on those students who do not share that viewpoint. A student can be required to attend certain school functions; if a prayer is part of that function, the student is not participating in that prayer voluntarily. In addition to having his or her views possibly contradicted, the role of peer pressure and embarrassment should not be underestimated. Many students may prefer to stay in a setting where a prayer is being offered instead of leaving and thus identifying themselves even further as, somehow, not "belonging." Combining a school-sanctioned prayer with such peer pressure makes clear that such an activity is not in any genuine sense voluntary.

Furthermore, it is not the role of public schools to impose specific religious values on their students. Schools are quite free to teach about religion, its history, and its role in society; schools are not permitted to do anything that could be interpreted as endorsing a particular religious viewpoint. Schools have important obligations to see that their students receive a quality education in such subjects as English, mathematics, natural sciences, history, and foreign languages. Given the relatively low achievements in these areas, relative to other countries in the developed world, public schools clearly need to do a better job in carrying out their educational mission. Spending such valuable time on prayer and imposing specific religious viewpoints on students is neither part of the mission of public schools, nor is it an efficient use of time. Moreover, many parents prefer that specific religious and moral teachings not be part of the school curriculum.

For this last reason, even many religious parents demand that religious material be excluded from school curricula. These parents argue that religious values are, indeed, extremely important. For that very reason, they insist that the public schools should not interfere with parents' desire to teach these values at home, and at places of worship: precisely those places where it is appropriate to focus on religious teachings.

The Constitution does not allow public schools to promote any specific religion or religious viewpoint. Any school-sanctioned prayer would either violate this constitutional requirement or be so vague as to be meaningless. Given a diverse student body, no prayer can respect all the religious views of those students, particularly if one considers that some of those students may have no religious values or even reject religion entirely. Public schools have more important things to devote their time to as part of their legitimate mission. Many parents do not want the values they teach their children contradicted in the public schools and prefer that the religious and moral teachings be provided by parents, not schools. School-sanctioned prayer, due to its setting and to peer pressure, cannot be regarded as voluntary. Therefore, due to both constitutional issues and other compelling moral and social challenges, prayer in public schools should be prohibited.

Morality and Civil Law

As we will see throughout this and later chapters, in a community of any size, conflicts will arise between the laws that community adopts and the personal morality of the individuals in that community. Familiar controversies such as abortion, euthanasia, and many others will display this conflict. If one lives in a community that insists on a law that violates one's own moral principles, there are few options available: working to change the law in question, ignoring it, changing one's behavior, or leaving the community. Each of these, of course, has its problems: to leave one's community is costly, and many wouldn't want to do so unless the laws involved were especially onerous; changing a law is a time-consuming and expensive thing to do, and often not successful; to ignore a law risks suffering the penalties involved (fines or even prison); changing one's behavior may require a person to do something that violates an important, even sacred, principle.

The tension between civil law and morality is clearly expressed in the question of school prayer in public schools. An individual has the right to pray, but it has also been found by the courts that official school prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In this case, a compromise has been sought, allowing individuals to pray, and allowing groups to gather to pray voluntarily—before school, during lunch, or after school—on their own. This allows these individuals to express their own religious views, and the school avoids seeming to endorse a specific denomination, practice, or prayer by having prayers at official school functions. Many involved in this dispute are unhappy with this compromise: Some regard prohibiting prayers at assemblies and graduation ceremonies as an infringement upon their rights, while others see public schools as religious-free zones, and urge banning songs and holiday references that include specific religious terms.

In a society as large and as diverse as the United States, with members of many different religions, ethnicities, races, languages, and cultural traditions, such compromises may be necessary. On the one hand, it may be argued that the laws of a country should reflect the values of the majority. On the other hand, if certain freedoms are actually rights, presumably those rights should not be subject to the endorsement or veto of the majority.

Be the Ethicist

Moral Decisions, Legal Responsibilities

Some scenarios may help bring out the tension between the law and morality. After responding to the following from your own personal perspective, consider how you might approach the issue from the perspective of someone who has a different view than you have. How are the responses different? How might you go about helping developing laws that would both respect individual freedoms but also provide for a stable community that respects everyone's individual rights?

•Your new neighbor appears to be living with several women; when you meet him, he introduces himself and his wives. After several months, you have spent a good bit of time with the neighbor and his wives, and get to know them well; you are all good friends, and while you don't really approve of polygamy, they seem to be very happy with the arrangement. Another neighbor, however, objects strongly, and tells you she is planning to call the police or other authorities to report them. What do you tell her?

•You have known your best friend's daughter since she was an infant; she treats you almost as if you are a parent, having spent a lot of time in your home and having confided many things to you that only her parents and very best friends know. She comes to your house one evening and asks to speak to you in private. She tells you that she was raped by her uncle, and is pregnant. She needs $500 dollars to have an abortion. She cannot tell her parents, and you are the only one who knows about her situation. What do you tell her?

•You have worked at the same company for 20 years, and one other person has worked with you the entire time. She has had a rough go of it, with an abusive husband, problems with alcohol and drugs, and a son in jail. She has divorced her husband, quit drinking, and entered a drug rehab program. She is a candidate for a significant promotion at work, which will give her a substantially higher salary. You know that in the past couple of years she has occasionally smoked marijuana at home, on the weekends; it has not affected her work. The manager comes to ask you if you think she should receive the promotion, making it clear that she will not get it if she is still using drugs of any kind. What do you tell the manager?

Applying the Theories

One of the difficulties in studying ethics is determining the appropriate way to apply a given theory. The basic utilitarian principle dictates to do that which will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. But one of the difficulties with applying utilitarianism is identifying the group in question: in other words, "the greatest number of whom?" We will demonstrate this problem by examining the arguments for and against school prayer from the perspective of utilitarianism. As we will see, different conclusions follow from how we describe and apply our use of the utilitarian principle. This doesn't mean the principle is wrong, however. But it does mean that in applying the principle, we need to be careful, and precise, in that application.

There's an old saying, "As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school." The idea here, of course, is that individual students cannot be prevented from engaging in prayer on their own, as individuals. Such prayer is voluntary and engaged in only by the individual. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that students are allowed to organize, voluntarily, religious clubs—which can include prayer and Bible study—at public schools, just as they might any other kind of club.

As we noted earlier, it is important to differentiate between allowing prayer and promoting it. The legal challenges that have been brought have often objected to a school officially endorsing a prayer at recognized school-wide events. On some views, this moves from permitting individuals to pray—a protected right—to endorsing prayer by officially recognizing it, which may well violate a person's rights.

Act Utilitarianism

A utilitarian might well argue that in a given school or school district, or community, the majority (and even a vast majority) of its members belongs to a specific faith tradition. The greatest good for the greatest number, in this case, would seem to allow that majority to pray and participate in religious activities in the way they desire. This might include prayers at football games, school assemblies, and graduation ceremonies. To prevent the majority from expressing its religious views this way is to bend to the dictates of a minority. But even if it could be shown that the minority may maximize its utility by eliminating such prayers, it is clear that allowing those prayers produces the greatest good. Some might regard this as an application, specifically, of act utilitarianism: The act of allowing prayers for the majority of a given community creates the greatest good for the greatest number; therefore, prayer should be allowed.

Rule Utilitarianism

A contrasting approach to utilitarianism, which might be regarded as rule utilitarianism, argues otherwise. Again applying the principle of the "greatest good for the greatest number," the rule utilitarian will argue that allowing the majority's religious views to be imposed on a minority does not create the greatest good for the greatest number. In addition to the minority's rights being ignored (which decreases the happiness of those in the minority), many in the majority may also recognize that ignoring legitimate rights of a minority is harmful, both to those suffering the harm and to those doing the harm. Participating in something that causes harm (harm, here, to the rights of the minority) decreases the happiness of those who participate, even passively, in that harm. Therefore, in general, the rule utilitarian will see simply applying the "greatest good greatest number" principle in a situation that ignores or violates the legitimate rights of members of the community does not lead to allowing prayer in school in general. Rather, it leads to preventing school prayer in situations, such as school assemblies and graduation ceremonies, that cannot be regarded as voluntary in any genuine sense.

Here, then, we see two distinct applications of the utilitarian principle: one leading to the result that school prayer, in a very general way, should be allowed, and the other leading to the result that school prayer, in a very general way, should not be allowed. What this seems to tell us is that the rights of the individuals involved must be looked at very carefully, to determine where one person's rights begin to conflict with another person's. It also seems to indicate that when we look at the happiness, or utility, of a given group, we need to be aware that how we specify the community makes a difference. Within a public school, is the community we are concerned with everyone who attends the school? Those who are religious who attend the school? Those members of the dominant religious tradition, if any, of those who attend the school? Do we include, for that matter, those who might end up attending this school, or who graduated from this school, and thus are part of its extended community? These questions aren't always easy to answer, but the issues they raise need to be factored in when evaluating the overall set of questions involved.

Case Study

Prayer in Schools

It can be difficult, in a religiously diverse society, to make accommodations for everyone. In Ottawa, Canada, there has been a request for permanent prayer rooms to be set aside for Muslim students in the public schools.

You can see a video about the case here: http://bcove.me/y7obfdow (http://bcove.me/y7obfdow)

As you can tell, it can be a challenge to maintain a commitment to religious freedom, tolerate religious tolerance, and not unfairly impose religious values on others.

•How would you resolve the issue confronting the Ottawa schools?

•Would you say your resolution appeals to a specific ethical theory?

•If so, which ethical theory do you think offers a good solution for this issue?

•How might a different ethical theory approach this question? Would it come to a different resolution than yours, or the same one?

Source: Used by permission of Canadian Sun News. (c)QMI Agency, Sun Media Corporation

Some Conclusions

Religion is an extraordinarily personal experience for many people and is often fundamental to a person's understanding of who he or she is. Because religion is such a basic part of a person's self-conception, someone may feel his or her right to the free expression of religious beliefs is restricted by not being allowed to state them when and where he or she wishes. At the same time, two people's religious views may conflict, whether they are of distinct religious traditions or one is religious and the other is not. It is unlikely that any ethical result will satisfy everyone and that these conflicts will be resolved in a way that makes everyone happy. But ethics can provide valuable insight into clarifying these issues and offer very helpful ways of thinking about such conflicts in a way that can address them.

Man kneeling on mat praying.

Monkey Business/Thinkstock

Religion can be an important part of a person's identity.

With respect to both the legal results and a more general way of regarding religion, increasing attention has been paid to the idea of prayer in public schools being voluntary. An individual cannot be prevented from praying in public school; religious student organizations are permitted the same opportunities as other student organizations. These activities are regarded as voluntary. In contrast, school-sanctioned events, whether football games or graduation exercises, tend to be recognized by the courts as the kinds of events where it is inappropriate to have prayer, in that a prayer at such an event automatically brings with it an official or unofficial school endorsement. Of course, attendance at a high school football game isn't something we regard as mandatory, but, as the courts recognized, such a game is an official school function and also may involve an element of peer pressure. Fundamentally, the argument is that one should be able to attend the football games of one's public school without having to participate in a prayer that contradicts one's beliefs, whether one follows a different religious faith or is not religious at all. And, as many religious people have argued, to insist on a prayer that is so general that it doesn't conflict with another's beliefs (religious or otherwise) seems to make pointless the very notion of "prayer."

Of course, exceptions to what an ethicist might argue, or what the courts have ruled, can be found; often these cases receive a great deal of publicity and seem to indicate either that a "war on religion" is being waged by public schools, or that minorities are having their own religious rights "violated and trampled." It may be the case that the publicity these instances receive implies that these issues arise more frequently than they actually do. To be sure, a teacher who prevents a Christian student from carrying the Bible violates that student's rights, just as a teacher violates the rights of a Jewish student by insisting that he write an essay on the topic "Why Jesus loves me." (These are both actual cases.) The goal of ethics not only allows us to see that these actions violate an individual's religious rights but also provides us with a way of arguing why they violate them.

What Role Does Conscience Play?

People identify themselves in many different ways: through their ethnicity, race, country of origin, class, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, among many others. Often people regard themselves as members of a relatively cohesive group because of one or more of these factors: thus, a person might consider herself an African American Roman Catholic, while another may consider himself a member of a Spanish-speaking Protestant community. Belonging to such a community brings certain commitments: Perhaps one insists on a particular interpretation of "marriage" or "science"; perhaps one's religious or cultural community requires that women and men act in specific and different ways, in terms of dress, occupation, worship, and so on. Clearly enough, the values of these communities may differ, and even sharply conflict. If the values of your culture or community conflict too much with that of the surrounding community, you are confronted with a difficult problem. As a simple example, if one's community accepts polygyny (a husband having more than one wife), while the larger community rejects it, how does one resolve this conflict?

These kinds of conflicts occur with some frequency, of course, but most people learn to adjust: Perhaps they aren't entirely satisfied with the values of the larger community, but the advantages of participating in that community make it more practical to tolerate that dissatisfaction. For instance, a parent may be suspicious about the science behind climate change but otherwise be quite pleased with the education offered by the school; the parent accepts it, and perhaps offers an alternative view to that presented in the school. In the case of religion in public school, some parents find it a better solution to send their children to private, parochial, or religious schools, or to home school their children. These parents, of course, don't withdraw from the community entirely; they simply leave part of it.

When more serious conflicts do arise, some find it impossible to remain within the community. Although these cases are relatively rare, they provide a way of examining the role an individual's conscience plays when evaluating one's membership in a larger community. If one's values compel one to reject the values of that larger community, one has to confront the choice between somehow tolerating something consistently offensive, or withdrawing entirely from that community in order to live, in a different way, with people who share those values. There may also be serious ethical concerns relative to those shared values that conflict with those of the larger community. Some have chosen to form separate communities, in part, to avoid living among African Americans, or Roman Catholics, or Jews, or members of other groups defined as not sharing the values of that community. Other separate communities have been formed on the basis of economic complaints— specifically, tax laws—and on the basis of specific religious values. An ethical investigation here might ask whether the dictates of conscience, in this case, should be respected, or critically scrutinized.

Most of us live between the two extremes of our values never being challenged by something in society and our values being so consistently violated that we decide to leave the community entirely. But this raises a number of important ethical questions about living in a community with others who may not share one's values. At what point should we object, when we find our values being violated? How can we make sure our rights are respected? Can our values be preserved without infringing on the rights of others? In our desire to protect our own moral values, do we forget to consider the moral values of others? Ethics offers some insight into these questions, although, again, without offering a solution that will be satisfactory to everyone. In a society that is increasingly pluralistic and diverse, it is very likely that conflicts among the values of the members of a society will persist (if not increase), and we will continue to need to address these questions.

Where Do We Go From Here?

As noted earlier, the United States is a diverse society and is particularly diverse in terms of both the faith traditions followed by Americans as well as an increasing number of Americans who have no religion. Even though the diversity in the United States has increased dramatically, Christianity has been and continues to be the dominant faith tradition in the United States.

