American naturalists such as John Muir (1838–1914), Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), and Edward Abbey (1927–1989) have long pointed to theimportance of protecting the environment. However, genuine issues arise between those who wish to leave the environment as it is, and thosewho wish to utilize it for other purposes, such as drilling, development, or mining. These issues have become much more common topics ofdebate 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 asignificant role in American politics. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was begun, also in 1970, during the administration of PresidentRichard 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 relationshipbetween human beings and their surroundings, including nonhuman components found within those surroundings. Throughout, we will examinedifficult issues, such as how to balance the economic benefits of development with the benefits (economic and otherwise) of a wilderness orbeach 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 rightswithout inhibiting important economic gains? And do we have an obligation to leave a sustainable environment to the generations that willfollow us? Why Care About the Environment? Often in discussions of environmental ethics, it is assumed by all involved that we should respect the environment, and seek toprevent its degradation, specifically if various forms of pollutions harm others. In a sense, this assumption is pretty safe: After all, ifsomeone does something to harm an innocent person, we generally regard that as wrong. So if I dump lead into a river thatincreases the lead content of water that children are exposed to, and harmed by, that seems to just be a specific case of my actionharming an innocent person, and thus is wrong. But should we care about the environment at all? Many people, regardless of the positions they adopt relative to specificenvironmental policies, would agree with many of the following reasons to do so: · More efficient use of energy saves money. · A cleaner environment is healthier. · Some natural scenery is unique and irreplaceable. · Biodiversity is valuable in itself, and if not itself valuable, can be utilized to help create drugs, foods, and other things thatimprove life. · If we have any obligations to future generations, leaving them a planet that is inhabitable—or even flourishing—would seem tobe a fundamental obligation. · It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest: It doesn't make sense to ruin the place where you live. · Various relig.

1. American naturalists such as John Muir (1838–
1914), Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), and Edward Abbey (1927–
1989) have long pointed to theimportance of protecting the envi
ronment. However, genuine issues arise between those who wish
to leave the environment as it is, and thosewho wish to utilize i
t for other purposes, such as drilling, development, or mining. T
hese issues have become much more common topics ofdebate in
recent decades, with increased energy and other demands placin
g stress on the environment. With the first "Earth Day" in 1970,
various environmental groups began to develop more effective p
olitical organizations, and the environmental movement began t
o play asignificant role in American politics. The Environmenta
l Protection Agency (EPA) was begun, also in 1970, during the
administration of PresidentRichard Nixon, in order to protect bo
th human health and the environment by developing laws and re
viewing regulations.
In this chapter, we will explore some of the questions that arise
within the context of environmental ethics, the study of the mor
al relationshipbetween human beings and their surroundings, inc
luding nonhuman components found within those surroundings.
Throughout, we will examinedifficult issues, such as how to bal
ance the economic benefits of development with the benefits (ec
onomic and otherwise) of a wilderness orbeach 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 rightswithout in
hibiting important economic gains? And do we have an obligati
on to leave a sustainable environment to the generations that wil
lfollow us?
Why Care About the Environment?
Often in discussions of environmental ethics, it is assumed by al
l involved that we should respect the environment, and seek topr
event its degradation, specifically if various forms of pollutions
harm others. In a sense, this assumption is pretty safe: After all
, ifsomeone does something to harm an innocent person, we gen

2. erally regard that as wrong. So if I dump lead into a river thatin
creases the lead content of water that children are exposed to, a
nd harmed by, that seems to just be a specific case of my action
harming an innocent person, and thus is wrong.
But should we care about the environment at all? Many people,
regardless of the positions they adopt relative to specificenviron
mental policies, would agree with many of the following reason
s to do so:
· More efficient use of energy saves money.
· A cleaner environment is healthier.
· Some natural scenery is unique and irreplaceable.
·
Biodiversity is valuable in itself, and if not itself valuable, can
be utilized to help create drugs, foods, and other things thatimpr
ove life.
·
If we have any obligations to future generations, leaving them a
planet that is inhabitable—or even flourishing—
would seem tobe a fundamental obligation.
·
It's an ill bird that fouls its own nest: It doesn't make sense to ru
in the place where you live.
·
Various religions, including the three great monotheisms of Jud
aism, Christianity, and Islam, teach that humans should bestewa
rds of the Earth.
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 avoidcreating it. Given that total avoidance is improbabl
e, corporations have designed methods to reduce hazardous wast
e, including recycling,reducing waste, treating the waste, tradin
g excess materials to other businesses, and other methods. Here
we will discuss a well-knownhazardous waste case.

3. Wade Payne/Associated Press
Activist Erin Brockovich's story is representative of manyenviro
nmental battles.
In a small town, an unemployed mother of three is down on her
luck; after afailed lawsuit, she convinces her attorney to take he
r on as a clerk. In betweenfiling and other drudgery required of
such clerks, she starts hearing aboutstrange illnesses in her tow
n and their unusual frequency and startsinvestigating. Eventuall
y, she discovers that a major corporation has been storingwater t
hat has become toxic in unlined ponds. That water eventually le
achedinto the groundwater and subsequently contaminated the t
own's drinking water.The law clerk begins to work with her atto
rney to bring legal action against thegiant corporation, and her s
pirit and unwillingness to give up eventually winsthe day. The g
iant corporation is forced to pay those who had been harmed byt
he water pollution $333 million; the mother herself gets $2 milli
on. Except forthe corporation, everyone lives happily ever after.
This kind of thing sounds a bit too good to be true; in fact, it so
unds like amovie. This is unsurprising, since it is a movie: Erin
Brockovich tells the story(based on actual events) of one woma
n's struggle against the economic powerstructure to obtain justic
e for those outside of that structure. In addition to it being a cla
ssic David versus Goliath story, where the faceless, all-
powerful giant is slain by the righteous but powerless fighter, th
e story also is representative of many environmental battles. Oft
en, as we willsee, those engaged in these battles are in a conflic
t over resources, money, and the environment. Those who prefer
to develop, drill, or minemay regard the benefits of that activit
y as more important than maintaining the wilderness or landscap
e as it is. In contrast, those who wish tomaintain a pristine envir
onment will regard that as priceless, and thus not worth ruining
for some jobs or to extract energy or minerals. Stillothers will a
dvocate a middle course, promoting sensible development that
minimizes the harm to the environment without neglecting thei
mportant economic rewards that such development may provide.
As is often the case with movies, reality is a bit messier than on

