Philosophical Analysis
As society industrializes, many developed countries prosper from technological advancements while others are left in environmental turmoil. The developing communities are muddled in poverty, having to face the dilemma of feeding the hungry versus saving nature. Meanwhile, affluent communities prosper socially and ecologically. They often prioritize their self-interests rather than attempting to eradicate poverty. Philosopher Holmes Rolston argues that humans often prioritize their interests over feeding the hungry, which is justifiable if this maximizes utility. He implements utilitarian philosophy, suggesting that an action has “utility” if it produces the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of pain. In the same sense, he also argues it is justifiable to preserve nature if it is maximizing utility; for preserving natural resources may have a higher utility (the greatest happiness) for ecological sustainability. He agrees it is ideal to eliminate poverty, but through this process, we must consider what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. He uses “feeding people'' as a representation of humanity's needs/interests that stem from natural resources, and uses “nature” as a representation of the environment but also the nature of human existence (such as the human population). To further enhance his argument, he suggests that the greatest pursuits in civilization, like “Plato [writing] dialogues, or Aquinas the Summa Theologica, Edison [discovering] the electric light bulb, or Einstein’s theory of relativity,” would not have happened had these people not chosen to devote themselves to these worthy causes (250). In retrospect, he highlights how both humans and nature both interact in preserving and enhancing human life, which can be attained through sustainable development and human protection.
The common underlying theory among Rolston’s premises is conditional upon utilitarianism, the greatest happiness principle. Utilitarianism serves as the foundation of his premises for justifying the preservation of nature or feeding humans (prioritizing self-interest), as one would seem to agree that whatever outcome serves the highest utility should be acted upon. However, a shortcoming of Utilitarianism is that it does not consider issues of justice. For instance, the U.S. judicial system is congested with wrongfully sentenced convicts on death row. By sentencing an innocent man to capital punishment, the public may be relieved yielding a high net gain of satisfaction. However, this man’s life has been taken away inconsiderately. Holding the Utilitarian perspective, Holmes would consider this situation to be valid, as utility, or net happiness of thousands of people, outweighs the condition of the man being killed. In principle, Utilitarianism seems plausible, but under the uncertainties of the justice system, there are some cases where this could violate human rights. Therefore, in the dilemma between feeding the poor and saving nature, individuals must consider the potential injustices carried out by these utilitarian actions. This prompts the question: Your actions may yield the greatest happiness principle in the majority of a population, but does that necessarily make it ethical? For example, the agricultural prosperity of the American South was largely due to the exploitation of slaves. This made thousands of white aristocrats satisfied, as they profited from slaves’ labor. Given the maximized utility of all these happy white men, is this really justified against a brutalized slave? While this normative ethical theory lays the groundwork for Rolston’s premise, he could have thought more critically about the shortcomings in Utilitarianism’s consequences when it violates human rights.
If he argues that Utilitarianism is contingent on whether or not we should serve others or nature, then he should reframe his position to be that humans are justified to prioritize their interests over others if the utility does not inflict any sort of injustice. Without these disclaimers embedded in his utilitarian claims, he weakly sets up his argument. At the same time, however, if he did alter the meaning of utilitarianism, it loses its inherent, coined definition, so we may consider another alternative. In this case, we could propose that he excludes any normative ethical theory, giving Rolston logistical flexibility for the sake of his argument. In any case, he should have added more depth into the maximization of happiness and the potential implications it has on harming others at the expense of their pleasure. If he clarified this distinction, his premises would make more ethical and moral sense, especially with the social, racial, and political sensitivities recognized in today’s contemporary society.
Commentaires