Defining Ethics

A sociologist considers whether ideology gets in the way of a productive ethical conversation.

The implication of these characteristics seems to indicate that we recognize how important religious values are to many people. But that importance also makes it compelling to recognize others' religious beliefs, as well as the beliefs of those who have no religion. It seems likely that one result is that there will continue to be a good bit of give and take over this issue, with some substantial conflicts arising between those who don't think religion in public schools is given sufficient recognition and those who think otherwise. Some will think a certain religious tradition is too specifically identified, which may be unconstitutional; others may think any mention of religion should be omitted entirely from the public schools; still others may think that religion is too important to allow the public schools to interfere with it at all.

So perhaps the implications of this debate are to recognize that diversity can lead to such conflicts, and that those in the majority may need to be particularly sensitive to the beliefs of others, religious or otherwise. Such sensitivity is, of course, a two-way street, and so this sensitivity may also increase the need for tolerance. No solution will satisfy everyone, but insisting that prayer in public school always be voluntary, and that religion be treated in public schools in a way that recognizes a diversity of beliefs and tolerance for those beliefs, may go a long way toward minimizing these conflicts, although it may be too much to ask for these conflicts to be eliminated entirely.

2.3 A Historical Debate: A Woman's Right to Vote

It is a good thing to remember that ethics can make a difference; not all ethical arguments are abstract discussions of hypothetical cases, but we can see that they have brought about significant change. In this case, we will look at the arguments over giving women the right to vote in the United States, known as the question of "women's suffrage." As we will see, something we may now take as obvious and "common sense" wasn't always regarded that way, and ethical considerations were important in making it possible for women to vote. It is probably worth noting that some of the arguments may sound pretty dubious as this point, but when made they were found by many to be extremely persuasive. Here we will look at the issue from the perspective of virtue ethics and from the perspective of deontology, as they might have been presented when this issue was still a volatile topic of discussion.

This issue of women's voting rights is a good example of how moral and ethical arguments can both provide clarity to our understanding of the issues and produce a genuine difference.

The Argument Against Women's Suffrage

It is unquestionable that men and women are fundamentally distinct. This is obviously the case in terms of biology; the very differences can be immediately observed, and they are even more obvious in reproduction, where men and women play radically distinct roles. Because of the role women play in carrying, delivering, and raising children, they have a specific approach to things, in terms of their compassion, their abilities to nurture, and their willingness to compromise and avoid conflict. These differences, both physiological and psychological, have long been noted. Aristotle, 400 years before the birth of Christ, noted that

The female is softer in disposition than the male, is more mischievous, less simple, more impulsive, and more attentive to the nurture of the young; the male, on the other hand, is more spirited than the female, more savage, more simple and less cunning. The traces of these differentiated characteristics are more or less visible everywhere, but they are especially visible where character is the more developed, and most of all in man. (Aristotle, 2005)

Anti–women's suffrage poster reading, "The home loving women do not want the ballot. Vote no to amendment 8, fourth place on the ballot."

Courtesy Everett Collection

Opponents of women's suffrage believed that a woman's place was in the home.

This is also reflected in our very language: The word "hysterical" comes from the Latin term referring to the womb, and gives us the English word "uterus." Perhaps less well known is that the term "lady" originally comes from the Old English term for "one who kneads, or makes, bread" and that the very term "feminine" originates from a term for breast feeding. Terms associated with women have, in English and in other languages, always emphasized softness and delicacy, and their importance as wives and mothers—the Bible reinforces this; Delilah, Jezebel, and Salome represent women who behave immorally (that is, in a treacherous or adulterous manner), whereas Mary, whose humility and maternal aspects are emphasized, represents the virtuous woman.

It is clear from the way the term "woman" developed in English that the virtues of a woman are to be praised; for a well-functioning society, women are indispensable to keep the home running well, to ensure that children are raised appropriately, and to take care of, efficiently and effectively, all those things that fall within a woman's many areas of expertise. But politics is an entirely distinct realm, where women lack the temperament, the attitude, the understanding, and the experience to function effectively. Thus, women are not suited to participate in politics, either as elected officials or as voters.

In addition to these somewhat abstract and philosophical reasons, we can add a few specific points and summarize the position as follows. Women have a crucial role in society—to take care of the home; politics is a separate sphere and is really only suitable for men. Only by keeping these spheres separate can women play their important role in maintaining the values and civility of society. The need for this separation is clearly seen in the distinct physiological and psychological makeup of women, as opposed to men. Women, by their very temperament, are not suited to the unpleasant and sometimes violent confrontations required by politics. In any case, many women do not want the vote, believing it will dilute the very real power they in fact have over their husbands already. Furthermore, it will give the vote to an enormous number of people who have neither the background nor the understanding to make good political decisions. For all of these reasons, women neither need, nor should they be given, the right to vote.

Women's suffrage poster reading, "Is a woman a person? The law says yes when she has to pay taxes. The law says no when she asks to vote how her money shall be spent. Is this fair?"

Mary Evans Picture Library/The Womens Library/Everett Collection

Supporters of women's suffrage argued that as contributing members of society, women were entitled to vote.

The Argument for Women's Suffrage

Women are human beings. They are expected to care for themselves, their families, their husbands, their children, and their homes. As such, they have some of the most significant responsibilities that can be entrusted to anyone. Yet, while shouldering these responsibilities and others, a woman is deprived of the fundamental right of political representation. She works hard, often for no salary, and often harder than any man, and helps make the society in which she lives function; indeed, women make that society possible. Yet that same society prevents her from the right any man has, simply by accident of his being born a man: the right to vote. A woman's contributions to society are absolutely indispensable. In addition to being a human being, with certain rights that cannot morally be violated—such as the right to vote—women deserve to have an equal say in how that society is organized and how its politics should be structured. As Susan B. Anthony stated, "There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers."(Anthony, 1987, p. 901–908)

If the Declaration of Independence indicates that all people are created equal, this has clearly not been the case for women. They are expected to fulfill all their responsibilities while being denied one of their fundamental rights. If "no taxation without representation" was justification for the American Revolution, what does that tell women, who toil as hard as men, have responsibilities equal or greater than those of men, live with men under the same rules and laws of society, yet have no representation? Depriving women of the right to vote is both immoral, in that it denies women a fundamental right, and unjust, by not allowing them what is due them: the rights that coexist with responsibilities. If a woman is expected to take on those responsibilities, then she must be accorded the rights due her, and one of those rights is the right to vote.

Perhaps someone will suggest that husbands or fathers represent women. Would any man be willing to switch positions in this and regard it as fair were wives and daughters taken to represent their views accruately? Is it sensible, or fair, for half the population to hope that their views are represented by the other half? Might there not be a perspective on important political issues that women bring into consideration that would be otherwise ignored? Wouldn't political decisions be better informed, and thus be better decisions, if such an important perspective were taken into account? And who better to present the political perspectives women have than women?

The argument, then, is simple. Women are human beings, with rights and responsibilities. One of those rights, perhaps as fundamental as any, is the right to vote. Having deprived women of this right for so long doesn't mean it is fair, or just; it means that something unfair and unjust has gone on for far too long. One of the fundamental principles of a free and fair society is that its members deserve representation, and deserve to represent themselves. The only correct result, therefore, as a matter of the moral law and as a matter of justice, is to provide women with what they are due: their right to vote.

Applying the Theories

Women's suffrage may be firmly resolved in the United States, but as we have seen, the issue still offers some insights into how social questions are deliberated and finally established in law. Now that we have considered two sides of the issue, we will discuss the ways a virtue ethicist and a deontologist might approach this debate.

Virtue Ethics

The extraordinary thing about women is their virtue: their remarkable abilities to handle so many different things and to handle them well. They are caring, generous, nurturing, and practical; they are good friends, and, when their virtues are present in the appropriate way, they make good sisters, daughters, wives, and mothers.

Virtue ethics sees these virtues as precisely the things to emphasize for a virtuous woman: never in their extremes, but always aiming at an appropriate and moderate degree, a Golden Mean. The virtue ethicist might then argue as follows: The virtues of a woman are best seen when displayed in the proper place and in the proper and appropriate way—in the home as a wife and mother, in the elementary school as a teacher, in the hospital as a nurse. These are roles women have excelled in for centuries, and society functions most efficiently and most productively when they continue to do so.

On this same view, politics can often be contentious, ugly, confrontational, and even violent. Women do not do well in this kind of environment, and the virtues that women possess cannot be developed and improved, therefore, by engaging in politics. Women also lack the educational background and the general temperament for participating in politics. Giving women the vote will force them into an arena where their skills are inadequate, and will simultaneously prevent them from spending their time where they should be, and where their virtues are most evident. Any decision that has such disastrous moral results cannot be a good one, and thus the virtue ethicist would have to conclude that giving a woman the right to vote would be wrong, both for her and for her society.

Deontology

The deontologist, of course, disputes much of this characterization of women, and may well reject the idea that women have some set of "virtues" that are fundamentally distinct from those of men. Men aren't defined in terms of being a husband, a brother, a father. Why are women characterized solely in terms of their roles, rather than as free, independent, and creative human beings? Women may well be good wives and mothers, but that doesn't mean they can't be more than (or something other than) wives and mothers. Women may well be good teachers, but can't they also be good college professors? Women may well be good nurses, but can't they also be good doctors? Restricting a woman's educational opportunities, then criticizing her for a lack of education, is about as fair as putting a person in prison and criticizing her for not doing much traveling.

The deontologist also has a traditional method to identify something as fundamentally unfair. If Bob is doing something unfair to Carolyn, Carolyn can simply ask Bob if he would be happy if that same unfair thing were done to him. Thus, more generally, women can ask men the same thing: If men had the responsibilities that women do, would they object if they didn't possess the right to vote? The Golden Rule seems to provide a much stronger argument than the appeal to the Golden Mean.

In any case, the right to vote doesn't seem to the deontologist to be a right for men to possess, but a right for human beings to possess. As such, any woman who qualifies as a human being should possess the right to vote. To deny her that right is to treat her as less than a human being, to treat her as a means to an end, and thus to act unethically.

Some Conclusions

Woman holding up an "I voted" sticker.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Today, the right of women to vote requires little to no justification.

It is rather hard to imagine a politician today proposing that women not be allowed to vote: Such a suggestion would be generally regarded as ridiculous. But it was a long, hard struggle; the 19th Amendment was passed 144 years after the Declaration of Independence, finally giving women a right we now take as one that requires little or no justification.

With the benefit of hindsight, we see that many of the arguments proposed were based on a conception of women (and men) that had a very long history, a conception that restricted women to specific roles in society. Critical scrutiny of this conception led to the realization that it functioned to prevent women from being full participants in their society. Even though women were regarded as sufficiently responsible to do many of the things society deemed extremely important, they were denied the rights that accompanied those responsibilities. From many ethical perspectives, denying women the right to vote was wrong for two reasons. First, it denied the rights that one acquires with responsibilities, such as the case of the right to possess a firearm, which brings with it an unspoken responsibility to handle that firearm safely and appropriately. Second, and more fundamental, denying women the right to vote was to deny them a right they presumably possess as human beings, although a right that was only won after many decades of struggle. Thus, one is forced either to recognize their right to vote, or to argue, somehow, that they are not human beings.

We also see from this discussion that ethical values and political values can frequently be in tension with each other, as well as how one applies a specific theory in ethics may well determine the results of that application. For instance, imagine that we adopt a simple utilitarian perspective, and assume (safely enough) that allowing citizens to vote increases the happiness, or maximizes the utility, of those citizens. The clear result is that the greatest good for the greatest number is achieved by giving all eligible citizens the right to vote. But who is an "eligible citizen"? Is it all adults 18 and older? All adults 21 and older? Or should more restrictions be placed on who is eligible to vote, as has often been done in the past? Obviously enough, some people were not allowed to vote on the basis of race and sex (or gender); but other conditions have been imposed, such as being able to read and write, or owning property, to restrict the right to vote. Ethics provides us with one way to examine such restrictions to see if they are justified on the basis of good, moral reasons, or, as seems often to have been the case, to allow those already in power to maintain their advantages. If we apply our utilitarian principle to a group, such as males, or Whites, the greatest good for the greatest number of that group may well result in a situation that is quite unfair, were a larger group considered. So even taking a very basic utilitarian approach to a question may require us to think long and hard about what we mean by "the greatest number." In other words, when we consider the greatest good for the greatest number, we also have to ask: the greatest number of whom? And determining who belongs, and who doesn't belong, in the group in question may not always be that easy.

Do Ethical Principles Change Over Time?

Communities often define themselves as much by whom they exclude as whom they include; that is, to be a member of a community, or society, is often determined by establishing who does not belong. For centuries, the long history of racial exclusion in the United States prohibited African Americans from genuinely participating in society, obviously enough through the institution of slavery, but also through other means, such as requiring them to use separate facilities (waiting rooms, movie theatres, bathrooms, drinking fountains, etc.), preventing them from even registering to vote (let alone actually voting), forcing them to attend segregated schools from kindergarten through universities, and many other formal and informal ways of sending the message, "You don't really belong." Women were also prevented from voting, owning property, and being given credit in their own names, along with other more informal ways of excluding them from society. Native Americans, Jews, and others were similarly prevented from being full participants within what we now regard as their own society.

Caucasian bride with African American groom.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Less than 50 years ago, it was illegal in the United States for people of different races to marry. Ethicists would argue that it was not moral principles that changed, but society. Do you agree? What other examples can you think of in which this has been the case?

Does this indicate that the fundamental principles of morality changed? If so, that would seem to show that rather than being principles, they are the kinds of things that are not eternal and permanent, but simply ideas that gain sufficient support to be adopted in a given society. Many ethicists would argue, instead, that moral principles do not change; rather, society changes—often by expanding—those to whom those principles apply. Less than 50 years ago, it was illegal in a number of places in the United States for people of different races to marry; we generally now regard such "miscegenation laws" as discriminatory and ignorant. The principle of "rights" didn't change, in this case; rather, the idea of the right to marry was extended to be more inclusive. The Supreme Court, in 1967, declared it unconstitutional to prohibit people of different races to marry; since then, geneticists and other biologists have seemed to conclude that the very notion of "race" isn't a useful biological term at all. Thus, both the ethical principles and the law reflected the fact that it was wrong to exclude certain groups of people from exercising their rights, and thus the community expanded its conception of who belonged to that community.

These changes often don't come very easily; there can be a great deal of resistance to them, and even when laws are in place to prevent excluding groups from voting, buying a house, or marrying someone, those laws will often continue to be violated. A community, that is, may simply adopt an informal practice to prevent someone from doing something; in spite of a law prohibiting that practice, the majority of a given community may enforce it through peer pressure and other means. As the point may be put in legal terms, a law that is in force practically is a de facto law, in spite of it being illegal de jure, or against the official laws under which a community lives. If someone can successfully exclude African Americans from eating in his restaurant, that exclusion is in place as a de facto rule, even though illegal de jure.