4. e might realize from seeing Erin Brockovich.
· Those in the town—Hinkley, California—
who received payment from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ha
ve suggested that the amount ofmoney they were promised turne
d out to be much less than they actually received, that attorneys
kept the money for months withoutpaying interest on it, and that
excessive legal fees reduced the awards substantially (Sharp, 2
000).
·
A toxic "plume" containing the carcinogen chromium 6 (hexaval
ent chromium) had been the original source of the contaminatio
n that ledto the 1996 lawsuit Brockovich began. In 2008, howev
er, it was discovered that the plume was spreading again, and ha
d become two mileslong and a mile wide. PG&E attempted to st
em the growth of this plume, but also sought to buy some of the
affected property andprovided bottled water to concerned reside
nts (Schwartz, 2010).
·
A study carried out by the California Cancer Registry seemed to
indicate that cancer rates—
a particular concern in Hinkley, given the knowneffects of chro
mium 6—
were not, in fact, elevated in most cases. An epidemiological stu
dy came to a similar conclusion, stating that itsfindings do not s
upport claims of a generalized cancer excess in Hinkley, althou
gh the cervix, prostate, and colorectal cancer findings revealund
erutilization of cancer screening in the Hinkley tract. These find
ings are consistent with previous assessments that did not identi
fy acancer 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 expertsto provide data and analysis. Few of us are, our
selves, experts in toxicology, oncology, biochemistry, genetics,
embryology, hydrostatics, and theother fields involved in many
of these issues, let alone experts in several of them. Those who

5. are experts in this field may not, of course, beexperts in politica
l science (or even adept in politics) or ethics. Furthermore, both
sides of this debate will provide their own experts, who maystr
ongly disagree with each other over an issue that can only be re
solved by yet another expert. Therefore, those of us who are not
expertssomehow have to determine which experts to trust, and t
his is a frequent challenge in resolving problems that arise in en
vironmental ethics,whether dealt with at a community level by p
olitical structures, or in more formal legal procedures. We will
encounter this challenge a numberof times in examining conflict
s in environmental ethics.
Externalities
Economists often talk of "externalities" in evaluating a specific
economic decision. While the detailed discussion can get compl
ex,here we can simply describe an externality as the effect of an
economic choice or activity experienced by someone who doesn
'thave input into the decision to make that choice, or choose to e
ngage in that activity. A very simple example is Charlie, who de
cidesto sit down at the end of a row at a basketball game; all tho
se who follow Charlie and wish to sit down on that row have to
climbover him. They weren't consulted by Charlie, but they pay
the (modest) price of having to exert themselves to climb past hi
m. Thatmodest price is an externality.
Pollution is, however, the standard example of an externality. If
I drive my car or run a steel mill that pollutes the air, many oth
ersbreathe that air who had no say in my choice to run a car that
seems to pollute more than most, or in running my steel mill. T
hosewho are affected by my exhaust or steel mill pollution are p
aying a social cost. Economists argue about the best way to deal
withthis kind of social cost (or negative externality); some argu
e that the costs should be figured into the taxes I pay to run an i
nefficientcar or a polluting steel mill; others (most famously No
bel-
prizewinning economist Ronald Coase) argue that if various tran
sactioncosts are ignored or discounted, those affected will be ab
le to negotiate the price involved for creating the pollution up t

6. o the pointwhere they would be more willing to suffer the pollut
ion than pay me to stop creating it.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Pollution is an example of an externality.
An example might make clear what Coase argues. Imagine a tan
ningparlor is in a strip mall, next to a toy store. The toy store ge
ts a new toythat, all day long, children try out, making a loud, a
nnoying sound. Thetanning parlor is losing business because its
customers don't like thenoise. It could, of course, take the toy st
ore to court. But Coase arguesthat it would be more efficient for
the two businesses to negotiate.Perhaps the tanning parlor will
lose less money than the toy store makesby stocking the annoyin
g toy; if so, the tanning parlor may offer somecash to make up t
he store's losses if it agrees to quit stocking it.(Naturally, the m
ore complex the details, the more complex thenegotiations.) In g
eneral, Coase's point is that unless the negotiationsthemselves c
ost too much (these being known as "transaction costs"), itis in
both business's interests to come to an agreement that will be to
their mutual advantage. Each will be better off economically by
coming toan agreement, relative to suing or absorbing the costs
imposed upon it by the other business.
(For more details on Coase's influential view, visit http://law.gs
u.edu/history/Coase.htm.)
Whenever pollution is discussed in economic terms, externalitie
s and various costs involved need to be factored in. This ispartic
ularly true in cases such as the groundwater pollution case of P
G&E and Hinkley, California.
Reducing Waste Through Recycling
You have probably heard, or seen, the slogan "Reduce, Reuse, R
ecycle." Because so many of the harmful effects are produced b
y obtainingnatural resources, such as petroleum or copper or co
al, environmentalists have argued that it makes sense to lower t
he demand for suchcommodities by using what we have efficien
tly, using less, and utilizing the materials we have left in produc
ing new commodities rather thansimply throwing those material

7. s away. In this section, we will see the arguments put forth for t
his approach, and consider a couple of specificexamples.
Many of us may live in communities with a recycling program;
some cities have very aggressive recycling programs, while othe
rs may have none.Generally, however, most communities have r
ecognized that recycling material such as plastic, glass, and alu
minum makes both moreenvironmental sense and economic sens
e than always producing more new plastic, glass, and aluminum.
It is becoming more and morecommon 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 i
ndication of what can be recycled, what cannot, and just how m
uch that isthrown 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, wh
en plastics wereless than 1% of the waste stream. Consequently,
what happens to that plastic—
whether it is recycled or simply becomes part of the MSWstrea
m, plays a significant role.
·
32 million tons of plastic waste were generated in 2011, represe
nting 12.7 percent of total MSW.
·
In 2011, the United States generated almost 14 million tons of p
lastics as containers and packaging, about 11 million tons as dur
able goods,such as appliances, and almost 7 million tons as non
durable goods, for example plates and cups.
·
Only 8 percent of the total plastic waste generated in 2011 was r
ecovered for recycling.
·
In 2011, the category of plastics which includes bags, sacks, an
d wraps was recycled at about 11 percent.
·
Plastics also are found in automobiles, but recycling of these ma
terials is counted separately from the MSW recycling rate. (EPA

