This essay aims to discuss environmental ethical from utilitarian point of view, after some comments

on the rule utilitarian point of view itself.

Environmental ethics surrounds the ethical relationship between man and the world we live in.
There are various ethical dilemmas in environmental ethics, such as a conflict between the rapid
growth of mankind while constantly striving for sustainability and keeping the environment stable.

When the issue of deforestation is examined through the eyes of a utilitarian, we are obligated to
prevent deforestation because this would benefit the largest amount of people. Deforestation only
benefits the loggers and farmers who are responsible for it, and it is also a large contributor to global
warming, which negatively affects the majority of people. Therefore more people would benefit if
deforestation is stopped rather than continued.

When the utilitarian principle is applied to the ethical issue of deforestation it is clear that this issue
is unethical. This is because deforestation affects the greater number of people negatively, as it
contributes to climate change which will affect the future generations. Therefore the action of
deforestation is unethical according to the utilitarianism theory.

With regards to deforestation the end goal is to create space for new homes and therefore
according to utilitarianism this is ethical because it brings great pleasure to those who are provided
with homes. Ethics could be found in what bought about the greatest amount of pleasure and
providing these homes would do just that. This also according to Mill who was concerned with
qualitative pleasure rather than quantitative pleasure is a good and ethically just thing as having
shelter, a basic human need, is a high quality pleasure. However, the quantitative part of the theory
with regards to deforestation seems flawed. It is inaccurate to calculate whether more pleasure will
be gained from homes being provided for those without one, or whether more pleasure will be
gained from preserving the forest, not only for those who are concerned with the environment, but
also for future generations who will have to pick up the pieces. Traditional utilitarianism would have
done that using Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus. Bentham would have asked how likely it was that
certain results would occur. He would have weighed up the benefits of any proposed action, such as
the building of a new motorway, against the adverse affects, focussing on the pleasure and pain that
resulted, and nothing else. This sort of calculation is practical and flexible, allowing for a different
answer in every different set of circumstances. For example, building a road in Rwanda might lead
to increased trade, a way of transporting important materials, medicines etc – in other words, a
lifeline. The destruction of wildlife in such an underdeveloped country might be negligible, and the
pollution minimal. However, a similar road in the UK might run through residential areas. The
pollution from the thousands of cars might have a significant impact in a more densely populated
area. The benefits might simply be convenience and a reduction of travel time. It is unlikely to be of
huge benefit, as there are already enough roads in the UK.

This sort of thinking might agree with deforestation if cutting down trees provided homes for
people. Even though many more animals may be displaced, humans count for more because they
experience higher pleasures.

Utilitarianism is a branch of consequentialist theory that focuses on consequences relating to

humans and which holds that the moral rightness or wrongness of action depends solely on their
consequences, not only on the consequences for the agent but also on the consequences for
everyone affected by these actions. Therefore, the basic idea of utilitarianism is that actions are
morally right if they maximise the intrinsic good or if there is no other possible act that has better
consequences. 20 There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism
(Sidgwick, 1907:30). In act utilitarianism, a person performs an act that brings about the greatest
good regardless of personal feelings or societal constraints. In other words, act utilitarianism is not
always concerned with justice, beneficence or autonomy for an individual if oppressing the
individual leads to the solution that benefits a majority of people. Rule utilitarianism, however, takes
into account the existence of laws or rules that have been established in the past. A rule utilitarian
seeks to benefit the greatest number of people but through an application of these laws or rules.
Rule utilitarianism values justice and includes beneficence at the same time (Brandt, 1979: 29).
However, in saying nothing about the distribution of accumulated benefits, individuals and minority
groups can be treated unjustly. As with traditional deontology, consequentialist ethical theory can
also be extended to the natural environment in so far as diverse elements are of use value to other
life and non-life forms in the hierarchical food chain.

Therefore, climate change is currently not promoting the Greatest Happiness Principle, but rather, it
is diminishing it. Irresponsibility and inaction on the parts of the biggest and wealthiest economies of
the world are acting as a detriment to societies which are already struggling.

Climate change clearly is not benefitting the majority of humankind. Billions of people on this planet
live in poverty; some are impoverished because of climate change, and many will remain in poverty
because of climate change. So what is the solution? What would benefit the “greatest number”?
Reversing global warming would be the most ideal fix, but that cannot be done with the drop of a
hat; it is not that simple. First, to fix the problem, we must slow it global warming down. If we work
to reduce carbon emissions and stop ravaging the earth’s natural resources, then happiness would
be easier to come by. The happier the planet, the happier its inhabitants would be. True, there
would be no immediate changes in the effort to combat the rapidly transforming globe; pollution
would not suddenly disappear and trees would not instantly shoot up. However, future generations
would certainly be happier. Slowly but surely, Mil’s utility principle would be put back in to work.
More people would be happy, and there would be a greater opportunity to find happiness.
Act utilitarianism is the theory that a morally right action is one that in the existing situation will
produce the highest expected social utility. In contrast, rule utilitarianism is the theory that a morally
right action is simply an action conforming to the correct moral rule applicable to the existing
situation.

Utilitarianism is recognised as a teleological theory, moral actions are the outcomes of an actions
opposed to the action itself. It is a theory comprising of different variations with two main groups of
utilitarianism that scholar’s thinking’s fall under; Act and Rule. The early thinking’s of utilitarianism
was first developed by Jeremy Bentham, concerned the happiness of the majority of people, as
opposed to concerning one individual. This is known as the Principle of Utility, expressed as ‘the
greatest good for the greatest number’. An action is moral, if it produces the most amount of
pleasure to the most amounts of people. If there is pain included in the action, then the amount of
pleasure must be greater than the pain. Furthermore, Bentham provided a means of measuring
different elements to be considered. Intensity, duration, certainty, remoteness, purity, extent and
chance; these elements are all weighed up which the highest pleasure over pain, then if helps the
person make a moral decision. Bentham’s theory is quantitive, because it is the amount of
something which is considered rather than the quality of it. It is recognised as Act Utilitarianism,
because one must consider the principle of utility by the results of the Hedonic Calculus; the agent it
acting according to their moral determination.

act utilitarianism,” because it evaluates actions one at a time, saying that an action is good if it
produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and bad if it produces unhappiness. Act
utilitarianism only requires us to answer one question – “Does this particular action maximize
happiness? utilitarianism would have us ask two questions: 1) “What general rule would I be
following if I did this particular action?” and 2) “Would this rule, if generally followed, maximize
happiness?
Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to
create the best results possible, but they differ about how to do that.

Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the action that
will create the greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility—do whatever will produce
the best overall results—should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any situation
is the one that yields more utility (i.e. creates more well-being) than other available actions.

Rule utilitarians adopt a two part view that stresses the importance of moral rules. According to rule
utilitarians, a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and b) a
moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other
possible rules (or no rule at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the morality of
individual actions by reference to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by
seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other
possible rules.

The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians apply the utilitarian
principle directly to the evaluation of individual actions while rule utilitarians apply the utilitarian
principle directly to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they
obey or disobey those rules whose acceptance will produce the most utility