Thus, even though ethical principles themselves may not change over time, we can see how they do change in application. In the United States, for instance, views about extending certain rights—to serve openly in the military, to marry—to homosexuals have rapidly changed. The question here is not whether one's rights should be respected, but who should, and who should not, be included as part of the group that has such rights. Again, we see that ethics doesn't resolve such an issue, but it helps clarify what is at stake in the various resolutions that have been proposed. In any diverse community, the restrictions and expansions of rights, and the question of what kinds of things really are "rights," will continue to arise and be the source of debate. It should be clear, in any case, that ethics has a good deal to offer in identifying the terms of the debate, as well as determining what is at stake in these arguments.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ethics can often seem like a sterile exercise, with little relevance for everyday life and the kinds of decisions we actually have to confront. Should I steal food to feed my starving family? I find the wallet of a person I know to be a drug dealer, and it has $1,000 in it; what should I do with it? One very standard example in ethics asks this: If you were able to divert a train to kill one person, in order that the train did not kill five people, what would you do? It seems pretty clear that these kinds of examples are good to help us see what is at stake in applying and understanding ethical theory, even though we don't expect to be in the positions described here. Some might suggest that ethics, and philosophy in general, don't have a lot to say that is relevant. But, as we've seen in the preceding historical example, ethical questions and scrutiny of the moral values of a society can, in fact, have a significant effect in changing a society.

This is not to say that all we need to do to address an unfair or immoral situation in our society is to pass out ethics textbooks and convince people to read the relevant pages. But familiarity with ethical theories, and familiarity with various ways of identifying things that are unfair, can at least help move the discussion along. Our values do not exist in some kind of vacuum, of course; they exist in a large, complex context of competing values, politics, and social structures such as educational institutions and religious viewpoints. Many other factors, no doubt, also play a role in understanding the ethical challenges we confront. But the more familiar we are with techniques in explaining and understanding those challenges, the better prepared we are to deal with them. This is, of course, not to guarantee that we will solve them, and we almost certainly won't solve them in a way that everyone finds satisfactory. But the better prepared we are to clarify the ethical problems we do have to deal with, the better prepared we are to address them and, in some cases, fix them.

Of course, fixing—or at least improving—a specific case of injustice hardly means the matter is settled. One might think that giving women the right to vote accomplished political equality, but it was only a step in that direction. Many other factors can still function as obstacles to that equality. Philosophers might suggest that the right to vote is a necessary condition for political equality, even though it is not at all a sufficient condition. In other words, without the right to vote, one cannot hope to gain that kind of equal participation in the political structures of one's society, but the right to vote doesn't, by itself, establish this participation. Many obstacles may still need to be overcome, and, presumably, this is an ongoing competition to determine the scope and limits of one's rights. But at least we can see that ethics can, in fact, contribute important things to the debate over such issues and can play a significant and productive role in how society addresses such questions.

Now that we have thoroughly examined a historical social question, let's return to one of contemporary relevance: the charged issue of pornography and whether it should or should not be regulated.

2.4 The Issue: Pornography—To Regulate or Not?

Arguments over pornography raise a number of ethical issues. Pornography is often regarded as a question of freedom of speech; however, more recently it has been harshly criticized for how it is produced and the images of women it endorses. Some, in contrast, regard the consumption of pornography as a "victimless crime," and believe that, because it does not harm others, it should not be restricted extensively.

Here we will examine the two sides of the debate, looking at both the consumption and the production of pornography. We will utilize utilitarianism and emotivism to provide some theoretical analysis of the issue.

The Argument Against Extensive Regulation

Men drinking and smoking outside a bar.

Neil Setchfield/Lonely Planet Images/Getty Images

Those who oppose extensive regulation of pornography note that adults in the United States are allowed to engage in many activities that some may not approve of, so long as those activities do not harm others.

Adults in the United States are allowed to do many things that others may condemn. They may smoke, drink to excess, fail to exercise, watch too much television, eat too much junk food, and do many other things that aren't "good" for them. Yet they are free to do so: As adults, they are allowed to do those things that the state cannot demonstrate pose a genuine threat to others. I cannot change the oil in my car and legally pour the old oil down the storm drain: That poses a threat to the environment and can harm others. I can, however, if I wish, have root beer, pickles, and pizza for breakfast every morning; it may not be a good or nutritious choice, but it is a choice I am free to make.

In the same way, adults are allowed to read and watch whatever they choose, unless the state can show a compelling reason to prevent them from doing so. For instance, in the United States, one can read books about bomb making and terrorism; one can see websites where overthrowing the government is advocated. One can find material that supports various kinds of hatreds against ethnic and religious minorities, as well as conspiracy theories blaming different groups for a remarkably wide range of things, including the U.S. government being responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. These materials are available because the First Amendment to the Constitution insists on freedom of speech; unless one can show a genuine threat, restrictions on speech are prohibited. Even though many people find such things distasteful—and much worse—the freedom to read and watch this material is guaranteed as a fundamental freedom in the United States.

Pornography, which is very difficult to define, is precisely this kind of material. Many find it extremely offensive. However, they have no right to dictate to those who wish to consume pornography that they cannot. Adults in the United States are free to read and view pornography; they can be prevented from doing so only if the state can show a compelling reason to restrict it.

Some restrictions have been imposed; producing child pornography is illegal because it harms children. Thus, the possession of child pornography is also illegal, in that its purchase supports an illegal activity. Access to pornography is limited to adults, just as are various other products, such as alcohol and tobacco; various other restrictions prevent those who do not wish to see it from being exposed to it. Thus, certain controls are imposed on bookstores; network television does not show material that is regarded as too indecent by those who run it, and cable television has various controls in place, such as parental controls and various payment requirements. These and other restrictions have been put in place to do two things: to prevent the involuntary exposure of pornography to those who wish to avoid it, and to allow those who wish to consume pornography to access it.

Some have argued that the production of pornography involves the exploitation and mistreatment of women; thus, consumers of pornography support an industry that harms women. This may be true, but it has little bearing on restricting the rights of adult access to pornography. Many people work in industries that involve serious threats in hazardous situations: coal miners, electricians, and farmers, among others. To argue that pornography should be highly regulated, or censored, because some people have been mistreated in its production is the same as arguing that restaurants should be closed because some restaurants have had health code violations.

Finally, if pornography is highly regulated, there is a genuine danger of a slippery slope appearing. Historically, some things now regarded as great literature, and great art, were characterized as pornography and banned. This isn't to say all pornography is great art; it is to say that when one group of people is allowed to determine what other adults may read and watch, there is always the risk that they will be willing to regulate or ban material that should not be regulated or banned. Furthermore, how does society choose who does the regulating, and whose standards should be followed? For good reason, the courts have consistently decided that when in doubt, free speech must be tolerated, and that any regulations on pornography must be minimal and shown to respond to what would otherwise be a substantial danger to the public.

The Argument for Extensive Regulation

Love between two people, including its sexual expression, is one of the most cherished values human beings possess. Pornography damages this value by dehumanizing those who appear in it and reducing them to objects that become simply a means to satisfy some other person's crude desires. This coarsens relationships between people and reduces the dignity each human being deserves. Pornography thus makes it more difficult to treat others with respect, and thus should be strictly regulated; it may even, in some cases, be censored or banned.

There is a well-known and traditional way of arguing for the strict regulation of pornography. On this argument, we can state that pornography is sexually explicit material designed to generate a specific kind of response in the viewer. It is obscene, degrades its subjects, and harms the values of society. If most people in a society regard pornography as violating its standards, then the society is well within its rights to restrict or even ban pornography. Otherwise, the moral standards of the society are attacked and undermined by a minority, which has no legitimate right to reject the moral standards of the majority. Furthermore, it corrupts not just society as a whole but also the individual who consumes it. Adults are allowed to engage in some risky activities, but the state has a legitimate role in preventing them from harming others and harming themselves. Even though the state may allow people to make unhealthy choices, it strictly regulates them: Alcohol and tobacco are highly regulated, for instance. The state can require people to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets. These regulations prevent, or at least limit, the things adults can do; because pornography is harmful to the individual, the state has a legitimate right to regulate it just as it does any activity that may harm an individual, society as a whole, or—as in this case—both.

A second, more recent argument, against pornography distinguishes it from "erotica." Erotica is the artistic presentation of human love, including its sexual expression. In contrast, pornography involves the degradation of people, particularly women, and often employs violence—including rape—in its depiction. It may also include other acts designed to humiliate and dehumanize women by presenting them as submissive victims who enjoy being mistreated. Adopting this conception of pornography, it is seen as doing substantial harm: not just to the women depicted but also to the more general way women are regarded in society as a whole. In this way, the dehumanizing of women is seen to be a general harm to women that makes legitimate the state's ability to regulate, restrict, and even ban pornography. In addition, the production of pornography also causes harm to those women involved in that production. These women are coerced, threatened, humiliated, and exploited in making pornography; since the industry poses a genuine harm to these women, the state has not just the right but the obligation to prevent that harm.

Pornography coarsens and degrades the moral values of a society and harms the person consuming it. Pornography harms women, both by exploiting them in its production and in providing a consistently demeaning image of women for the consumer of pornography that also affects the way women are regarded more generally in society. The state has a legitimate role in preventing harm from coming to its citizens, and because pornography harms people in the various ways described, the state has a legitimate role—in fact, an obligation—to restrict and regulate pornography.

Applying the Theories

As we can see, whether or not to regulate pornographic material is a more complicated question than it might seem at first glance. Ethics can help us to approach and analyze the challenging arguments on both sides.

Utilitarianism

The most prominent and influential utilitarian theorist was John Stuart Mill. In Mill's classic text On Liberty, he puts forth what is now known as the "harm principle":

[T]he only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. (Mill, 1977/1859, Chapter 1: Introductory, para. 9)

Portrait of John Stuart Mill.

Photos.com/Thinkstock

Utilitarian John Stuart Mill's harm principle argues that restrictions are justified only if the activity harms others.

In other words, Mill is saying that the state must not be allowed to prevent someone from doing something, even if it is harmful to that person. The only legitimate way the government can step in to prevent some activity is if it can be shown to harm others. Among social scientists, there are passionate debates and a great deal of controversy over pornography. Many have insisted that its harms are obvious; others have responded that those harms have been exaggerated. Mill's point, however, is that even if one grants that pornography harms those who consume it, one can only restrict it if it can be definitively demonstrated that it also harms others. From the perspective argued here, that harm to others has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

How does Mill's harm principle relate to the traditional slogan of utilitarianism, that one should do what produces the greatest good for the greatest number? The connection isn't made as explicit as one might like by Mill, but it seems fairly clear how it is made. Society is better off if its members are freer, and best off if they have the greatest amount of freedom possible—as long as one person's freedom doesn't interfere with that of another person. Thus, what generates the greatest freedom for the citizens of a state, or society, is the moral thing to do, which also means that the fewer restrictions, the greater the freedom. The greatest good for the greatest number is thus produced by a state with the fewest restrictions on its citizens, a state with the greatest amount of freedom. The greatest amount of freedom, in Mill's view, is achieved by following the harm principle. Therefore, the harm principle is essential to a state that produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

Clearly enough, applying the harm principle and utilitarianism supports the idea that restrictions and regulations of pornography must be imposed only if they can be shown to prevent harm from being done to others. The presumption, then, is that only the kind of restrictions mentioned earlier—such as the prohibitions against child pornography—are legitimate interventions by the state. One might argue that in a given society, if a majority wishes to ban pornography, then that would presumably produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Thus, it would be both moral and just to ban it. Mill might respond to this by arguing that it is short-sighted to apply the utilitarian principle in this way. Rather, one should see that, in general, fewer restrictions on freedom generate the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, in general, one should always use the greatest caution in imposing any restrictions, even though, in some cases, this may conflict with the views of the overwhelming majority of the community. In short, using the utilitarian principle in this general way, in combination with the harm principle, indicates that pornography should not be extensively regulated, banned, or censored.

Emotivism

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said that he had given up trying to define obscenity; rather, he observed, "I know it when I see it." This is analogous to some treatments of obscenity—and because it can be regarded as obscene, to some treatments of pornography—offered by the ethical view of emotivism. We may not be able to define "obscenity" and "pornography" to everyone's satisfaction, and we may not be able to explain why it is wrong. But we are confident in our view that it is obscene, and that it is wrong, when we see it. The emotivist gives us an ethical theory supporting that response.

The emotivist does not try to give reasons, or facts, or evidence, or even arguments for a given evaluation, including moral evaluations. To say something is "bad" or "wrong" is really just an indication of one's attitude or response to it. For this reason, emotivism is known as a "noncognitivist" position in ethics. Noncognitivism denies that there are moral properties, or moral facts; in fact, it denies that certain kinds of claims are the kinds of things that can be true or false. You may like ice cream, want to listen to jazz, or hope to attend a football game. You express those attitudes by saying and doing things that express your approval of them. In the same way, you may not like artichokes, don't want to listen to bluegrass music, and hope to avoid going shoe shopping. Here you express those attitudes by saying and doing things that express your disapproval of them.

Those who object to pornography may respond in the same way, agreeing with Potter Stewart that, insofar as it is obscene, they know it when they see it. One can express this attitude—this disapproval—in a number of ways. Importantly, though, the various expressions of this attitude in a social context can be designed to convince others that it is a reasonable, and even correct, attitude, and that they should also express their own disapproval. In a community, if a sufficient number of people share a common emotivist response to something, that reaction can provide the basis for designing policy for the community. In other words, the emotivist not only may indicate his or her own attitude but is free to persuade others to adopt that same attitude. Ultimately, then, the emotivist may insist that in a given community, there is sufficient disapproval of pornography that the preferences of the members of that community should be respected, and thus pornography should be strictly regulated and, perhaps, censored or even banned.

Be the Ethicist

At the Movies

Alice and Kate live next door to each other, and have for years. They consider themselves very good friends. Alice's 11 year-old daughter Naomi and Kate's 11-year-old daughter Amy are the best of friends. Naomi and Amy spend a lot of time together, and on weekends frequently spend the night at each other's homes.

One morning, Naomi comes home from having spent the night at Amy's and tells her mother that she watched a movie; her mother quickly realizes that the movie was extremely violent and had a substantial amount of nudity. She would never allow Naomi to watch such a movie, and she is outraged that her friend Kate allowed Naomi to do so.

Alice is so angry with Kate that she realizes that she needs to cool off before talking to her in person, or even on the phone. So she decides to write Kate an old-fashioned letter, explaining her anger and her disappointment that Kate allowed her daughter (and Kate's daughter, for that matter) to watch such a film.