8. , 2013, para.2)
Americans produce a substantial amount of waste, but a few mo
re general facts give an indication of just how much:
·
Every year nearly 900,000,000 trees are cut down to provide ra
w materials for American paper and pulp mills.
·
Every year we generate around 14 million tons of food waste, w
hich is 106 pounds of food waste per person; 570,000 tons of thi
s iscomposted for a 4.1% recovery rate. The rest, or 13.4 millio
n tons, is incinerated or landfilled and occupies 6.3 million cubi
c yards oflandfilled MSW.
·
Americans throw away about 28 billion bottles and jars every ye
ar.
· 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 19
91.Aluminum can recycling saves 95% of the energy needed to
make aluminum from bauxite ore. Energy savings in 1998 alone
were enough tolight 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 numb
ers and facts, and many have become much more accepting of re
cycling as anordinary part of life. At the same time, there is so
me indication that while Americans may be more aware of recyc
ling, they may not be doingas much of it as they could:
·
Currently, less than 35% of households and less than 10% of bu
sinesses in the U.S. recycle.
·
Those levels have barely improved in 15 years despite billions o

9. f dollars spent on competitions, symposiums, awareness campai
gns, andsorting technologies.
·
If U.S. recycling levels can reach 75%, environmental benefits
will include removing 50 million cars from the road each year a
nd generating1.5 million new jobs. (Recycle Across America, 2
013, para. 1)
The Argument for Recycling
The argument in favor of recycling seems simple enough: Mater
ial that is not recycled ends up in landfills, or is incinerated. Ea
ch of these bringswith it certain environmental issues. Landfills
are built in such a way that trash does not readily decompose; th
ey can leach toxins into the soiland groundwater, and they gener
ate methane, a greenhouse gas. Incinerating waste, which is less
common, and is often used to generateelectricity, also brings w
ith it hazards, such as releasing into the atmosphere various dio
xins (a set of toxic chemicals), metals, ash, andunpleasant odors
; different authorities disagree about whether this method gener
ates greenhouse emissions or actually reduces them bycreating e
nergy 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 inc
inerators). Thepoint seems obvious: If I recycle one can, and hal
f of it goes into making the next can, I've reduced the waste inv
olved by 50%, relative to a canmade out of completely new mat
erial. Multiplying this by the population of a state, a country, or
a planet, we can see pretty quickly how thiscould minimize the
impact on the environment, and decrease the amount of waste cr
eated.
The Argument Against Recycling
Most people seem to be aware of this, but there are arguments a
gainst recycling that need to be considered. These counterargum
ents tend tofocus on three basic points:
1.
Recycling is often done by combining some of the older, recycle
d material with newer material; when recycling paper, for instan

10. ce, older paperis combined with new paper. Recycling processes
require considerable energy—
with paper, for example, not just to cut down the trees, but alsot
o transport them, and process the wood into pulp—
and that must be factored into the environmental impact. Some r
ecycling processes alsoemploy chemicals; again, another introd
uction into the environment that must be balanced against the al
ternative.
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. Howeve
r, recycling programs are often subsidized by local or state gove
rnments, and those costs arepaid for by the taxpayer. In conside
ring the relative costs of purchasing a new product or a product
from recycled material, one often forgets toinclude these "hidde
n" costs, such as taxes paid to subsidize the recycling program.
3.
Again, one must take into consideration all the factors that go in
to recycling. Picking up recyclables and bringing them to be pro
cessed usespetroleum; when processing various materials, such
as glass, paper, aluminum, and plastics, we use energy that com
es from burning fossilfuels. What is needed is a more general ac
counting of the costs involved in recycling, in order to compare
those costs to other approaches.Comparative figures, however, a
re difficult to obtain.
These arguments about recycling will continue, although as tech
niques improve in terms of energy efficiency, more effective rec
ycling programsand techniques and the savings brought about b
y 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 ar
e,fortunately, considerably less contentious. Indeed, some of the
se arguments have been around for centuries, if not millennia.

11. A quick calculation: Johnny is an 8-year-
old boy. He wakes up in the morning and has a glass of juice an
d a glass of milk. At lunch he hasanother glass of milk, and anot
her glass of milk when he comes home from school. After comin
g in from playing outside, he has a glass ofwater, and then a gla
ss 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 u
ses a new glass each time, he has used seven glasses, as have hi
s sister, his mother, and his father. That is 28 glasses; at that rat
e, thefamily 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 1
00,000, that would be7,056,000,000 glasses used in the town. A
ssuming these aren't cups that are just thrown away (another env
ironmental issue, as we've seen),each of these glasses needs to b
e washed, which takes time, energy, water, and soap. That's a lo
t of glasses being washed. Had Johnny used thesame glass just f
or water, he would have saved 29% of the total; in the town as a
whole, 2,046,240,000 fewer glasses would need to bewashed, w
ith a corresponding savings in time, energy, water, and soap.
Aaron Favila/Associated Press
There are many opportunities to reuse resources. For example,
wecan use a cloth bag rather than paper or plastic when grocery
shopping.
This is a simple example, of course, but it is representative of w
hat many of usheard from our parents (and our parents heard fro
m their parents): Don't get anew glass each time you need one;
don't buy a new plastic bottle of waterinstead of refilling one yo
u already have; use a cloth bag when going groceryshopping ins
tead of getting a new one each time; use both sides of the paper.
The opportunities for reusing resources, rather than using new o
nes, are notjust environmentally sound, they also save money. P
resumably, something thathas both an economic benefit and an e
nvironmental benefit is somethingpeople need to consider a mor
e important part of their routine. Grandmawould probably agree
with these suggestions and have some more of her own:

