Personally, I think that religious believers will be concerned more about environmental issues, as traditional religions believe that humans are stewards of the earth and it is their duty to look after it and maintain it as God created it and therefore they should care for it. However, environmental issues would only concern Utilitarians if they were affecting the happiness for the greatest number of humans.
The Bible states in Genesis 2 ‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it’, which gives a clear indication that it was God’s will that humans were stewards over the animals and earth. However, this power came with great responsibility. ‘And he saw it was good.’ (Genesis 1) suggests that when God initially created the earth and everything in it, it was perfect. The responsibility God gave man was to treat the earth with intrinsic value and look after the land for it provides habitats for animals and plants.
‘A good person leaves on inheritance for their children’s children’ (Proverbs 13:22) suggests that religious believers should look after the earth not just for the sake of themselves and the present environment, but also for future generations. However, although it is God’s Divine Will for humans to be dominions over animals, the Bible talks about various feasts and Celebrations such as the returning son, which is evidence of religious believers eating meat.
How much animal meat a religious believer will eat will depend entirely on how religious they are and what religion they are part of, for example a Muslim will regard Cows as very sacred animals and therefore they should be protected by humans perhaps more than other animals. Christians who only follow the Bible as a guideline may not be as concerned about eating meat but may still be concerned with how the animal is kept, for example battery farming and animal cruelty, which is emphasised in Proverbs 12:10 ‘a righteous man is kind to the life of his animals, a wicked man is cruel to his’. As Jesus promoted non violence and Christians follow the teachings of Jesus, this means that the y should not get involved in violent protests for example about animal testing, but express their emotions through a more peaceful way.
The fundamental concern of the Utilitarian theory is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and the environment should be treated in such a way to make this happen, however we must achieve this with the least expense to the environment if we put ourselves first. Therefore, Utilitarians take an anthropocentric stance and would only be concerned about the environment if it were directly affecting the happiness of the majority of people. This perspective demonstrates a view that the environment has instrumental value.
Utilitarians have a similar view to those religious believers concerning protecting the environment for the future generations for example the usage of fossil fuels may benefit everyone on earth today but if they were to cause global warming, then the negative effects of today’s pleasures would be felt by generations to come, however they would accept that a certain amount of polluting must take place to benefit the majority today.
Utilitarians often contrast with religious believers when concerning animals. Utilitarians would regard animals as a useful method for testing medication and cosmetics on which would overall benefit humans even if a few animals’ lives were sacrificed in the process. Roman Catholics who are linked to Natural Law would deem this completely wrong as animals lives are sacred. Also with the controversial issue of fox hunting, against Utilitarians would believe it was acceptable if it was producing pleasure for the majority of people whereas Roman Catholics would condemn this as animals are sacred and only God has the power to take life away as he was the one who created it.
An advantage of the Utilitarian approach is that it allows people to act when they think it will benefit them and therefore the concern shouldn’t disturb them unless it affect their happiness. However, unlike the religious point of view, this is a very selfish perspective. It ignores the minority and how much they will suffer if particular actions are taken. Also, I think that nature should not exit purely for human benefits as the world was created prior to mans existence in both creation stories. However, Utilitarians do acknowledge future generations and how their actions will affect them but perhaps they are not as concerned as a religious believer would be.
Although, we must take into account the different types of Utilitarianism. Peter Singer, who is closely related to Preference Utilitarianism, extends the boundary of moral worth beyond the usual limit of human beings. Thus, this type of Utilitarianism benefits both animals and plants and regards environmental issues more seriously by making humans no longer the priority. This perspective is useful, as it seems logical that plants and animals must be considered as part of the greatest good, for example, issues such as deforestation and pollution. However, it is a costly procedure to protect the environment and it is in human instinct to view one’s family and friends as a higher priority then the environment.
Relating back to Deforestation, Act Utilitarianism, which is closely related to Jeremy Bentham, would consider this issue acceptable because it focuses on the consequences of an action and this may create jobs for people. However, Rule Utilitarianism, which is related to John Stuart Mill, would deem this unacceptable because although this also focuses on consequences, Rule Utilitarianism would take into account that deforestation destroys animal habitats and various species on plants.
Other theories such as Egoism must also be taken into account when answering who is more concerned about environmental issues. This theory suggests that you should treat the environment how you like so long as it’s in your own interest. Therefore the environment has very few rights and these are only implemented if it results in personal benefit. This contradicts the Utilitarian approach as others, maybe even the majority, may suffer for your benefit thus making it an even more selfish viewpoint than Utilitarianism.
In Conclusion, relating back to my original response, I believe that religious believers are more concerned with environment issues than Utilitarians as they do it from an unconditional, selfless perspective. Utilitarians are only concerned with the environment when it affects the happiness of the majority of people, wit the exception of preference Utilitarianism which considers plants and animals to have the same rights as humans.
No comments:
Post a Comment