If Alice is, generally, a deontologist, how might she write her letter to explain to Kate why what she did was unethical, or immoral? Identify two distinct reasons Alice might point to in order to convince Kate that what she did was wrong.

Imagine, now, that Kate is a relativist. She decides to respond to Alice from that perspective. Identify two distinct things Kate might appeal to in order to justify showing that movie to two 11-year-olds.

Finally: Alice and Kate realize that they are too good of friends (as are their daughters) to lose their friendship over this incident. How might they resolve their dispute? Is it possible for a relativist and a deontologist to do so? If they both adopted a third ethical theory, would they have a better chance of resolving this dispute?

Some Conclusions

In the case of pornography, we see a sharp conflict between those who argue for minimal restrictions on adults—including restrictions on access to pornography—and those who argue that substantial restrictions are legitimate. On the one hand, we see those who advocate minimal restrictions adopting a position that one might call libertarian: that the state has no right to interfere with adult behavior that cannot be shown to harm others. On the other hand, those who advocate greater restrictions see pornography as harming the values of society, coarsening interpersonal relationships, and flooding society—through books, magazines, TV, films, and the Internet—with degrading and obscene images. The issue seems to revolve around the notion of what, if any, harms are involved, and what the legitimate role of the state is in addressing any such harms.

Two other results can be identified as emerging from this debate. One is a causal claim that those who consume pornography—especially pornography that is particularly degrading to women and that includes violence—are more likely to carry out the kinds of things they see. A standard pornographic fantasy involves a woman who is forced to do something against her will, only to see her come to enjoy it. Is it more likely that one who repeatedly reads about or sees such images will act on those ideas? The argument is that seeing violence, for instance, in a film will cause one to act more violently; thus, it is legitimate to minimize exposure to those things that will tend to cause that violence. If pornography contains the violent treatment of women and can be shown to cause actual violence against women, doesn't the state have a legitimate right to restrict it? Others respond, of course, that no such causal connections have been shown, and that, in any case, there are plenty of other examples of violence of all kinds available to people. If such exposure to violence in, for instance, films is said to cause actual violence, then wouldn't that exposure also need to be highly regulated? On this view, basing an argument on an unsubstantiated causal claim may well lead to a slippery slope where any number of things could be restricted, banned, or censored, limiting the legitimate rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This response has been criticized by some who see this not as a restriction on speech, but on action, in that the speech in question causes real behavior that does genuine harm to others.

The second result that has emerged in recent years is the emphasis on those who produce pornography. On this argument, pornographic films almost invariably involve coercing, threatening, and exploiting women (and perhaps men) in their production. Often such women do not really "choose" to work in this industry, but find themselves there due to financial need and the financial opportunities involved. Those who have focused on this aspect of pornography have argued that both physical and psychological intimidation is frequently involved in the production of pornography, and that it takes advantage of women who may be financially or psychologically vulnerable; thus, it does not really involve the kind of "free" or "autonomous" choice that should be respected. Those who have put forth this perspective also insist that the images of women found in pornography continue to reinforce very negative and oppressive conceptions of women, leading to that conception of women being pervasive in society. Given the size of the pornography industry in the United States, this argument insists that the kind of images of women found in pornography must have an effect on how women are perceived in other contexts, a result that is clearly harmful to women and to society in general.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Young girl watching television alone at night.

Ryan McVay/Photodisc/Thinkstock

The debate over pornography can be broadened to include exposure to violence on television and other media. Should media be regulated more stringently, or should First Amendment rights and Mill's harm principle take precedent?

Many important issues arise in this discussion; however, the one that has gotten a great deal of attention is the causal claim regarding violence in pornography. Does seeing violence committed against women cause actual violence against women? More importantly, does a person who sees this kind of violence, on a regular basis, become more likely to commit that violence? Social scientists continue to gather data on this issue, interpret that data, and debate the implications. But this is, of course, not limited simply to pornography.

A standard claim in the literature on television violence is that the average child will have seen 8,000 murders on TV by the end of elementary school, and 200,000 acts of violence on TV by age 18. Many have argued that these kinds of numbers indicate a considerable worry about exposure to violence. Some argue that such exposure to violence causes those so exposed to be more violent. Others argue that even if such a causal claim cannot be established, such extensive exposure to violence makes it appear to be a common feature of life, futile to try to prevent, and even an acceptable solution to problems.

The availability of information—of all kinds—has dramatically increased, and access to that information is also widely available. Books, magazines, newspapers, films, television, and especially the Internet offer an almost unlimited amount of content. Those whose arguments are based on Mill's harm principle and the First Amendment insist that wide latitude be given to this content and people's access to it; to restrict it without showing conclusively that otherwise people will be harmed is not only a violation of the First Amendment, but is, more generally, an illegitimate extension of the government's power over its citizens. In contrast, those who advocate more extensive regulation simply point to the levels of violence, the degradation of culture, and the negative images and values that seem to pervade society. Surely something should be done to indicate our disapproval of that situation? Furthermore, from this perspective, even though some controls may have been imposed on certain content, including pornography, to allow those who wish to avoid it from being so exposed, the pervasive nature of objectionable material makes it impossible to avoid. Thus, one must take extraordinary steps to avoid it, and this also requires more effort on the part of some parents to keep their children from being exposed to things that they regard as obscene, immoral, and wrong. On this view, one shouldn't be forced to make extraordinary efforts to avoid being confronted with indecent and objectionable material. Rather, one should have the legitimate expectation not to be so confronted; those who wish to consume pornography and similar material should have, minimally, the obligation to make an extra effort to do so.

Chapter Summary

This chapter has explored some of the ethical concepts we'll look at in more detail throughout the text. It has also considered how these ethical questions play out in a society founded on a set of ideals and governed by a particular set of principles yet populated by highly diverse cultures, which sometimes clash with each other. The challenge of applying ethical theory in a democratic society is one with which many philosophers have grappled over the centuries.

Democracy is a pretty old idea, going back at least to ancient Athens. The idea, of course, is that people know best what they want and need, and democracies allow their views to be expressed in the fairest way. Whether a democracy is direct (where people vote directly on all issues) or representative (where people elect others to represent their views), the majority view will prevail; if more voters want a particular law passed, for instance, it will pass. Majority rule is at the heart of democratic theory; however, a worry also arises. The point was made by Socrates and Plato about the Athenian democracy and has ever since been an issue for the idea of democracy: What if the majority chooses in such a way that the rights of the minority are infringed? Is that fair? And are there ways of preventing it? This can, naturally, be a substantial issue when a group is evenly divided. Imagine a community voting on a specific law; 51% are in favor, and 49% oppose it. The minority, in this case, may find the law deeply offensive, but just over half of the people support the law and thus are able to impose it on almost half the community. Such circumstances have led to the common concern that in democracies, there may be a temptation for this kind of thing to happen, an objection commonly known as the tyranny of the majority.

A number of the individual rights we have looked at—if, of course, they are "rights"—can be seen as raising this issue. Certain constitutional protections exist; however, what if the majority of a community decides to ban certain reading material or certain expressions of religious belief? We are also familiar with instances of this from American history; often African Americans were subject to various forms of abuse and injustice simply because they were in a minority and had little or no access to the machinery of political power.

In a famous case in the 1940s, some schoolchildren in West Virginia refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. As Jehovah's Witnesses, they were forbidden to act in a way that, as they saw it, treated the American flag as a sacred object and thus, refused to say the Pledge. As is easy to imagine, this was a very unpopular view, particularly during the height of World War II. The Supreme Court found that these students were protected by the Constitution. Here, the legal protections were provided, but it is fairly easy to see how such a view would have been regarded by the majority and to picture the various informal ways members of that community might have expressed their displeasure.

Socrates and Plato were particularly concerned that democracy—in this case, specifically, direct democracy—left decisions up to a majority that might well lack sufficient understanding to make those decisions correctly. As Socrates might put it, one goes to a doctor for medical care because the doctor is trained to be an expert in medicine. One goes to a car mechanic for repairs because the mechanic is trained to be an expert in automobile repair. Yet direct democracies allow the majority to decide issues that are considerably more important for society than auto repair: whether to go to war; what taxes should be in place and what tax revenue should be used for; what the standards should be for water, air, and food; and many other crucial issues. Do the majority of citizens have the expertise and knowledge to make these kinds of decisions?

Defenders of democracy have a variety of responses. One, generally attributed to a 1947 speech by Winston Churchill, is to acknowledge the flaws of democracy: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." That is, democracy has many flaws, just not as many as any other form of government. Others have argued for such things as "proportional representation"; countries such as the Netherlands, Japan, and Israel have adopted a parliamentary system with many different parties. In this situation, if 5% of the voters find a particular party most suitable, they will, at least in theory, be able to elect someone to represent their view. The representation, that is, is proportional to the various views within the society. Many democracies have taken this path, in contrast to the United States, where generally a two-party system is in place; one chooses whichever party is closer to one's own views. (The drawback of this approach is often expressed as one voting for "the lesser of two evils.") Some political theorists have advocated proportional representation and alternative ways of voting methods in the United States to address the problem of minority rights being represented. In any case, we see that in spite of certain constitutional protections, the question of individual rights, and particularly the threat to the rights of minorities within a system that gives political power to the majority, will continue to generate discussion and debate about the extent and limits of those individual rights.

Critical Thinking Questions

1.In a society that decides things on the basis of majority rule, is there a danger that the majority might ignore the legitimate concerns of minorities? What steps can be taken to protect minority rights?

2.Granting women the right to vote was, no doubt, long overdue. What other rights, in looking back at U.S. history, took too long to grant? Can you suggest a reason why it was so difficult to achieve those rights?

3.One often hears the phrase, "You can't legislate morality." What do you think that means? Do you think it is true? What kind of moral issues require us to make laws prohibiting certain kinds of behavior?

Exercises

1.The famous sociologist Max Weber once observed that politics is the "art of compromise." Without abandoning our most cherished principles, that is, we must be willing to sacrifice some of what we want to reach political agreement with others. The basic idea is that no one ever gets everything he or she wants: Getting some of what you want is the best you can hope for, and certainly better than getting nothing. This sounds good in theory, of course, but has proved to be more difficult in practice. Some questions arise:

•At what point does compromise become abandoning one's principles?

•If I offer to compromise with a person with whom I disagree, why should I expect that person to be willing to compromise with me?

•Why is it so difficult to reach compromises in today's politics?

•Can democracy function without compromise?

•Do some politicians regard "compromise" as a dirty word?

•Is "compromise" a dirty word?

After considering these questions, identify a topic that is something that receives a great deal of attention in contemporary politics—anything that generates some kind of controversy or debate will work.

State briefly what the debate is over. Is a compromise on this issue possible? If so, suggest what such a compromise would look like. If not, suggest why it is not possible.

Finally, if a utilitarian and a relativist wanted to reach an agreement on this issue, how might they go about trying to do so?

2.You are a high school principal, and some students want to organize a school club devoted to studying and discussing atheism. You are concerned that they may spend some of their time mocking the beliefs of other students. Some of the students in your school have already expressed to you their concern that such an officially recognized student group represents a view that many find offensive.

•Do you allow the students to organize the atheist club?

•What restrictions, if any, do you impose on what they can do and say?

•What do you say to parents who call to protest the existence of such a club?

3.You have a 16-year-old daughter, who has an after-school job. With the money she has earned, she has purchased a computer and online access. You are proud of her work ethic and the responsibility she has shown in working hard and saving her money to buy this, but you aren't entirely sure about what she is looking at when she goes online.

•Do you have the right to access her computer and ask her for her password(s)?

•Should you restrict her access to sites you regard as inappropriate?

•If you do control her access, how do you respond when she asks you why you don't trust her?

•How do you and your daughter determine the fairest way to deal with this issue?

Chapter 8

The Environment

Children picking up trash outside.

Fuse/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

At the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

•Identify specific ethical issues that arise when considering human beings' relationship to their natural surroundings.

•Describe some of the standard problems this relationship poses, including water pollution and the disposal of medical waste.

•Discuss in an informed way the potential tension between economic analyses and environmental policies.

•Apply specific ethical theories to an actual environmental case study.

American naturalists such as John Muir (1838–1914), Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), and Edward Abbey (1927–1989) have long pointed to the importance of protecting the environment. However, genuine issues arise between those who wish to leave the environment as it is, and those who wish to utilize it for other purposes, such as drilling, development, or mining. These issues have become much more common topics of debate in recent decades, with increased energy and other demands placing stress on the environment. With the first "Earth Day" in 1970, various environmental groups began to develop more effective political organizations, and the environmental movement began to play a significant role in American politics. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was begun, also in 1970, during the administration of President Richard Nixon, in order to protect both human health and the environment by developing laws and reviewing regulations.

In this chapter, we will explore some of the questions that arise within the context of environmental ethics, the study of the moral relationship between human beings and their surroundings, including nonhuman components found within those surroundings. Throughout, we will examine difficult issues, such as how to balance the economic benefits of development with the benefits (economic and otherwise) of a wilderness or beach or forest. Do we have a right to clean water and to clean air? If so, how are those rights enforced, and how do we maintain those rights without inhibiting important economic gains? And do we have an obligation to leave a sustainable environment to the generations that will follow us?

Why Care About the Environment?

Often in discussions of environmental ethics, it is assumed by all involved that we should respect the environment, and seek to prevent its degradation, specifically if various forms of pollutions harm others. In a sense, this assumption is pretty safe: After all, if someone does something to harm an innocent person, we generally regard that as wrong. So if I dump lead into a river that increases the lead content of water that children are exposed to, and harmed by, that seems to just be a specific case of my action harming an innocent person, and thus is wrong.

But should we care about the environment at all? Many people, regardless of the positions they adopt relative to specific environmental policies, would agree with many of the following reasons to do so:

•More efficient use of energy saves money.

•A cleaner environment is healthier.

•Some natural scenery is unique and irreplaceable.

•Biodiversity is valuable in itself, and if not itself valuable, can be utilized to help create drugs, foods, and other things that improve life.

•If we have any obligations to future generations, leaving them a planet that is inhabitable—or even flourishing—would seem to be a fundamental obligation.

•It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest: It doesn't make sense to ruin the place where you live.

•Various religions, including the three great monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, teach that humans should be stewards of the Earth.

8.1 The Issue: Hazardous Waste Disposal

Hazardous waste is a problem for many communities around the world. The obvious answer to what should be done with it is to simply avoid creating it. Given that total avoidance is improbable, corporations have designed methods to reduce hazardous waste, including recycling, reducing waste, treating the waste, trading excess materials to other businesses, and other methods. Here we will discuss a well-known hazardous waste case.

Activist Erin Brockovich

Wade Payne/Associated Press

Activist Erin Brockovich's story is representative of many environmental battles.