12. ·
Plastic containers and reusable lunch bags are great ways to tak
e yourlunch to school without creating waste.
·
Coffee cans, shoe boxes, margarine containers, and other types
ofcontainers people throw away can be used to store things or c
an becomefun arts and crafts projects.
·
Don't throw out clothes, toys, furniture, and other things that yo
u don'twant anymore. Somebody else can probably use them. Yo
u can bring them to a center that collects donations, give them t
o friends, or evenhave 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, p
ara. 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, whenwe can accomplish what we want or need to and us
e less. Again, this is an example of something that makes both e
nvironmental sense andeconomic sense. Perhaps you live in an a
rea of the country that gets cold; you could run your thermostat
at 73 degrees and be quitecomfortable, 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 enviro
nmental impactof finding and producing that energy. As we saw
with the drinking-
glass example, saving energy can have a substantial "multiplier
effect." If aparticular change in behavior lowers energy use by 2

13. %, that may not sound like much. But multiply that result by 15
0 million, and it can have asubstantial impact.
As noted, few people come out directly and argue that we shoul
d use more energy, that our cars should get worse gas mileage, t
hat ourheating and air conditioning systems should be less effec
tive, 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 AverageFuel Economy) standards
are frequently opposed by the auto industry because meeting tho
se standards imposes costs on the industry to retoolmachinery a
nd redesign cars. For instance, the Heartland Institute has argue
d that increasing these standards will restrict consumers' choice
s,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 de
crease dependence on foreign oil.
Still, few argue that reducing energy and resource consumption
—
provided it does not harm economic growth or restrict opportuni
ties—
is not areasonable strategy, all else being equal. How one does t
hat, however, remains a source of contention.
Universal Waste
The term universal waste is reserved for specific kinds of produ
cts, generally consumer products that contain mercury, lead, but
ane, arsenic,cadmium, or other substances that can be harmful t
o both humans and the environment. They call for specific mode
s of disposal because theycontain 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 bulb
s (tubes), a number of electronic devices such ascomputers and
cell phones, batteries, thermometers and other mercury-
containing items, and glass picture tubes found in televisions an
dcomputer monitors.There aren't a lot of disputes here; few if a

14. ny people would argue for the disposal of universal wastes in su
ch a way that it increases the risks towhich innocent people are
subjected. One might, of course, point out that, as with many cir
cumstances in which it can take a bit longer or atake a bit more
energy to do the correct thing, people do not do it. One could, f
or instance, put his or her batteries in the ordinary householdtra
sh—
no one is checking, after all. That may save this person the time
and energy required to dispose of the batteries correctly, at a u
niversalwaste disposal site. But this isn't, ethically, much differ
ent than drunk driving. By driving drunk, one endangers others
(and oneself), although itmay 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 con
venience is more important than the potential harmsone can cau
se to other innocent people would be generally regarded as both
short sighted and selfish. Similarly, the incorrect disposal ofuni
versal waste poses a risk to others (and oneself), and we would
no more accept its convenience as justifying posing that risk tha
n we wouldaccept convenience in defense of driving while drun
k. The more general point is that society has the right to expect
its members to obey thoselaws (and conventions, or informal ag
reements) designed to protect people from risks to which they s
hould not be exposed. To fail to obeythose laws and convention
s will seem, to most, immoral, although the arguments for why t
hat is can differ. A utilitarian, for instance, mightargue that corr
ectly disposing of universal wastes produces a general good that
far outweighs any benefits that one might gain by doingotherwi
se. A deontologist, in contrast, could argue that doing somethin
g out of personal convenience that harms another cannot be the
kind ofaction that could become universal law—
would we be willing to be treated that way, if we were subject t
o harms simply for another'sconvenience?
8.2 The Issue: Business Interests Versus Environmental Protecti
on

15. How much responsibility should a corporation bear when it com
es to waste disposal? Do businesses and the general public have
differing levelsof environmental accountability? In this section,
we will look at some of the concerns surrounding the business c
ommunity's participation—orlack 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 th
e environment.These simple steps reduce the stress on the plane
t and its resources, and help maintain an environment that is sus
tainable for current andfuture generations. Generally, the focus
on environmental harms has been on air pollution, water polluti
on, and soil pollution; more recently,the emphasis on anthropog
enic (human-
made) climate change, and resource depletion. The last two hav
e generated some degree ofcontroversy; here we will look at thr
ee specific issues: the threat pollution posts to groundwater, inj
ecting toxins into the environment that endup in the human bloo
dstream and nervous system, and the risks to which the food sup
ply is subject due to environmental hazards. As we havealready
seen, these issues often arise due to the potential conflict betwe
en a desire to protect the environment and a need for economicd
evelopment.
Straight to the Source
The UN's Principles for Responsible Investment
In 2005, the United Nations proposed to a group of institutional
investors that they develop principles for responsible investmen
t,which in part reflect a desire to support environmental protecti
on. This group is known for developing the Principles for Respo
nsibleInvestment (PRI). In one of its reports, the group reported
these results (as of 2008) and this prediction:
Global environmental damage caused by human activity in 2008
represented a monetary value of $6.6 trillion,equivalent to 11%
of global GDP, calculates a study by the UN-
supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)and UNE

16. P Finance Initiative. Those global costs are 20% larger than the
$5.4 trillion decline in the value of pensionfunds in developed c
ountries caused by the global financial crisis in 2007/8.
The study projects that the monetary value of annual environme
ntal damage from water and air pollution,greenhouse gas emissi
ons, general waste and depleted resources could reach $28.6 tril
lion in 2050, or 23% lower ifclean and resource-
efficient technologies are introduced. (UNEP Press Release, 201
0, para. 1–2)
In response to these concerns—
both economic and environmental, the following six principles
were developed for responsibleinvestors.
Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG [environmental, social, an
d corporate governance] issues into investment analysisand deci
sion-making processes.
Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issu
es into our ownership policies and practices.
Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues
by the entities in which we invest.
Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of
the Principles within the investment industry.
Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness
in implementing the Principles.
Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress t
owards implementing the Principles. (PRI, n.d., para. 1)
Polluted Groundwater
It is difficult to imagine life without water; the average person c
an 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 (cook
ing, cleaning, etc.), recreation, transportation, and business. It p
robably goeswithout saying that water is a precious resource, an
d should be protected; yet it is a resource that is in various ways
threatened. It is estimatedthat one in nine people on Earth (780
million) do not have regular access to clean drinking water; poll
uted water brings with it risks of ingestingtoxic chemicals, but

