Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration

Article
· Kokmen, L. (2008, March-April). Environmental justice for
all. UTNE Reader. Retrieved from
http://www.utne.com/environment/environmental-justice-for-
all.aspx
· The article provides information about environmental ethics
and will support completion of the Applying Theory:
Environmental Issues—assignment this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy
Module 8 Assignment
Integrating Science and Mathematics Benchmark
Student Name
Grand Canyon University: EED 364
Date
(INTRO)
Development, Learning, and Motivation
In this section you need to demonstrate that you know,
understand, and methodically use the major concepts,
principles, theories, and research related to development of
children and young adolescents to construct learning
opportunities that support individual students’ development,
acquisition of knowledge, and motivation.
Science
understand, and use fundamental concepts of physical, life, and

earth/space sciences. You must show that you methodically
designed and implemented age-appropriate inquiry lessons to
teach science, to build student understanding. Be sure to refer to
the standards addressed in the unit plan, and remember to also
have all of the 12 science processes present, and each are
thoroughly explained.
Mathematics:
understand, and use the major concepts and procedures that
define numbers and operations, algebra, geometry,
measurement, and data analysis and probability. You need to
show how you consistently engage in problem solving,
reasoning and proof, communication, connections, and
representation. Be sure to refer to the standards addressed in the
unit plan.
Integrating and Applying Knowledge for Instruction
understand, and methodically planned and implemented
instruction based on knowledge of students, learning theory,
connections across the curriculum, curricular goals, and the
community.
Adaptation to Diverse Students
In this section you need to demonstrate that you know and
understand how elementary students differ in their development
and approaches to learning, and methodically created
instructional opportunities that are adapted to diverse students.
Remember to name the differentiation strategies for the specific
diverse groups.
Development of Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
understand, and use a variety of teaching strategies that
encourage elementary students’ development of critical thinking
and problem solving. Be sure to name the differentiation

strategies and activities used to develop these skills. Also make
sure to support how students of many learning styles and
strengths can benefit from the differentiation, and problem–
solving activities/strategies you have included
Active Engagement in Learning
In this section you need to demonstrate that you are using the
knowledge and understanding of individual and group
motivation and behavior among students at the K-6 level to
foster active engagement in learning, self-motivation, and
positive social interaction and to create supportive learning
environments.
Assessment for Instruction
understand, and strategically uses formal
and informal assessment strategies to plan, evaluate, and
strengthen instruction that will promote
continuous intellectual, social, emotional, and physical
development of elementary students. Be
sure your assessments are comprehensive and are aligned with
the unit plan objectives. Make
sure you have included informal and/or formal assessment that
align with objectives, as well as
authentic, formative and/or summative assessments.
Professional Growth, Reflection, and Evaluation
In this section you need to demonstrate that you are aware of
and reflecting on the practice in light of research on teaching,
professional ethics, and resources available for professional
learning. Please be sure to explain how you are actively seeking
out opportunities to grow professionally.
Conclusion
Reference

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.)
[Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/
Introduction
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?
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.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.
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 theU.S. recycle.
• Those levels have barely improved in 15 years despite billions
of dollars spent oncompetitions, symposiums, awareness
campaigns, and sorting technologies.
• If U.S. recycling levels can reach 75%, environmental benefits
will include removing50 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.
4
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.
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
foranother’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.
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.).
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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
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.
Suggested Resources
Corporate Statements on Responsible Environmental Practices
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity:
http://www.cleancoalusa.org/clean-coal-technology
Cargill Statement on freshwater efficiency:
http://www.cargill.com/corporate-responsibility/environmental-
sustainability/ environmental-goals-actions/freshwater-
efficiency/index.jsp
Exxon’s environmental statement:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_env.aspx
Hilton’s environmental statement:
http://www.hiltonworldwide.com/corporate-
responsibility/sustainably/
Hyatt’s environmental statement:
http://thrive.hyatt.com/environmentalSustainability.html
Marriott’s environmental statement:
http://www.marriott.com/corporate-social-
responsibility/corporate-environmental -responsibility.mi
Walmart’s statement on sustainability:
http://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/environment-
sustainability
Safe Disposal of Medical Waste
FDA links to each state’s laws and other relevant information:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/medical/programs.ht
m
California database where one can search by county and by
waste type (e.g., sharps, pharmaceuticals) for disposal facilities:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/homehazwaste/healthcare/collecti

on/
Example of a pharmaceutical buy-back program:
http://newjerseyhills.com/madison_eagle/news/pharmacy-
collects-unused-drugs-that -pose-risk-of-abuse-
pollution/article_94f71f98-9a02-11e1-925f-0019bb2963f4.html
Critics of Corporate Environmental Programs
http://www.hcn.org/articles/clean-coal-is-an-
oxymoron/print_view
http://www.monsantowatch.org/
http://247wallst.com
EPA Suggestions for household waste disposal:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/hhw.htm
Benefits of composting, according to the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/composting/basic.htm
Pesticide alternatives:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090816170910.ht
m
Universal Waste
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste/universalwaste/
Organic Food
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-food/NU00255
Clean Coal
http://www.cleancoalusa.org/clean-coal-technology
Article
Kokmen, L. (2008, March-April). Environmental justice for all.
UTNE Reader. Retrieved from
http://www.utne.com/environment/environmental-justice-for-
all.aspx •The article provides information about environmental
ethics and will support completion of the Applying Theory:
Environmental Issues—assignment this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy

2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?
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 areligious
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.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.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 timeconsuming 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
religiousfree 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.
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 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

Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration

Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration

Similar to Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration (10)

More from davezstarr61655

More from davezstarr61655 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Development, Learning, and Motivation Article Supports Science and Math Integration