In a small town, an unemployed mother of three is down on her luck; after a failed lawsuit, she convinces her attorney to take her on as a clerk. In between filing and other drudgery required of such clerks, she starts hearing about strange illnesses in her town and their unusual frequency and starts investigating. Eventually, she discovers that a major corporation has been storing water that has become toxic in unlined ponds. That water eventually leached into the groundwater and subsequently contaminated the town's drinking water. The law clerk begins to work with her attorney to bring legal action against the giant corporation, and her spirit and unwillingness to give up eventually wins the day. The giant corporation is forced to pay those who had been harmed by the water pollution $333 million; the mother herself gets $2 million. Except for the corporation, everyone lives happily ever after.

This kind of thing sounds a bit too good to be true; in fact, it sounds like a movie. This is unsurprising, since it is a movie: Erin Brockovich tells the story (based on actual events) of one woman's struggle against the economic power structure to obtain justice for those outside of that structure. In addition to it being a classic David versus Goliath story, where the faceless, all-powerful giant is slain by the righteous but powerless fighter, the story also is representative of many environmental battles. Often, as we will see, those engaged in these battles are in a conflict over resources, money, and the environment. Those who prefer to develop, drill, or mine may regard the benefits of that activity as more important than maintaining the wilderness or landscape as it is. In contrast, those who wish to maintain a pristine environment will regard that as priceless, and thus not worth ruining for some jobs or to extract energy or minerals. Still others will advocate a middle course, promoting sensible development that minimizes the harm to the environment without neglecting the important economic rewards that such development may provide.

As is often the case with movies, reality is a bit messier than one might realize from seeing Erin Brockovich.

•Those in the town—Hinkley, California—who received payment from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) have suggested that the amount of money they were promised turned out to be much less than they actually received, that attorneys kept the money for months without paying interest on it, and that excessive legal fees reduced the awards substantially (Sharp, 2000).

•A toxic "plume" containing the carcinogen chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium) had been the original source of the contamination that led to the 1996 lawsuit Brockovich began. In 2008, however, it was discovered that the plume was spreading again, and had become two miles long and a mile wide. PG&E attempted to stem the growth of this plume, but also sought to buy some of the affected property and provided bottled water to concerned residents (Schwartz, 2010).

•A study carried out by the California Cancer Registry seemed to indicate that cancer rates—a particular concern in Hinkley, given the known effects of chromium 6—were not, in fact, elevated in most cases. An epidemiological study came to a similar conclusion, stating that its findings do not support claims of a generalized cancer excess in Hinkley, although the cervix, prostate, and colorectal cancer findings reveal underutilization of cancer screening in the Hinkley tract. These findings are consistent with previous assessments that did not identify a cancer excess in the Hinkley tract (Morgan & Reeves, 2011).

This final point brings to our attention a concern that frequently occurs in environmental disputes: the need for scientific and/or medical experts to provide data and analysis. Few of us are, ourselves, experts in toxicology, oncology, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, hydrostatics, and the other fields involved in many of these issues, let alone experts in several of them. Those who are experts in this field may not, of course, be experts in political science (or even adept in politics) or ethics. Furthermore, both sides of this debate will provide their own experts, who may strongly disagree with each other over an issue that can only be resolved by yet another expert. Therefore, those of us who are not experts somehow have to determine which experts to trust, and this is a frequent challenge in resolving problems that arise in environmental ethics, whether dealt with at a community level by political structures, or in more formal legal procedures. We will encounter this challenge a number of times in examining conflicts in environmental ethics.

Externalities

Economists often talk of "externalities" in evaluating a specific economic decision. While the detailed discussion can get complex, here we can simply describe an externality as the effect of an economic choice or activity experienced by someone who doesn't have input into the decision to make that choice, or choose to engage in that activity. A very simple example is Charlie, who decides to sit down at the end of a row at a basketball game; all those who follow Charlie and wish to sit down on that row have to climb over him. They weren't consulted by Charlie, but they pay the (modest) price of having to exert themselves to climb past him. That modest price is an externality.

Pollution is, however, the standard example of an externality. If I drive my car or run a steel mill that pollutes the air, many others breathe that air who had no say in my choice to run a car that seems to pollute more than most, or in running my steel mill. Those who are affected by my exhaust or steel mill pollution are paying a social cost. Economists argue about the best way to deal with this kind of social cost (or negative externality); some argue that the costs should be figured into the taxes I pay to run an inefficient car or a polluting steel mill; others (most famously Nobel-prizewinning economist Ronald Coase) argue that if various transaction costs are ignored or discounted, those affected will be able to negotiate the price involved for creating the pollution up to the point where they would be more willing to suffer the pollution than pay me to stop creating it.

Skyline showing pollution coming from a factory in an industrial center.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Pollution is an example of an externality.

An example might make clear what Coase argues. Imagine a tanning parlor is in a strip mall, next to a toy store. The toy store gets a new toy that, all day long, children try out, making a loud, annoying sound. The tanning parlor is losing business because its customers don't like the noise. It could, of course, take the toy store to court. But Coase argues that it would be more efficient for the two businesses to negotiate. Perhaps the tanning parlor will lose less money than the toy store makes by stocking the annoying toy; if so, the tanning parlor may offer some cash to make up the store's losses if it agrees to quit stocking it. (Naturally, the more complex the details, the more complex the negotiations.) In general, Coase's point is that unless the negotiations themselves cost too much (these being known as "transaction costs"), it is in both business's interests to come to an agreement that will be to their mutual advantage. Each will be better off economically by coming to an agreement, relative to suing or absorbing the costs imposed upon it by the other business.

(For more details on Coase's influential view, visit http://law.gsu.edu/history/Coase.htm (http://law.gsu.edu/history/Coase.htm) .)

Whenever pollution is discussed in economic terms, externalities and various costs involved need to be factored in. This is particularly true in cases such as the groundwater pollution case of PG&E and Hinkley, California.

Reducing Waste Through Recycling

You have probably heard, or seen, the slogan "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle." Because so many of the harmful effects are produced by obtaining natural resources, such as petroleum or copper or coal, environmentalists have argued that it makes sense to lower the demand for such commodities by using what we have efficiently, using less, and utilizing the materials we have left in producing new commodities rather than simply throwing those materials away. In this section, we will see the arguments put forth for this approach, and consider a couple of specific examples.

Many of us may live in communities with a recycling program; some cities have very aggressive recycling programs, while others may have none. Generally, however, most communities have recognized that recycling material such as plastic, glass, and aluminum makes both more environmental sense and economic sense than always producing more new plastic, glass, and aluminum. It is becoming more and more common in any given town to see trash receptacles sit side by side with recycling receptacles.

It might be good to start with (just a few) statistics, to give an indication of what can be recycled, what cannot, and just how much that is thrown away might be used more productively.

As of 2011, plastics make up almost 13% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream (trash), a dramatic increase from 1960, when plastics were less than 1% of the waste stream. Consequently, what happens to that plastic—whether it is recycled or simply becomes part of the MSW stream, plays a significant role.

•32 million tons of plastic waste were generated in 2011, representing 12.7 percent of total MSW.

•In 2011, the United States generated almost 14 million tons of plastics as containers and packaging, about 11 million tons as durable goods, such as appliances, and almost 7 million tons as nondurable goods, for example plates and cups.

•Only 8 percent of the total plastic waste generated in 2011 was recovered for recycling.

•In 2011, the category of plastics which includes bags, sacks, and wraps was recycled at about 11 percent.

•Plastics also are found in automobiles, but recycling of these materials is counted separately from the MSW recycling rate. (EPA, 2013, para. 2)

Americans produce a substantial amount of waste, but a few more general facts give an indication of just how much:

•Every year nearly 900,000,000 trees are cut down to provide raw materials for American paper and pulp mills.

•Every year we generate around 14 million tons of food waste, which is 106 pounds of food waste per person; 570,000 tons of this is composted for a 4.1% recovery rate. The rest, or 13.4 million tons, is incinerated or landfilled and occupies 6.3 million cubic yards of landfilled MSW.

•Americans throw away about 28 billion bottles and jars every year.

•It takes a 15-year-old tree to produce 700 grocery bags.

•Disposable diapers last centuries in landfills. An average baby will go through 8,000 of them.

•In 1998, 62.8% of the 102 billion aluminum cans produced were recycled. That totals 64 billion cans, 46 billion more than in 1991. Aluminum can recycling saves 95% of the energy needed to make aluminum from bauxite ore. Energy savings in 1998 alone were enough to light a city the size of Pittsburgh for ten years. (EPA, 2012, para. 1–3, 5–6, 10)

Americans have become more conscious of these kinds of numbers and facts, and many have become much more accepting of recycling as an ordinary part of life. At the same time, there is some indication that while Americans may be more aware of recycling, they may not be doing as much of it as they could:

•Currently, less than 35% of households and less than 10% of businesses in the U.S. recycle.

•Those levels have barely improved in 15 years despite billions of dollars spent on competitions, symposiums, awareness campaigns, and sorting technologies.

•If U.S. recycling levels can reach 75%, environmental benefits will include removing 50 million cars from the road each year and generating 1.5 million new jobs. (Recycle Across America, 2013, para. 1)

The Argument for Recycling

The argument in favor of recycling seems simple enough: Material that is not recycled ends up in landfills, or is incinerated. Each of these brings with it certain environmental issues. Landfills are built in such a way that trash does not readily decompose; they can leach toxins into the soil and groundwater, and they generate methane, a greenhouse gas. Incinerating waste, which is less common, and is often used to generate electricity, also brings with it hazards, such as releasing into the atmosphere various dioxins (a set of toxic chemicals), metals, ash, and unpleasant odors; different authorities disagree about whether this method generates greenhouse emissions or actually reduces them by creating energy through the incineration process.

If we recycle as much of the material that can be recycled, then we have a correspondingly lower need for more landfills (or incinerators). The point seems obvious: If I recycle one can, and half of it goes into making the next can, I've reduced the waste involved by 50%, relative to a can made out of completely new material. Multiplying this by the population of a state, a country, or a planet, we can see pretty quickly how this could minimize the impact on the environment, and decrease the amount of waste created.

The Argument Against Recycling

Most people seem to be aware of this, but there are arguments against recycling that need to be considered. These counterarguments tend to focus on three basic points:

1.Recycling is often done by combining some of the older, recycled material with newer material; when recycling paper, for instance, older paper is combined with new paper. Recycling processes require considerable energy—with paper, for example, not just to cut down the trees, but also to transport them, and process the wood into pulp—and that must be factored into the environmental impact. Some recycling processes also employ chemicals; again, another introduction into the environment that must be balanced against the alternative.

2.Recycling may use already existing material, but there are costs associated with it. Those who process the recycled material are paid to do so; these costs are passed on to the consumer. However, recycling programs are often subsidized by local or state governments, and those costs are paid for by the taxpayer. In considering the relative costs of purchasing a new product or a product from recycled material, one often forgets to include these "hidden" costs, such as taxes paid to subsidize the recycling program.

3.Again, one must take into consideration all the factors that go into recycling. Picking up recyclables and bringing them to be processed uses petroleum; when processing various materials, such as glass, paper, aluminum, and plastics, we use energy that comes from burning fossil fuels. What is needed is a more general accounting of the costs involved in recycling, in order to compare those costs to other approaches. Comparative figures, however, are difficult to obtain.

These arguments about recycling will continue, although as techniques improve in terms of energy efficiency, more effective recycling programs and techniques and the savings brought about by large-scale participation may address some of the opposing claims.

The Argument for Reducing and Reusing

The arguments about the other two strategies that are promoted by those who wish to decrease the amount of waste produced are, fortunately, considerably less contentious. Indeed, some of these arguments have been around for centuries, if not millennia.

A quick calculation: Johnny is an 8-year-old boy. He wakes up in the morning and has a glass of juice and a glass of milk. At lunch he has another glass of milk, and another glass of milk when he comes home from school. After coming in from playing outside, he has a glass of water, and then a glass of milk or soda with dinner. He usually takes a glass of water with him when he goes to bed. Thus, on this average day, if he uses a new glass each time, he has used seven glasses, as have his sister, his mother, and his father. That is 28 glasses; at that rate, the family uses 196 glasses a week, 5,880 glasses a month, or 70,560 glasses a year. If this is an average family in a town of 100,000, that would be 7,056,000,000 glasses used in the town. Assuming these aren't cups that are just thrown away (another environmental issue, as we've seen), each of these glasses needs to be washed, which takes time, energy, water, and soap. That's a lot of glasses being washed. Had Johnny used the same glass just for water, he would have saved 29% of the total; in the town as a whole, 2,046,240,000 fewer glasses would need to be washed, with a corresponding savings in time, energy, water, and soap.

Shopper using a cloth grocery bag.

Aaron Favila/Associated Press

There are many opportunities to reuse resources. For example, we can use a cloth bag rather than paper or plastic when grocery shopping.

This is a simple example, of course, but it is representative of what many of us heard from our parents (and our parents heard from their parents): Don't get a new glass each time you need one; don't buy a new plastic bottle of water instead of refilling one you already have; use a cloth bag when going grocery shopping instead of getting a new one each time; use both sides of the paper. The opportunities for reusing resources, rather than using new ones, are not just environmentally sound, they also save money. Presumably, something that has both an economic benefit and an environmental benefit is something people need to consider a more important part of their routine. Grandma would probably agree with these suggestions and have some more of her own:

•Plastic containers and reusable lunch bags are great ways to take your lunch to school without creating waste.

•Coffee cans, shoe boxes, margarine containers, and other types of containers people throw away can be used to store things or can become fun arts and crafts projects.

•Don't throw out clothes, toys, furniture, and other things that you don't want anymore. Somebody else can probably use them. You can bring them to a center that collects donations, give them to friends, or even have a yard sale.

•Use paper grocery bags to make book covers rather than buying new ones.

•Use silverware and dishes instead of disposable plastic utensils and plates.

•Store food in reusable plastic containers. (Fact Monster, 2007, para. 4)

The Argument Against Reducing and Reusing

There are few arguments against reducing and reusing resources. Few would argue that we should use more water, or plastic, or energy, when we can accomplish what we want or need to and use less. Again, this is an example of something that makes both environmental sense and economic sense. Perhaps you live in an area of the country that gets cold; you could run your thermostat at 73 degrees and be quite comfortable, or you could be equally comfortable at 68 degrees with a sweater on.

Saving energy, of course, saves money on one's heating bill, as well as reduces the demand for energy and the associated environmental impact of finding and producing that energy. As we saw with the drinking-glass example, saving energy can have a substantial "multiplier effect." If a particular change in behavior lowers energy use by 2%, that may not sound like much. But multiply that result by 150 million, and it can have a substantial impact.