17. water-
related illnesses still kill some 3.4 million people a year. While
some countries have quite limited access to water, ithas been ob
served that "an American taking a five-
minute shower uses more water than the average person in a dev
eloping country slum usesfor an entire day" (Water.org, n.d., pa
ra. 6).
There are many threats to the water supply, too many to mention
in detail here. In general, though, the chief sources of groundw
ater pollutionare industrial sources (for example, through the us
e of chemicals that may leach, as well as the spilling of chemica
ls and fuels and miningbyproducts), agricultural sources (such a
s fertilizer runoff, pesticides, and livestock waste), and individu
al sources (motor oil, paint, detergents,and other products that
may introduce various toxins into the water stream). These haza
rds are increased in some communities throughextensive develo
pment, and the increase in housing developments, streets, and p
arking lots; by limiting opportunities for water to be absorbedth
rough the soil, it becomes concentrated by being directed towar
d storm sewers (and picking up, along the way, various toxins s
uch heavymetals, gasoline, and fertilizer) (Oregon Environment
al Council, n.d.).
Mike Stewart/Associated Press
This photo shows a hog farm with rectangular lagoons that hold
animal waste. Critics of this type of farm are concerned that the
waste could pollute groundwater.
As is so often the case, there can be a conflict here between eco
nomicdevelopment and maintaining a resource, in this case, wat
er. As a singleexample, one might consider the pork industry, sp
ecifically in North Carolina.According to the North Carolina Po
rk Council, "More than 46,000 North Carolinacitizens work full
-
time in pork production and over 80% of North Carolina's hogfa
rms are owned and operated by individual farm families" This is
obviously animportant industry in North Carolina, and the Cou

18. ncil insists that "they arededicated to ensuring that they will pas
s a clean environment on to the nextgeneration"(2006, para. 3).
The critics of large-
scale hog farming, in contrast,observe that ecosystems and their
inhabitants are endangered by the wastethese large livestock far
ms generate (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2013).
The challenge, of course, is trying to balance the economic need
s—
theemployment of the many North Carolinians in the pork indus
try, and thesecondary effects that employment has in the North
Carolina economy—
withthe protection of groundwater. Can these two be reconciled
? Do we have tomake a choice: either abandon large-
scale hog farms, with their accompanyingmanure lagoons and m
ethane production, or accept that the economic demands here ou
tweigh the environmental concerns? Is the publicbetter served b
y one or the other here? If public health is generally threatened
by contamination of the surrounding groundwater, we may befor
ced to conclude that current practices are too risky, and that agr
icultural practices need to be developed to minimize this risk. O
r we canargue that the current risks, while genuine, are too smal
l to require an expensive overhauling of contemporary methods
of food production; noactivity is without its risks, and society is
constantly required to balance the two and make difficult choic
es. Finally, how should societydetermine the costs and benefits i
nvolved, and is there a point at which the risks force regulators
to impose restrictions on agriculturalproduction to require that a
ny potential harms be minimized? As we have seen, and will co
ntinue to see, environmental issues frequently leadto difficult q
uestions concerning the interaction of economic goals, environm
ental goals, and the concern that these two goals are irreconcila
ble.
Be the Ethicist
Drilling for Oil in Yellowstone
You are CEO of Smith Petroleum. Oil has been discovered in th
e middle of Yellowstone National Park. There is a lot of oil. It s

19. eemsclear that if you approach this correctly, the current federal
and state governments will approve drilling in Yellowstone.
It is said by the oil industry that this will lower gas prices in the
United States by at least $0.10/gallon and create at least 10,000
new jobs.
The decision to drill is entirely yours.
1. State your decision.
2.
Argue for that decision on the basis of just the economic issues
involved.
3.
Argue against that decision, on the basis of the intrinsic value o
f Yellowstone National Park (its non-economic value).
Assume you are no longer CEO of Smith Petroleum. Explain to
someone what value or benefit Yellowstone National Park has.
Howdo you respond if that person then says he or she will never
go to Yellowstone National Park?
If you aren't familiar with Yellowstone National Park, it might
be worth going to this site before answering these questions:http
://www.nps.gov/yell/index.htm.
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 aperson's body. We can breathe them in, ingest them in our fo
od and water, absorb them through our skin, and they can even b
e passed from amother to a developing fetus. All of us have som
e of these chemicals; some, such as arsenic, pass through human
beings quickly; others, suchas mercury or lead, can remain in o
rgans, fat tissue, or other parts of our bodies for years. Some pe
sticides can remain stored in the body for aslong as 50 years. Si
mply having chemicals in the bloodstream is not the problem; ra
ther, it is which chemicals these are, and what their effectsare.
For a substance such as dioxin or mercury, with substantial heal
th risks, significant vigilance is needed to minimize one's expos
ure (ComingClean, n.d.).

