Sustainability,
conservation, and protection of endangered species and at-risk habitats are
major issues in environmental science today. Most scientists agree on this. The
type of action that should be taken for conservation and sustainability,
however, is not always agreed upon. Utilitarianism, for example, is widely
used, as it is widely accepted by economists and other professionals from whom
ecologists and environmentalists may need support and funding and is well known
to be a valid method of protecting and managing natural resources and protected
lands. However, this method runs the risk of being implemented in an
anthropocentric manner, although this may not always be the case. It may
instead be rooted in sentientism and have consideration for other species with
conscious thought and mental activities. However, the major issue with this
belief is that natural resources, species, or environments are only seen as
having value if they are deemed useful to sentient species. This
can be problematic because some endangered or threatened species are so rare as
to not be considered useful or necessary for any sentient species, and
therefore utilitarianism would not find these species worth protecting. Utilitarianism does have concern for
individuals, however, which may be ideal for some species, especially rare or
endangered ones . As pointed out before, though,
this does not include all individuals but only those considered “useful”.
Utilitarianism
decides right and wrong based upon the outcome, which can protect the
environment from potentially damaging consequences despite good intentions. However,
it doesn’t provide a moral reason why we should protect things from theses
damaging consequences, as usefulness doesn’t cover all situation, especially
where “Act Utilitarianism” is concerned. This could result in a lack of
motivation to actually take action in the first place. Virtues ethics, on the
other hand, gives you a reason to take action other than how useful something
may be. Virtue ethics, however, may not be the best option, either, as this is
a belief or ethics system based upon intent or perceived consequences and may
not reflect what the true outcome will be. In other words, virtue ethics
decides whether an action was wrong or right based upon whether or not the
person taking action meant well, not on the actual outcome of the action. This is an inconsequentialist belief, while utilitarianism is
a consequentialist belief. This type of belief could be damaging as it could
lead to actions that have unforeseen destructive consequences being seen as
good because the consequences were not intended, or intent was different from
the result. Just because someone means well does not mean their actions are
harmless.
Although most scientists are utilitarian in their
methods, applying utilitarian solutions to non-utilitarian issues may not
always be productive. Therefore, some sort of philosophical motivation is
necessary in environmental ethics, because it gives people a reason to take
action that is not anthropocentric. However, the inconsequential view of virtue
ethics is not widely agreed upon or effective either. Instead, a better method
may be the ethical viewpoint known as deontology, stating that nature itself
have intrinsic value and wildlife has rights. In addition, we have a duty to protect or
conserve the environment and these rights regardless of intent or consequence.
This system of rights and duties should serve both purposes discussed
previously, as it gives a motivation besides the usefulness of resources and
should also minimize the number of harmful consequences, due the need to
protect the value and rights of nature and wildlife. Some
scientists blend both utilitarian and deontological viewpoints, as they believe
that nature has intrinsic value from a deontological standpoint but argue that
it also has near limitless potential value from a utilitarian viewpoint,
implying that both methods could protect the environment equally when based on
the value of nature, or that both could be used together, dependent upon the
situation. However, if the potential value of an
environment is depleted, becomes limited, or is no longer considered valuable,
utilitarianism can no longer protect it. Deontology, however, would still be
able to attempt to protect this environment due to its belief in the inviolable
rights of nature. This methodology has been applied specifically to protecting
endangered species. This is done under the view we have a duty to protect
endangered species based not just upon their rights and values, but also as a
duty to future humans and their right to know about and experience these
species as well as if not better than we did, and that allowing these species
to go extinct is a violation of these rights and would also erase a major part
of Earth’s history. This has been used to successfully manage specific species
in the past. However, the system of Deontology is not without
its flaws. The major flaw in deontology is that it may be less appealing to
most neoclassical economists in that it denies the rationality in making
tradeoffs for compensation. In other words, it rejects the old colloquialism of
“Everyone has their price.”, as to take a monetary tradeoff for natural resources
or commodity would be a violation of the species that rely on this commodity’s right to exist. This flaw
can make negotiations with economists and lawmakers difficult.
Utilitarianism
and Virtue Ethics both have their uses, but they may not be ideal for
management and preservation of endangered and at-risk species or of threatened
habitats. Although utilitarianism is widely accepted, its focus on wholes and
usefulness and its lack of attention to or belief in the values of individual
make it less than ideal to manage endangered species, especially those that may
not be considered “useful” in the anthropocentric or sentientism point of view.
Virtue Ethic does provide the non-anthropocentric motivation that
utilitarianism does not and its focus on virtues means it may care more for
individuals, but its idea of values based on intent and lack of focus on
consequences means it is not deal for handling threatened habitats or
endangered and at-risk species. Therefore, I believe the ideal method of
managing these rare species and habitats is that of deontology, which, despite
its flaws that may make bargaining or compromises difficult, seems to be the
best method for protecting endangered and at-risk species. This method’s idea
of rights and duties provides a non-anthropocentric reason to take action and to
ensure both individuals and the species or population as a whole will be
protected, and also care for the consequences of an action, as decisions are
not based on virtue but instead upon duty.