As noted, few people come out directly and argue that we should use more energy, that our cars should get worse gas mileage, that our heating and air conditioning systems should be less effective, or that we should run our thermostats at 90 degrees when we are cold. Instead, we see economic arguments that, indirectly, support some of those proposals. For example, increasing gas mileage or CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards are frequently opposed by the auto industry because meeting those standards imposes costs on the industry to retool machinery and redesign cars. For instance, the Heartland Institute has argued that increasing these standards will restrict consumers' choices, although they "are better positioned than regulators to choose the size, fuel economy, and other features of the cars and trucks they buy" (n.d., para. 4). Nor, according to Heartland, does it decrease dependence on foreign oil.

Still, few argue that reducing energy and resource consumption—provided it does not harm economic growth or restrict opportunities—is not a reasonable strategy, all else being equal. How one does that, however, remains a source of contention.

Universal Waste

The term universal waste is reserved for specific kinds of products, generally consumer products that contain mercury, lead, butane, arsenic, cadmium, or other substances that can be harmful to both humans and the environment. They call for specific modes of disposal because they contain chemicals that, if improperly disposed of (such as putting them in a landfill), can contaminate the water, air, soil, and, potentially, food. Some of the kinds of products that contain universal wastes are fluorescent light bulbs (tubes), a number of electronic devices such as computers and cell phones, batteries, thermometers and other mercury-containing items, and glass picture tubes found in televisions and computer monitors.

There aren't a lot of disputes here; few if any people would argue for the disposal of universal wastes in such a way that it increases the risks to which innocent people are subjected. One might, of course, point out that, as with many circumstances in which it can take a bit longer or a take a bit more energy to do the correct thing, people do not do it. One could, for instance, put his or her batteries in the ordinary household trash—no one is checking, after all. That may save this person the time and energy required to dispose of the batteries correctly, at a universal waste disposal site. But this isn't, ethically, much different than drunk driving. By driving drunk, one endangers others (and oneself), although it may at the time seem more convenient than calling a cab or finding a friend to drive. Most of us would regard drunk driving as irresponsible, which is why society has stiff penalties for being caught doing so; to argue that one's convenience is more important than the potential harms one can cause to other innocent people would be generally regarded as both short sighted and selfish. Similarly, the incorrect disposal of universal waste poses a risk to others (and oneself), and we would no more accept its convenience as justifying posing that risk than we would accept convenience in defense of driving while drunk. The more general point is that society has the right to expect its members to obey those laws (and conventions, or informal agreements) designed to protect people from risks to which they should not be exposed. To fail to obey those laws and conventions will seem, to most, immoral, although the arguments for why that is can differ. A utilitarian, for instance, might argue that correctly disposing of universal wastes produces a general good that far outweighs any benefits that one might gain by doing otherwise. A deontologist, in contrast, could argue that doing something out of personal convenience that harms another cannot be the kind of action that could become universal law—would we be willing to be treated that way, if we were subject to harms simply for another's convenience?

8.2 The Issue: Business Interests Versus Environmental Protection

How much responsibility should a corporation bear when it comes to waste disposal? Do businesses and the general public have differing levels of environmental accountability? In this section, we will look at some of the concerns surrounding the business community's participation—or lack of it—in environmental protection.

Environmental Harm

We noted that the "three Rs" of reducing, reusing, and recycling are often suggested as ways to minimize the damage done to the environment. These simple steps reduce the stress on the planet and its resources, and help maintain an environment that is sustainable for current and future generations. Generally, the focus on environmental harms has been on air pollution, water pollution, and soil pollution; more recently, the emphasis on anthropogenic (human-made) climate change, and resource depletion. The last two have generated some degree of controversy; here we will look at three specific issues: the threat pollution posts to groundwater, injecting toxins into the environment that end up in the human bloodstream and nervous system, and the risks to which the food supply is subject due to environmental hazards. As we have already seen, these issues often arise due to the potential conflict between a desire to protect the environment and a need for economic development.

Straight to the Source

The UN's Principles for Responsible Investment

In 2005, the United Nations proposed to a group of institutional investors that they develop principles for responsible investment, which in part reflect a desire to support environmental protection. This group is known for developing the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). In one of its reports, the group reported these results (as of 2008) and this prediction:

Global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008 represented a monetary value of $6.6 trillion, equivalent to 11% of global GDP, calculates a study by the UN-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) and UNEP Finance Initiative. Those global costs are 20% larger than the $5.4 trillion decline in the value of pension funds in developed countries caused by the global financial crisis in 2007/8.

The study projects that the monetary value of annual environmental damage from water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, general waste and depleted resources could reach $28.6 trillion in 2050, or 23% lower if clean and resource-efficient technologies are introduced. (UNEP Press Release, 2010, para. 1–2)

In response to these concerns—both economic and environmental, the following six principles were developed for responsible investors.

Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG [environmental, social, and corporate governance] issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.

Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.

Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.

Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.

Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.

Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles. (PRI, n.d., para. 1)

Polluted Groundwater

It is difficult to imagine life without water; the average person can live only 3–5 days without it (Bryant, n.d.). Human beings not only require water simply to live, but also for various household needs (cooking, cleaning, etc.), recreation, transportation, and business. It probably goes without saying that water is a precious resource, and should be protected; yet it is a resource that is in various ways threatened. It is estimated that one in nine people on Earth (780 million) do not have regular access to clean drinking water; polluted water brings with it risks of ingesting toxic chemicals, but water-related illnesses still kill some 3.4 million people a year. While some countries have quite limited access to water, it has been observed that "an American taking a five-minute shower uses more water than the average person in a developing country slum uses for an entire day" (Water.org, n.d., para. 6).

There are many threats to the water supply, too many to mention in detail here. In general, though, the chief sources of groundwater pollution are industrial sources (for example, through the use of chemicals that may leach, as well as the spilling of chemicals and fuels and mining byproducts), agricultural sources (such as fertilizer runoff, pesticides, and livestock waste), and individual sources (motor oil, paint, detergents, and other products that may introduce various toxins into the water stream). These hazards are increased in some communities through extensive development, and the increase in housing developments, streets, and parking lots; by limiting opportunities for water to be absorbed through the soil, it becomes concentrated by being directed toward storm sewers (and picking up, along the way, various toxins such heavy metals, gasoline, and fertilizer) (Oregon Environmental Council, n.d.).

Aerial view of a pig farm showing lagoons that hold animal waste.

Mike Stewart/Associated Press

This photo shows a hog farm with rectangular lagoons that hold animal waste. Critics of this type of farm are concerned that the waste could pollute groundwater.

As is so often the case, there can be a conflict here between economic development and maintaining a resource, in this case, water. As a single example, one might consider the pork industry, specifically in North Carolina. According to the North Carolina Pork Council, "More than 46,000 North Carolina citizens work full-time in pork production and over 80% of North Carolina's hog farms are owned and operated by individual farm families" This is obviously an important industry in North Carolina, and the Council insists that "they are dedicated to ensuring that they will pass a clean environment on to the next generation"(2006, para. 3). The critics of large-scale hog farming, in contrast, observe that ecosystems and their inhabitants are endangered by the waste these large livestock farms generate (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013).

The challenge, of course, is trying to balance the economic needs—the employment of the many North Carolinians in the pork industry, and the secondary effects that employment has in the North Carolina economy—with the protection of groundwater. Can these two be reconciled? Do we have to make a choice: either abandon large-scale hog farms, with their accompanying manure lagoons and methane production, or accept that the economic demands here outweigh the environmental concerns? Is the public better served by one or the other here? If public health is generally threatened by contamination of the surrounding groundwater, we may be forced to conclude that current practices are too risky, and that agricultural practices need to be developed to minimize this risk. Or we can argue that the current risks, while genuine, are too small to require an expensive overhauling of contemporary methods of food production; no activity is without its risks, and society is constantly required to balance the two and make difficult choices. Finally, how should society determine the costs and benefits involved, and is there a point at which the risks force regulators to impose restrictions on agricultural production to require that any potential harms be minimized? As we have seen, and will continue to see, environmental issues frequently lead to difficult questions concerning the interaction of economic goals, environmental goals, and the concern that these two goals are irreconcilable.

Be the Ethicist

Drilling for Oil in Yellowstone

You are CEO of Smith Petroleum. Oil has been discovered in the middle of Yellowstone National Park. There is a lot of oil. It seems clear that if you approach this correctly, the current federal and state governments will approve drilling in Yellowstone.

It is said by the oil industry that this will lower gas prices in the United States by at least $0.10/gallon and create at least 10,000 new jobs.

The decision to drill is entirely yours.

1.State your decision.

2.Argue for that decision on the basis of just the economic issues involved.

3.Argue against that decision, on the basis of the intrinsic value of Yellowstone National Park (its non-economic value).

Assume you are no longer CEO of Smith Petroleum. Explain to someone what value or benefit Yellowstone National Park has. How do you respond if that person then says he or she will never go to Yellowstone National Park?

If you aren't familiar with Yellowstone National Park, it might be worth going to this site before answering these questions: http://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm) .

Poisoning Human Populations

The expression body burden has been introduced to describe the chemicals that one finds—from natural and from human-made sources—in a person's body. We can breathe them in, ingest them in our food and water, absorb them through our skin, and they can even be passed from a mother to a developing fetus. All of us have some of these chemicals; some, such as arsenic, pass through human beings quickly; others, such as mercury or lead, can remain in organs, fat tissue, or other parts of our bodies for years. Some pesticides can remain stored in the body for as long as 50 years. Simply having chemicals in the bloodstream is not the problem; rather, it is which chemicals these are, and what their effects are. For a substance such as dioxin or mercury, with substantial health risks, significant vigilance is needed to minimize one's exposure (Coming Clean, n.d.).

Human beings are exposed to chemicals, which, as noted, occur both naturally an in human-made products, constantly. Some have unknown effects, and have not been sufficiently researched; others have known effects that are quite harmful (for example, lead and mercury); still others have known effects that appear to be harmless in standard dosages (potassium). Rather than trying to sort out the various results of the 80,000 chemicals in commercial use, here we can focus on dioxin, which indicates how, once a risk is recognized, government and industry may be able to work together to develop a potential solution.

Dioxin is a name used to refer to a set of chemical compounds; one, specifically known as TCDD, is particularly well studied. It can be found in polyvinyl chloride, paper that has been bleached with chlorine, and from certain products when incinerated; it can also be naturally produced by volcanoes and forest fires. There is some controversy about the health effects of TCDD; one source states that studies "have linked dioxins to cancer, disrupted hormones, reproductive damage such as decreased fertility, neurological effects, immune system changes and skin disorders" (Cone, 2012, para. 4), while the EPA notes that "currently there is no clear indication of increased disease in the general population attributable to dioxin-like compounds" (DioxinFacts.org, n.d., para. 7). Whether there are significant health hazards or not, increased regulation, and cooperation between industry and government, has decreased dioxin emission substantially in the last 50 years.

This, then, seems to be an environmental success story; dioxins may be a threat, their release was regulated, industry recognized the necessity of those regulations, and the release and exposure of dioxins—again, specifically TCDD—was decreased significantly.

At the same time, new chemicals are introduced every year, and it is difficult to determine their short- or long-term effects without substantial and expensive studies being done. David Ewing Duncan comments that "only a quarter of the 82,000 chemicals in use in the U.S. have ever been tested for toxicity" (2006, para. 17).

As we have seen, industry, agricultural, and commercial enterprises often generate some degree of risk. No one thinks it even possible or desirable to eliminate human exposure to all chemicals, and no one thinks it possible or desirable not to regulate that exposure at all. Again, the balancing act that is called for with some sources of the riskier aspects of the body burden—such things as perfluorinated acids, bisphenol A, and phthalates, which we may not even be aware of—must be evaluated in terms of costs and benefits. Certainly, we can find arguments that regulation of such dangerous chemicals as mercury—a by-product of coal-burning power plants, and often found in relatively high concentrations of fish—is insufficient, even though the risks associated with elevated mercury levels in human beings are well established. The political, economic, and moral questions are difficult to disentangle here, but reconciling the benefits of human health and the costs of reducing the threats to that health are important questions. Answers to such questions, of course, often raise challenges to those who develop policy and legislation, yet the fundamental ethical questions also remain: Whose good is being served by regulations? Whose good is being served by limiting regulations? Are environmental regulations too burdensome on business, or inadequate to protect public health? Finally, particularly in an area that requires chemical and medical expertise, how can citizens who lack such expertise determine what information is reliable, and what information is being presented in such a way as to benefit a specific environmental or industrial perspective?

Ethics of Fracking

Is fracking good, bad, or all of the above?

Poisoning the Food Supply

Just as humans obviously need water, we need food to survive. Yet a number of environmental concerns have been raised about the quality of the food that is available. While access to food itself, and healthful food specifically, varies around the world, here we will focus specifically on the food supply in the United States.

There are different perspectives on the food supply, and different ways of describing potential threats to it. On the one hand, "[W]e do have a very safe food supply," according to Sanford A. Miller, former director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (Carey, 2007, para. 5). On the other hand, there are regularly stories of foodborne illness and recalls issued of various foods, whether E. coli outbreaks from tainted beef or salmonella risks from peanut butter. (Carey, 2007). The Center for Disease Control "estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases" (2013, para 1). Other concerns have been raised:

•Bisphenol A (BPA), found in plastic bottles (including baby bottles) and other plastic containers has been identified as posing potential risks:

BPA has raised concerns because it appears to mimic the effects of estrogen, interfering with hormone levels and cell signaling systems. Previous studies have shown that people exposed to high levels of BPA have a greater risk of developing uterine fibroids, breast cancer, decreased sperm counts, and prostate cancer. Babies and children are thought to be at greatest risk from the exposure. (Kotz, 2008, para. 2)

•Some companies that have focused on small batch production and emphasized organic production methods have been bought out by large corporations, such as Kellogg, Procter and Gamble, and Coca-Cola. The suggestion has been made that the size of these companies may prevent some of the close attention given to the more traditional methods that smaller companies were able to provide.

•The use of antibiotics, hormones, and other supplements in animal feed has raised fears about effects in humans who eat these animals. Thus Donald Kennedy, former FDA commissioner and president emeritus at Stanford University, said, "There's no question that routinely administering non-therapeutic doses of antibiotics to food animals contributes to antibiotic resistance" (McVeigh, 2012, para. 4).

•Similar concerns have been raised about genetically modified (GM) foods; some research has associated GM corn with hepatorenal toxicity that can damage the liver and kidneys (de Vendômois, Roullier, Cellier, & Séralini, 2009); in 2013, the voters of California voted down a proposition that would have required manufacturers to label all foods with GM ingredients. Advocates of the proposition noted that most of the funding dedicated to defeating this proposition came from out of state, largely from companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, and other corporations with a large stake in GM foods (No on 37, n.d.), outspending the opposition (those in favor of the proposition) five to one.