20. Human beings are exposed to chemicals, which, as noted, occur
both naturally an in human-
made products, constantly. Some have unknowneffects, and hav
e not been sufficiently researched; others have known effects th
at are quite harmful (for example, lead and mercury); still other
shave known effects that appear to be harmless in standard dosa
ges (potassium). Rather than trying to sort out the various result
s of the 80,000chemicals in commercial use, here we can focus
on dioxin, which indicates how, once a risk is recognized, gover
nment and industry may be ableto work together to develop a po
tential solution.
Dioxin is a name used to refer to a set of chemical compounds;
one, specifically known as TCDD, is particularly well studied. I
t can be found inpolyvinyl chloride, paper that has been bleache
d with chlorine, and from certain products when incinerated; it c
an also be naturally producedby volcanoes and forest fires. Ther
e is some controversy about the health effects of TCDD; one so
urce states that studies "have linked dioxins tocancer, disrupted
hormones, reproductive damage such as decreased fertility, neur
ological effects, immune system changes and skin disorders"(Co
ne, 2012, para. 4), while the EPA notes that "currently there is n
o clear indication of increased disease in the general population
attributableto dioxin-
like compounds" (DioxinFacts.org, n.d., para. 7). Whether there
are significant health hazards or not, increased regulation, andc
ooperation between industry and government, has decreased dio
xin 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 necessityof 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 substantialand expensive studies being don
e. David Ewing Duncan comments that "only a quarter of the 82

21. ,000 chemicals in use in the U.S. have everbeen tested for toxici
ty" (2006, para. 17).
As we have seen, industry, agricultural, and commercial enterpr
ises often generate some degree of risk. No one thinks it even p
ossible ordesirable to eliminate human exposure to all chemical
s, and no one thinks it possible or desirable not to regulate that
exposure at all. Again,the balancing act that is called for with s
ome sources of the riskier aspects of the body burden—
such things as perfluorinated acids, bisphenolA, and phthalates,
which we may not even be aware of—
must be evaluated in terms of costs and benefits. Certainly, we c
an find argumentsthat regulation of such dangerous chemicals as
mercury—a by-product of coal-
burning power plants, and often found in relatively highconcent
rations of fish—
is insufficient, even though the risks associated with elevated m
ercury levels in human beings are well established. Thepolitical,
economic, and moral questions are difficult to disentangle here,
but reconciling the benefits of human health and the costs of re
ducingthe threats to that health are important questions. Answer
s to such questions, of course, often raise challenges to those w
ho develop policy andlegislation, yet the fundamental ethical qu
estions also remain: Whose good is being served by regulations?
Whose good is being served bylimiting regulations? Are enviro
nmental regulations too burdensome on business, or inadequate
to protect public health? Finally, particularly inan area that requ
ires chemical and medical expertise, how can citizens who lack
such expertise determine what information is reliable, and whati
nformation is being presented in such a way as to benefit a spec
ific environmental or industrial perspective?
Ethics of Fracking
Is fracking good, bad, or all of the above?
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 ofthe food that is available. While access to food its

22. elf, and healthful food specifically, varies around the world, her
e we will focus specifically onthe food supply in the United Stat
es.
There are different perspectives on the food supply, and differe
nt ways of describing potential threats to it. On the one hand, "[
W]e do have avery 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, ther
e are regularly stories of foodborne illness and recalls issued of
various foods, whether E. coli outbreaks fromtainted beef or sal
monella risks from peanut butter. (Carey, 2007). The Center for
Disease Control "estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6Americ
ans (or 48 million people) gets sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, a
nd 3,000 die of foodborne diseases" (2013, para 1). Other conce
rns havebeen raised:
·
Bisphenol A (BPA), found in plastic bottles (including baby bot
tles) and other plastic containers has been identified as posing p
otential risks:
BPA has raised concerns because it appears to mimic the effects
of estrogen, interfering with hormone levels and cellsignaling s
ystems. Previous studies have shown that people exposed to hig
h levels of BPA have a greater risk ofdeveloping uterine fibroid
s, breast cancer, decreased sperm counts, and prostate cancer. B
abies and children are thoughtto be at greatest risk from the exp
osure. (Kotz, 2008, para. 2)
·
Some companies that have focused on small batch production an
d emphasized organic production methods have been bought out
by largecorporations, such as Kellogg, Procter and Gamble, and
Coca-
Cola. The suggestion has been made that the size of these comp
anies mayprevent some of the close attention given to the more t
raditional methods that smaller companies were able to provide.
·
The use of antibiotics, hormones, and other supplements in anim

23. al feed has raised fears about effects in humans who eat these a
nimals.Thus Donald Kennedy, former FDA commissioner and pr
esident emeritus at Stanford University, said, "There's no questi
on that routinelyadministering non-
therapeutic doses of antibiotics to food animals contributes to a
ntibiotic resistance" (McVeigh, 2012, para. 4).
·
Similar concerns have been raised about genetically modified (
GM) foods; some research has associated GM corn with hepator
enal toxicitythat can damage the liver and kidneys (de Vendômo
is, Roullier, Cellier, & Séralini, 2009); in 2013, the voters of Ca
lifornia voted down aproposition that would have required manu
facturers to label all foods with GM ingredients. Advocates of t
he proposition noted that mostof the funding dedicated to defeat
ing this proposition came from out of state, largely from compa
nies such as Monsanto, Cargill, and othercorporations with a lar
ge stake in GM foods (No on 37, n.d.), outspending the oppositi
on (those in favor of the proposition) five to one.
·
Bees are important for pollinating fruit and vegetable plants, bu
t there has been much worry expressed about the use of herbicid
es,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).
Damian Dovarganes /Associated Press
Some research has indicated that there may behealth risks associ
ated with food that containsgenetically modified organisms.
These and other examples are frequently highlighted by those w
ho worry that humans arepoisoning their own food supply. Indus
try responds, naturally, by pointing out that many ofthese risks
are exaggerated or nonexistent. In addition, some genetic modifi
cation allows certainplants to grow in places where they otherwi
se could not, as well as extending the growingseason and increa
sing protection from pests and disease. This response is summed
up by thosewho insist that in the scientific community, genetica

24. lly modified organisms raise very little alarmin the scientific co
mmunity and that the science used to create them is basic enoug
h to teachto high school students (Berezow, 2013).
Yet again, we see a need to balance what industry—
here, agriculture—
needs againstenvironmental concerns raised from various source
s. Each side has its experts supporting it, andthose of us who ar
e not experts may have little or no ability to determine which is
correct.Should we be suspicious of the claims made by compani
es that have a large financial stake inGM food that such food is
harmless? Should we be suspicious of claims made byenvironme
ntalists who sometimes seem to desire that large-
scale agribusiness be unsuccessfuland insist that food be locally
sourced and organic? What genuine threats to the food supplye
xist, and how might they be prevented? What is the legitimate r
ole of regulation here—
presumably we don't want people becoming sick or dying from e
ating—
and where doesregulation become onerous and add unnecessaril
y to our food costs? As we continue to see,balancing economic i
ssues with environmental issues brings with it political challeng
es, leadingto this fundamental issue: Can one be an environment
ally responsible producer (or consumer)without placing an undu
e burden on business?
Corporate Responsibility
To whom is a corporation responsible? Assuming a corporation
is a for-
profit enterprise, itsfundamental goal is relatively clear: It need
s to make a profit. Of course, most corporations recognize that t
his has to be seen in a largercontext: Corporations have employ
ees and stockholders, and are located within a community. The c
ommunity itself may be taken to be the localcommunity, the lar
ger surrounding community, the state, the country, the continent
, the hemisphere; for a large, multinational corporation, itscom
munity may be the planet.
Environmental Decision Making

25. One influential description of the responsibilities a corporation
has was described succinctly by economist Milton Friedman: "T
here is one andonly one social responsibility of business—
to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase
its profits so long as it . . . engagesin open and free competitio
n, without deception or fraud" (1962, p. 133]). However, anothe
r competing model has gained a good bit ofattention since Fried
man's description: stakeholder theory. The stakeholder theory ta
kes a broader view, that corporations have a responsibilityto sha
reholders, but also to "individuals and constituencies that contri
bute, either voluntarily or involuntarily, to [the corporation's] w
ealth-
creating capacity and activities, and who are therefore its potent
ial beneficiaries and/or risk bearers " (Post, Preston, & Sachs, 2
002, p. 19).Different interpretations of the stakeholder theory id
entify distinct stakeholders (in addition to shareholders), but ge
nerally these would include,at least, customers, employees, supp
liers, and members of the community. As we saw, however, the
corporation itself may determine what thatcommunity is, and wh
ich of its members are sufficiently affected to qualify as stakeho
lders.
Instrumental Value and Intrinsic Value
Often in discussions of environmental ethics, the debate gets ov
ertaken by strict economic considerations. For instance, if aneco
nomic development plan may endanger the habitat of a particula
r species of fish, and potentially lead to its extinction, some wil
largue that the benefits of the development outweigh any benefit
s we could receive from the fish. In response, some may suggest
that we don't know what potential value the fish could have; per
haps it will at some point be discovered that it contains acompo
und that could help cure certain forms of cancer? In this debate
over the benefits of the fish being endangered and thebenefits of
the fish being protected, the sole kind of value being appealed t
o is called instrumental value: namely, what good is thething? H
ow can I use it to get something else?
In contrast, some things are said to have intrinsic value. For inst

26. ance, being happy is often said to have intrinsic value because it
isitself valuable; it is a good thing to be happy, and we don't re
gard being happy as needing to be a means to some other end. B
einghappy is good in itself, or intrinsically.
Consider the following examples; do they have only instrumenta
l value? Do any of them have intrinsic value? If any of them do
haveintrinsic value, what does that mean in terms of our obligati
on to protect or preserve them? If you think nothing here does h
aveintrinsic value, can you think of anything that does?
Biodiversity
The Grand Canyon
Oil filters
The Mona Lisa
Number 2 pencils
Giant pandas
Site of the 9/11 attacks ("Ground Zero")
Picture frames
Aspirin
Christmas
Which of these models influences an analysis of a corporate dec
ision can alter how one regards corporate responsibility. For ins
tance, if I run amultinational paint company that generates a cer
tain amount of hazardous waste, how should I calculate its dispo
sal? Should I choose simplywhatever is least expensive? Should
I choose whatever is least expensive that also minimizes its haz
ardous effects? If I choose the leastexpensive disposal method, t
his may lead to higher levels of toxins being released in another
country, but may lead to marginally higher profitsand, consequ
ently, a higher return to my stockholders. Usually, of course, su
ch decisions are considerably more complex: Decisions presuma
blycan't simply ignore whatever laws and other restrictions that
are in place wherever the hazardous waste is disposed; I may ha
ve importantstockholders who regard environmental harm as wo
rth the additional cost; I may have to factor into the business de
cision the cost of anypotential fines (or even jail time) if I choo
se to ignore or try to skirt the applicable regulations. As may alr

27. eady be clear, many of these kinds offactors look different withi
n the stakeholder model: Customers, distributors, employees, an
d community members may have a very different setof criteria t
han mere return on investment when they evaluate such a decisi
on (see Figure 8.1). Furthermore, a corporation may regard itsen
vironmental policies as part of its image or "brand," and may se
e making sound environmental practice part of its marketing str
ategy; acompany that has a reputation for being a responsible en
vironmental steward may, thereby, be more profitable in both th
e short and long run.
Figure 8.1: Business relationships in relation to environmentalc
oncerns
This diagram shows the interlocking relationships a corporation
needs to consider inmaking business decisions on the stakeholde
r model.
Source: Retrieved from http://walimemon.com/2010/08/corporat
e-social-responsibility/
Going Green on a Corporate Level
Various companies have adopted policies to be environmentally
responsible. For example, many hotel chains have developed pla
ns to reducetheir energy and water usage, reduce waste sent to l
andfills, 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 t
hat matter, is better for the environment, is the source of some c
ontroversy.One 2012 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine c
oncluded that "the published literature lacks strong evidence tha
t organic foods aresignificantly more nutritious than convention
al foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to
pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria" (Smith-
Spangler, Brandeau, Hunter, Bavinger, Pearson et al., 2012, par
a. 3).