•Bees are important for pollinating fruit and vegetable plants, but there has been much worry expressed about the use of herbicides, insecticides, and pesticides contributing to the decline of the bee population, and the collapse of some bee colonies (Tapparo, Marton, Giorio, Zanella, Solda et al., 2012).

Bag of corn chips with a label reading "Non-GMO Project Verified"

Damian Dovarganes /Associated Press

Some research has indicated that there may be health risks associated with food that contains genetically modified organisms.

These and other examples are frequently highlighted by those who worry that humans are poisoning their own food supply. Industry responds, naturally, by pointing out that many of these risks are exaggerated or nonexistent. In addition, some genetic modification allows certain plants to grow in places where they otherwise could not, as well as extending the growing season and increasing protection from pests and disease. This response is summed up by those who insist that in the scientific community, genetically modified organisms raise very little alarm in the scientific community and that the science used to create them is basic enough to teach to high school students (Berezow, 2013).

Yet again, we see a need to balance what industry—here, agriculture—needs against environmental concerns raised from various sources. Each side has its experts supporting it, and those of us who are not experts may have little or no ability to determine which is correct. Should we be suspicious of the claims made by companies that have a large financial stake in GM food that such food is harmless? Should we be suspicious of claims made by environmentalists who sometimes seem to desire that large-scale agribusiness be unsuccessful and insist that food be locally sourced and organic? What genuine threats to the food supply exist, and how might they be prevented? What is the legitimate role of regulation here—presumably we don't want people becoming sick or dying from eating—and where does regulation become onerous and add unnecessarily to our food costs? As we continue to see, balancing economic issues with environmental issues brings with it political challenges, leading to this fundamental issue: Can one be an environmentally responsible producer (or consumer) without placing an undue burden on business?

Corporate Responsibility

To whom is a corporation responsible? Assuming a corporation is a for-profit enterprise, its fundamental goal is relatively clear: It needs to make a profit. Of course, most corporations recognize that this has to be seen in a larger context: Corporations have employees and stockholders, and are located within a community. The community itself may be taken to be the local community, the larger surrounding community, the state, the country, the continent, the hemisphere; for a large, multinational corporation, its community may be the planet.

Environmental Decision Making

One influential description of the responsibilities a corporation has was described succinctly by economist Milton Friedman: "There is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it . . . engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud" (1962, p. 133]). However, another competing model has gained a good bit of attention since Friedman's description: stakeholder theory. The stakeholder theory takes a broader view, that corporations have a responsibility to shareholders, but also to "individuals and constituencies that contribute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to [the corporation's] wealth-creating capacity and activities, and who are therefore its potential beneficiaries and/or risk bearers " (Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2002, p. 19). Different interpretations of the stakeholder theory identify distinct stakeholders (in addition to shareholders), but generally these would include, at least, customers, employees, suppliers, and members of the community. As we saw, however, the corporation itself may determine what that community is, and which of its members are sufficiently affected to qualify as stakeholders.

Instrumental Value and Intrinsic Value

Often in discussions of environmental ethics, the debate gets overtaken by strict economic considerations. For instance, if an economic development plan may endanger the habitat of a particular species of fish, and potentially lead to its extinction, some will argue that the benefits of the development outweigh any benefits we could receive from the fish. In response, some may suggest that we don't know what potential value the fish could have; perhaps it will at some point be discovered that it contains a compound that could help cure certain forms of cancer? In this debate over the benefits of the fish being endangered and the benefits of the fish being protected, the sole kind of value being appealed to is called instrumental value: namely, what good is the thing? How can I use it to get something else?

In contrast, some things are said to have intrinsic value. For instance, being happy is often said to have intrinsic value because it is itself valuable; it is a good thing to be happy, and we don't regard being happy as needing to be a means to some other end. Being happy is good in itself, or intrinsically.

Consider the following examples; do they have only instrumental value? Do any of them have intrinsic value? If any of them do have intrinsic value, what does that mean in terms of our obligation to protect or preserve them? If you think nothing here does have intrinsic value, can you think of anything that does?

Biodiversity

The Grand Canyon

Oil filters

The Mona Lisa

Number 2 pencils

Giant pandas

Site of the 9/11 attacks ("Ground Zero")

Picture frames

Aspirin

Christmas

Which of these models influences an analysis of a corporate decision can alter how one regards corporate responsibility. For instance, if I run a multinational paint company that generates a certain amount of hazardous waste, how should I calculate its disposal? Should I choose simply whatever is least expensive? Should I choose whatever is least expensive that also minimizes its hazardous effects? If I choose the least expensive disposal method, this may lead to higher levels of toxins being released in another country, but may lead to marginally higher profits and, consequently, a higher return to my stockholders. Usually, of course, such decisions are considerably more complex: Decisions presumably can't simply ignore whatever laws and other restrictions that are in place wherever the hazardous waste is disposed; I may have important stockholders who regard environmental harm as worth the additional cost; I may have to factor into the business decision the cost of any potential fines (or even jail time) if I choose to ignore or try to skirt the applicable regulations. As may already be clear, many of these kinds of factors look different within the stakeholder model: Customers, distributors, employees, and community members may have a very different set of criteria than mere return on investment when they evaluate such a decision (see Figure 8.1). Furthermore, a corporation may regard its environmental policies as part of its image or "brand," and may see making sound environmental practice part of its marketing strategy; a company that has a reputation for being a responsible environmental steward may, thereby, be more profitable in both the short and long run.

Figure 8.1: Business relationships in relation to environmental concerns

Figure showing the intersecting relationships between societal interests, economy and industry, and environment territory.

This diagram shows the interlocking relationships a corporation needs to consider in making business decisions on the stakeholder model.

Source: Retrieved from http://walimemon.com/2010/08/corporate-social-responsibility/

Going Green on a Corporate Level

Various companies have adopted policies to be environmentally responsible. For example, many hotel chains have developed plans to reduce their energy and water usage, reduce waste sent to landfills, and thus reduce their "carbon footprint."

Organic Methods and Products

Considerable attention has been given in recent years to organic food as an alternative to traditional methods of food production.

Whether or not organic food is better for human beings, or, for that matter, is better for the environment, is the source of some controversy. One 2012 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine concluded that "the published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria" (Smith-Spangler, Brandeau, Hunter, Bavinger, Pearson et al., 2012, para. 3).

Others have noted that organic methods not only do not produce more nutritional food, but that conventional farming is more effective, producing more food per acre of land (Palmer, 2012). The tradeoff seems to be whether to use more land and organic methods, or less land and traditional methods.

Those who advocate organic methods point not only to health benefits for human beings, but also to benefits from decreased use of pesticides and land improvement, and to the fact that ethical stewardship of the land requires a "gentler" approach than that used by traditional agriculture. The Organic Trade Association argues that organic methods have these important advantages:

•Organic farms respect our water resources: The elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, done in combination with soil building, protects and conserves water resources.

•Organic farmers build healthy soil: Soil is the foundation of the food chain. The primary focus of organic farming is to use practices that build healthy soils.

•Organic farmers work in harmony with nature: Organic agricultural respects the balance demanded of a healthy ecosystem: wildlife is encouraged by including forage crops in rotation and by retaining fence rows, wetlands, and other natural areas.

•Organic producers strive to preserve diversity: The loss of a large variety of species (biodiversity) is one of the most pressing environmental concerns. The good news is that many organic farmers and gardeners have been collecting and preserving seeds, and growing unusual varieties for decades.

•Organic farming helps keep rural communities healthy: USDA reported that in 1997, half of U.S. farm production came from only 2% of farms. Organic agriculture can be a lifeline for small farms because it offers an alternative market where sellers can command fair prices for crops. (2013, para. 4–6, 8–9)

Clean Coal

Meanwhile, many of those in the coal industry have adopted "clean coal technology," with the coordinated goals of continuing to use coal to produce energy and to do so in a way that minimizes its environmental impact.

Improving Water Quality

Agribusiness has recognized the need for sustainable sources of freshwater as well as its responsibility to help meet that goal. Thus, companies have produced policy statements, plans of action, and timetables to monitor their progress. One example is the multinational agricultural producer, Cargill, which has committed itself to freshwater efficiency.

Each of these programs has at least its share of critics; some argue that "clean coal" is a contradiction in terms; others that companies put out corporate statements of environmental responsibility that conflict with the actual behavior of the companies; while still others suggest that many corporate business models will never hesitate to sacrifice environmental benefits if they interfere with corporate profits.

One standard criticism of clean coal, for example, is that the very idea rests upon some rather problematic claims. Coal releases large amounts of CO2; to prevent that CO2 from being released into the atmosphere (which is what makes it "clean"), a method known as carbon capture and sequestration is required. But that method itself requires a good deal of energy; as James B. Meigs points out, "[A] coal-fired power plant would have to burn roughly 25 percent more coal to handle carbon sequestration while producing the same amount of electricity" (2011, para. 6). Still more difficult is the actual sequestration. Finally, it is not clear, at this point, whether such a method would be successful in preventing the compressed CO2 from leaking, and for how long. In short, its critics claim that the problem with "clean coal" is that there may not be such a thing (Meigs, 2011).

Ethical Views

The moral questions raised by many businesses are not necessarily different for different ethical theories, and they may not necessarily be analyzed differently by those theories. As is often the case, questions of corporate responsibility must be considered within the context of the actual issue involved, the business model used, the corporate mission statement, the theory—e.g., shareholder or stakeholder—utilized, the ethical evaluations being made, and how the various factors within those ethical evaluations are weighed. One utilitarian may look at a coal company deciding not to add expensive but optional "scrubbers" to minimize its mercury output; the greatest good for the greatest number in this case might be determined, in this specific analysis, to be based solely on return to investors of the highest possible profits. No law is being broken, and the company is fully complying with all relevant regulations. In contrast, another utilitarian might well argue that such scrubbers are worth the added cost, evaluating the benefits to the community not just in terms of profit, but also in terms of the risks of increased mercury contamination to current and future customers, the company's commitment to sustainability, and its reputation for being a responsible member of the community. Here we have two utilitarians with contrasting conceptions of what the correct decision is to do in one specific case. Presumably, one could make a similarly contrasting argument from the perspective of two deontologists who disagree with distinct assumptions about the values that should be emphasized in such a decision.

8.3 The Issue: Personal Responsibility

In addition to corporate responsibility, all of us, as individuals, have a relationship to our environment. What does it mean to take personal responsibility to maintain and protect our environment, not just for our own health and safety, but for those generations to follow? Do we have any obligations to protect the environment, or should we regard it simply as a source of resources to be exploited and utilized? If we do have such obligations, what are they? Do they require us to change our lifestyles in a radical way, or are there more moderate steps we can take to reduce waste; negative effects on the air, soil, and water; and carbon footprints? Some environmentalists argue that only radical steps can be justified at this stage, given the damage that has already been done and that continues; this is particularly a common feature of discussions on anthropogenic climate change. But others argue that we can make relatively modest changes and have a cumulative effect that will minimize our environmental impact and, in many cases, improve our surroundings.

Environmentally Responsible Households

One simple step to take is disposing of household waste in the appropriate way. Many of us have various kinds of waste: leftover food, packaging, bottles, cans, and various kinds of clutter that we accumulate and, at some point, want to discard. There are other more hazardous kinds of waste, such as motor oil, antifreeze, or leftover bug spray, as well as those we saw under the title of "universal wastes": solvents, cleaners, electronic items, batteries, even thermometers. We might object were we to see our next door neighbor pouring used motor oil down a storm sewer, but there is little difference between this and tossing batteries or cell phones into the trash, where they will end up in a landfill. The EPA notes that improper disposal of household waste can pose serious threats to both human health and the environment; it directs consumers to community resources aimed at disposing of hazardous items responsibly.

Going Green on an Individual Level

Compost barrel.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Using organic household waste for composting is one way to "go green."

Various companies have recognized that there is significant demand for products that are less stressful on the environment, and that are regarded as safer for humans, including children, as well as pets and other animals. Some of the products are designed to save energy, water, or both. These include solar panels, reusable water bottles, energy-saving light bulbs, low-flow showerheads, and rechargeable batteries.

Meanwhile, ecologists recommend homeowners rely on natural substances—as opposed to manufactured chemicals that may pose health risks—for killing pests and weeds. For example, use vinegar instead of glyphosate: One very commonly used weed killer is made with glyphosate, which some studies have connected with potential health risks in humans and other animals. Using vinegar and water as a substitute has often been recommended by home gardeners seeking an alternative to glyphosate.

Many gardeners have found composting to be a productive way to use organic household waste (such things as coffee grounds, eggshells, bush and tree trimmings, etc.). Composting takes these wastes and uses them to develop a nutrient-rich fertilizer for the soil. Composting thus decreases the amount of waste that is thrown away, and benefits the soil by adding nutrients. Composting's numerous benefits are listed on the EPA's website (see the Suggested Resources at the end of this chapter.).

Are Green Products Affordable?

Environmentalists often stress the importance of changing one's lifestyle to be more "eco-friendly," but most also insist that such changes do not require much if any sacrifice on the part of the individual. Rather, it is just getting into the habit of choosing those products that have a relatively lower environmental impact, as well as doing other things that are easy to do but have a cumulative effect (reusing a cloth bag when grocery shopping) and not doing things that have a negative impact (improperly disposing of hazardous waste). Yet it has been argued that some of the steps recommended in order to decrease our negative impact on the environment, involve expenses, and that many of us who would prefer to be more environmentally responsible are not really in a financial position to do so. While it might be obvious that to retrofit a house with solar panels is a very expensive undertaking, it is also the case that organic food is generally more expensive than food grown in the more traditional fashion. A Denver Post editorial notes that the use of wind and solar power will be substantially more expensive than fossil fuels (Yeatman & Cooke, 2010).

While this is a complaint about the differential energy costs between these various options, most of us also know on a more individual basis about costs that are involved in "being green." Sometimes these are financial costs, but there are also costs associated with time, convenience, and missing out on something: what economists call "opportunity costs." It may be more environmentally friendly (and better for me) to walk to work, but what if I work 30 miles from where I live? Perhaps I could bike, but that means I must risk riding a bike in traffic, as well as showing up to work in less than pristine condition (in other words, sweaty). Perhaps I could take public transit, but in my community it is very inefficient, and to get to work requires an hour and a half in transportation time that I could spend doing something else. If the environment is my sole consideration, then walking, biking, or public transportation may be the correct choice; but most of us make these choices in the context of busy schedules, other responsibilities, and other activities that we either need to take part in, or at least would like to.

Even cleaning products that are "green" tend to be more expensive—in some cases, quite a bit more expensive—than the standard ones we might recognize, and some have argued that the organic products are not as effective (a claim strongly rejected by those who make organic cleaners and other household products). The question then becomes one that we saw earlier in other contexts: Do I want my house to appear slightly less clean, for more money, or appear cleaner, for less money? Even if the organic products are as effective as others, they are more expensive: Perhaps the question is not so much whether I think it is worth the extra money to do what I can to protect the environment, it is whether I can afford to buy the organic products. Many people feel as if there really is little or no choice in the matter. After all, if one doesn't have the funds to make a positive environmental impact, it may not matter what one desires to do.

Those who advocate using organic cleaners, eating organic food, and taking other steps generally recognize that, currently, there are additional costs to doing so. At the same time, they have two responses:

•The more people begin to realize the benefits of being "green" (or at least "greener"), the more the laws of supply and demand will take effect. More companies will recognize the profits available in offering environmentally friendly products; competition will bring prices down; and the free market will respond, as it is designed to do, to meet customer demand with efficient, safe, and affordable green alternatives. In short, when these choices become increasingly popular, economies of scale will function to make them affordable for many more people.

•There are costs to using the older, less eco-friendly products, in terms of health care costs, loss of productivity due to job absences, diminished quality of life, and other costs that may be "hidden," but are no less genuine. When these costs are factored in, green products may be considerably closer in price to the alternative, and these costs also provide some motivation for both government money, and private equity firms, to subsidize and investment in sustainable products and technologies.

Medication Disposal

Many of us have specific forms of hazardous waste in our homes, which must be disposed of an appropriate way. However, one particular form of hazardous waste has not been mentioned; although very common, it can be overlooked in such discussions, and should not be. This is the disposal of medical waste: drugs, such as antibiotics, as well as syringes (and other "sharps" such as scalpels or lancets), disposable gloves, incontinence products, blood-soaked bandages, etc. Such waste is produced in hospitals, labs, clinics, nursing homes, medical offices, and even schools and tattoo parlors, but it is not unusual for some of these things to be in individual homes: Regardless of their source, however, they need to be disposed of properly.

Obviously enough, some medical waste poses a significant health threat: A contaminated needle can be a biohazard, and can lead to infectious diseases; a number of different kinds of medical waste can carry with them some sort of health risk if not disposed of properly. Additionally, but importantly, is the question of unused medications. These pose various risks: Children may accidentally swallow them, and prescription drug abusers may be tempted to steal them. A more significant threat may come from a standard way many people used to dispose of unwanted medicine—by flushing it down the toilet. This sends the various pharmaceuticals into the waterways, introducing their active agents into that water, which can be absorbed by fish and can even find their way into drinking water. Observers point out that scientists have detected medicines in both surface and groundwater, not to mention the soil. Even low levels of medicine in an ecological system pose health risks to land and marine life (Take Back Your Meds, 2010).

In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prepared a list of medicines it regards as safe for disposal by flushing (n.d.); presumably, this means that medicines not on this list may not be safe to flush. The EPA has an extensive discussion of the issues involved on its website (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/ppcp/index.cfm) . In any case, as is clear, this method of disposal is the source of some controversy. In any case, it is important to be aware of the issue, and to become better informed about the risks involved with improper disposal of all medical waste, including both over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals.

8.4 Applying the Theories

We began our look at environmental ethics by considering what happened in Hinkley, California. Was Pacific Gas and Electric guilty of polluting the groundwater, and thus responsible for some of the illnesses and even deaths that occurred there? Was this charge unfair, and were the claims that PG&E caused these results overblown and exaggerated? Or is there a third possibility to consider, that all economic activity—including that of PG&E—carries with it certain risks, but those risks are manageable and are the kind of thing a society has to accept in order to flourish economically?

These questions, to a large extent, are raised in terms of economics, cost–benefit analysis, profit and loss, health care costs, etc. But there are also ethical considerations here as well. If we have an accurate account of what PG&E did—or didn't do—then we can examine whether it did the right thing: not the right thing necessarily in terms of economic gain (or in terms of instrumental value) but in terms of moral values. Is the company's behavior justified on moral grounds, or does it deserve to be criticized on those same grounds? Here we will look at a utilitarian defense of PG&E's corporate behavior, and then contrast it with an objection to that behavior in terms of deontology. Then we will turn to relativism, to see how that perspective might look at this specific situation.

Utilitarian

The case concerning PG&E contains important factual questions that are difficult to answer with certainty. Nonetheless, PG&E settled for $333 million in 1996, another $295 million in 2006, and a final payment of $20 million in 2008. These are significant damages, but in the long run they become part of the cost of doing business, and many of the costs are, undoubtedly, passed on to PG&E's customers.

A utilitarian examining this case has to determine what the costs and the benefits are in this particular situation. On the one hand, there are the disputed health effects of PG&E's operation in Hinkley, the costs of the cleanup, as well as the costs of litigation and the damages paid to those in the lawsuit. Without dismissing the potential and genuine damages that may have been involved, a broader perspective also needs to be brought to bear in this case. The operation that caused the groundwater contamination was natural gas decompression; Hinkley had one of the many stations that are required to decompress natural gas between its original sources and its final delivery stage. To minimize rust in the cooling towers, chromium 6 was used, and the discharged water was kept in unlined pools; this had been done since 1952. When we look at the broader picture, however, we see several compelling facts: PG&E is a major source of energy in California, upon which people rely. Without a consistent, affordable power source, households would be prevented from doing a great number of things, from laundry to watching TV to running air conditioning and heating. Furthermore, without this reliable source of natural gas to the many industries in California that use it, the California economy would grind to a halt; people would be thrown out of work, agriculture and industry would be irreparably harmed, taxes would be raised to pay for unemployment and other costs associated with a sharp increase in unemployment. Additionally, all the salaries and benefits have a multiplier effect: Those who lose their jobs working for PG&E no longer have money for babysitters, going out to eat, and other items on which they traditionally spend their disposable income. In turn, all those who rely on that money are harmed. In short, even if the worse case scenario is painted of PG&E's activity in Hinkley, the alternative is almost incalculably worse and affects far larger numbers of people. It is virtually impossible to make a utility calculation under which more people—again, on the worst case scenario—would be better off were PG&E prevented from the exploration, development, and delivery of natural gas. All such activity has risks, but the benefits so vastly outweigh the risks than on any utilitarian evaluation, PG&E did the right thing.

This conclusion hardly supports the idea that corporations can do what they wish without any consideration of effects on people and on the environment. Obviously enough, once the risk of chromium 6 had been established, PG&E had an obligation to respond and to minimize that risk. That is not only the ethical result that would be suggested by the utilitarian; it is also sound business practice. But on a utilitarian view, assuming that no energy production is 100% risk free—a very safe assumption—one must balance those risks and address them as effectively as possible, but recognize that those risks do not outweigh the rewards of a generally safe, affordable, and necessary source of energy. At the same time, it should be noted that different utilitarians will evaluate the specific benefits—and therefore the overall benefits—of an activity differently, just as they may evaluate the costs differently. How much does one value preventing a child from developing asthma, or a potentially fatal disease? How does one weigh the value of a low unemployment rate in a town, with all the direct and indirect benefits it provides? As we've seen, clean air and clean water may have some specifiable value; at what point does the value of making air cleaner not justify the expense required to do so, or the sacrifice of economic development it might require? As should be clear, adopting a utilitarian perspective on environmental issues does not eliminate the complex arguments that can occur within utilitarianism.

Deontological

Deontologists, specifically those influenced by Kant, take as fundamental to their ethical theory two basic points: We must never treat another human being as a mere means to an end (human beings, that is, cannot be treated as having solely instrumental value), and we must act in such a way that our decisions could be universalized—that our decision, in the given context, would be what everyone should do in that same situation. PG&E's actions violated both of these requirements, and thus were immoral.

PG&E used a dangerous chemical, chromium 6, long after it was recognized to pose serious health risks to human beings and other animals. As a profit-oriented organization, it is understandable that PG&E wished to keep its costs down; however, using unlined pools to store water that had been contaminated with chromium 6 was a decision that treated the people of Hinkley as means to the end of PG&E. Rather than treating those people with the dignity and respect required, which they deserve simply in virtue of being human beings, PG&E dealt with them as one of several obstacles to overcome in order to achieve its end, namely the highest profits possible. To sacrifice people for profits in such a way is to violate the first principle of deontological ethics, and to deny them their inherent, intrinsic value; doing so is, of course, unethical. PG&E had a moral obligation to take into consideration the human beings and the potential hazards they were being exposed to; to ignore those factors, simply to achieve its goal, is immoral.

Unless the lawyers prosecuting the case against PG&E were trained as Kantian deontologists, it was probably not asked in court whether they regarded their actions as universalizable, or following the Kantian categorical imperative that one act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. While a lawyer might have asked PG&E what the results might have been had all energy companies had such a cavalier attitude toward exposing human beings to such risks, it seems more plausible that PG&E would have been asked this: Would you think you were being treated ethically if you lived in Hinkley? Or perhaps the company was asked if it would object if such procedures, such as storing water contaminated with chromium 6, were kept in unlined pools in the neighborhood where PG&E's directors, legal team, and all their children lived. In this way, we can bring out the universality test by appealing to the Golden Rule: If you would object to being exposed to chromium 6, then obviously it would be wrong to expose others.

Because PG&E's behavior treated others solely as means to an end, and could not defend that behavior as being in conformity with a law that could be made universal, it was fundamentally immoral. Such violations of human dignity cannot be defended on the basis of profits or other consequences; the act itself is in violation of these fundamental principles and must be found to be unethical.

Relativism

The relativist has various options here in considering PG&E's behavior. Perhaps the community of Hinkley thought the risk was worth it, particularly if they got jobs and relatively inexpensive energy out of it. Perhaps the community of Hinkley thought the risk was not worth it, and decided to ban all operations of PG&E from Hinkley. Perhaps the community of Hinkley wished to make a trade with PG&E: For free natural gas for the next 50 years, PG&E could flood the town with water contaminated with chromium 6. While the last option seems implausible, it is difficult to see what result the relativist could not, in theory, support; it is a function of what the community regards as what is best for the community.

One might suggest that appealing to relativism here in drafting actual legislation and policy would be a logistical nightmare. How is it decided what, precisely, the community supports? Is it done on the basis of majority rule? Why would majority rule necessarily be favored by this community? After all, relativism doesn't have some in-principle commitment to democracy or majoritarianism, does it? Furthermore, if majority rule is used to determine what the community wishes to do, this brings with it the various objections to such a procedure that have been prominent since at least Socrates: One thing most of those in the minority are quite familiar with are their views being ignored, or worse, by those in the majority. As Socrates (and Plato) also observed, experts in a community are rarely the majority of that community; thus, if we want experts (for instance, on the hazards of chromium 6) to make these decisions, then that is the rule of the few: an aristocracy or an oligarchy.

But in defense of relativism in this context, it is more likely a question of the general sense of the community's priorities, rather than a question of how policy is formulated or legislation enacted. Some communities may wish to make the tradeoff: cheaper energy and a higher risk (within reason) of some cancers; if the risk is seen to be relatively low, and the payoff relatively high, some communities may think this well worth it. At the same time, other communities may look at the same calculations and data and decide it is not worth the risk; they may choose to decrease the potential health risks and pay higher energy costs. Each community chooses what is best for that community, and neither is necessarily wrong. The one issue that does arise here, however, is the traditional question of NIMBY: "Not in My Back Yard." If a community claims that PG&E must be able to maintain its cooling towers, but doesn't want those towers in its own town—it wants them in someone else's backyard—that can generate problems, particularly since the cooling towers have to go in someone's backyard. This is a common feature of those necessary consequences of activities that bring with them unavoidable risks, such as toxic dumps and hazardous waste incinerators. People need them and want the benefits, but they want someone else to assume the risks. Here again we run into the problem of externalities, and the degree to which these conflicts have been solved in ways that could generally be regarded—on any ethical theory—as fair.

Conclusions

Environmental hazards are unavoidable: Whether obtaining natural gas by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), mining and burning coal for electricity, or developing sophisticated antibiotics, many technological developments bring with them risks. Evaluating the benefits and risks is an essential component of making sound environmental and economic decisions, and it is important—although often very difficult—to balance in an appropriate way the demands made on the environment by development and progress with the desire to preserve and protect the beauty and value of nature. How we view the value of nature—as having only instrumental value, or also as having intrinsic value—will do a great deal to determine how we evaluate the issues involved and what balance is to be struck. Assuming, as it is safe to do, that progress and development will continue, those concerned about also maintaining their commitment to the stewardship of nature will also continue to confront vexing and difficult challenges.

We have seen a number of the different stresses human beings put on the environment, in terms of the need for resources, be it coal, petroleum, water, food, or even medicine and health care. As we head further into the 21st century, several factors seem especially crucial:

•The economic development and increased energy use of countries that in the past made fewer demands on the system: specifically the two largest countries in the world, India and the People's Republic of China. Adding that increased demand to a system that, in many cases, already seems taxed will raise many challenging economic, ethical, and environmental issues; one advantage is that the leadership of these countries seems well aware of these challenges.

•The continuing threat posed by anthropogenic climate change. While there are those who regard it as a natural result of climate patterns, or even a hoax, the most recent data indicate that 97% of those who work in the relevant fields regard climate change as real and as likely the result of human activity (NASA, n.d.). Various consequences may follow from increases in temperature, including increased energy in storms (hurricanes, cyclones), much higher sea levels that can inundate low-lying areas (Manhattan, Bangladesh, Indonesia), and various threats to animal populations and to the food supply. If climate change is a genuine threat, then most of the other environmental concerns pale in comparison.

•An environment's ability to process, absorb, and otherwise deal with such hazards to that environment (pollution, waste) is called its "sink function." Some have suggested that human activity, if unchecked, risks causing the Earth's sink function, or ability to deal with such stresses on the system, to shut down. Some environmental economists have argued that this aspect of the Earth's ecology does not receive sufficient attention, risking long-term damage to the planet.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, we have looked at some important environmental concerns, although many more important concerns could not be examined. As we saw, both corporations and individuals have a role to play in protecting the environment, particularly if both developed and developing economies wish to grow and flourish. Over the last several decades, society's awareness of the various threats to the environment has increased considerably, with a resulting increased focus on the need to "go green" (or at least greener). While these challenges will persist, and in some contexts possibly become worse, with this increased awareness also comes a new desire to develop more sustainable products and a more sustainable approach to development, including minimizing the human carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible.

Critical Thinking Questions

1.Name three things you might do to reduce the amount of resources you consume. Do you have a moral or economic reason to do so? Why or why not?

2.Can something have both intrinsic and instrumental value? If so, identify it and describe the distinct values it has; if not, explain why nothing can possess both values.

3.Does a corporation have a responsibility—beyond conforming to existing laws and regulations—to protect and preserve the environment? Why or why not?