28. Others have noted that organic methods not only do not produce
more nutritional food, but that conventional farming is more eff
ective,producing more food per acre of land (Palmer, 2012). The
tradeoff seems to be whether to use more land and organic meth
ods, or less landand traditional methods.
Those who advocate organic methods point not only to health be
nefits for human beings, but also to benefits from decreased use
of pesticidesand land improvement, and to the fact that ethical
stewardship of the land requires a "gentler" approach than that u
sed by traditionalagriculture. The Organic Trade Association ar
gues that organic methods have these important advantages:
·
Organic farms respect our water resources: The elimination of p
olluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, done in combination
with soilbuilding, 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 pract
ices thatbuild healthy soils.
·
Organic farmers work in harmony with nature: Organic agricult
ural respects the balance demanded of a healthy ecosystem: wild
life isencouraged by including forage crops in rotation and by re
taining fence rows, wetlands, and other natural areas.
·
Organic producers strive to preserve diversity: The loss of a lar
ge variety of species (biodiversity) is one of the most pressing e
nvironmentalconcerns. The good news is that many organic far
mers and gardeners have been collecting and preserving seeds, a
nd growing unusualvarieties for decades.
·
Organic farming helps keep rural communities healthy: USDA r
eported that in 1997, half of U.S. farm production came from on
ly 2% offarms. Organic agriculture can be a lifeline for small fa
rms because it offers an alternative market where sellers can co
mmand fair prices forcrops. (2013, para. 4–6, 8–9)

29. Clean Coal
Meanwhile, many of those in the coal industry have adopted "cl
ean coal technology," with the coordinated goals of continuing t
o use coal toproduce energy and to do so in a way that minimize
s 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. T
hus, companieshave produced policy statements, plans of action,
and timetables to monitor their progress. One example is the m
ultinational agriculturalproducer, Cargill, which has committed
itself to freshwater efficiency.
Each of these programs has at least its share of critics; some arg
ue that "clean coal" is a contradiction in terms; others that comp
anies put outcorporate statements of environmental responsibilit
y that conflict with the actual behavior of the companies; while
still others suggest thatmany corporate business models will nev
er hesitate to sacrifice environmental benefits if they interfere
with corporate profits.
One standard criticism of clean coal, for example, is that the ver
y idea rests upon some rather problematic claims. Coal releases
large amountsof CO2; to prevent that CO2 from being released i
nto the atmosphere (which is what makes it "clean"), a method k
nown as carbon capture andsequestration is required. But that m
ethod itself requires a good deal of energy; as James B. Meigs p
oints out, "[A] coal-
fired power plant wouldhave to burn roughly 25 percent more co
al to handle carbon sequestration while producing the same amo
unt of electricity" (2011, para. 6). Stillmore difficult is the actu
al sequestration. Finally, it is not clear, at this point, whether su
ch a method would be successful in preventing thecompressed C
O2 from leaking, and for how long. In short, its critics claim tha
t the problem with "clean coal" is that there may not be such ath
ing (Meigs, 2011).
Ethical Views
The moral questions raised by many businesses are not necessar

30. ily different for different ethical theories, and they may not nec
essarily beanalyzed differently by those theories. As is often the
case, questions of corporate responsibility must be considered
within the context of theactual issue involved, the business mod
el used, the corporate mission statement, the theory—
e.g., shareholder or stakeholder—
utilized, theethical evaluations being made, and how the various
factors within those ethical evaluations are weighed. One utilit
arian may look at a coalcompany deciding not to add expensive
but optional "scrubbers" to minimize its mercury output; the gre
atest good for the greatest number inthis case might be determin
ed, in this specific analysis, to be based solely on return to inve
stors of the highest possible profits. No law is beingbroken, and
the company is fully complying with all relevant regulations. In
contrast, another utilitarian might well argue that such scrubber
s areworth the added cost, evaluating the benefits to the commu
nity not just in terms of profit, but also in terms of the risks of i
ncreased mercurycontamination to current and future customers,
the company's commitment to sustainability, and its reputation
for being a responsible memberof 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 ma
ke a similarly contrasting argument from the perspective of two
deontologists who disagree with distinct assumptionsabout the v
alues 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 ta
ke personalresponsibility to maintain and protect our environme
nt, not just for our own health and safety, but for those generati
ons to follow? Do we haveany obligations to protect the environ
ment, or should we regard it simply as a source of resources to
be exploited and utilized? If we do havesuch obligations, what a
re they? Do they require us to change our lifestyles in a radical
way, or are there more moderate steps we can take toreduce was
te; negative effects on the air, soil, and water; and carbon footpr

31. ints? Some environmentalists argue that only radical steps can b
ejustified at this stage, given the damage that has already been d
one and that continues; this is particularly a common feature of
discussions onanthropogenic climate change. But others argue t
hat we can make relatively modest changes and have a cumulati
ve effect that will minimizeour environmental impact and, in ma
ny cases, improve our surroundings.
Environmentally Responsible Households
One simple step to take is disposing of household waste in the a
ppropriate way. Many of us have various kinds of waste: leftove
r food,packaging, bottles, cans, and various kinds of clutter that
we accumulate and, at some point, want to discard. There are ot
her more hazardouskinds 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, batterie
s, even thermometers. We might object were we to see our next
door neighbor pouring used motor oil downa storm sewer, but th
ere is little difference between this and tossing batteries or cell
phones into the trash, where they will end up in a landfill.The E
PA notes that improper disposal of household waste can pose se
rious threats to both human health and the environment; it direct
sconsumers to community resources aimed at disposing of hazar
dous items responsibly.
Going Green on an Individual Level
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Using organic household waste for composting is one way to "g
ogreen."
Various companies have recognized that there is significant dem
and for productsthat are less stressful on the environment, and t
hat are regarded as safer forhumans, including children, as well
as pets and other animals. Some of theproducts are designed to s
ave energy, water, or both. These include solarpanels, reusable
water bottles, energy-saving light bulbs, low-
flow showerheads,and rechargeable batteries.
Meanwhile, ecologists recommend homeowners rely on natural s

32. ubstances—
asopposed to manufactured chemicals that may pose health risks
—
for killing pestsand weeds. For example, use vinegar instead of
glyphosate: One very commonlyused weed killer is made with g
lyphosate, which some studies have connectedwith potential hea
lth risks in humans and other animals. Using vinegar andwater a
s a substitute has often been recommended by home gardeners s
eekingan alternative to glyphosate.
Many gardeners have found composting to be a productive way t
o use organichousehold waste (such things as coffee grounds, eg
gshells, bush and treetrimmings, etc.). Composting takes these
wastes and uses them to develop a nutrient-
rich fertilizer for the soil. Composting thus decreases theamount
of waste that is thrown away, and benefits the soil by adding nu
trients. 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 donot require m
uch if any sacrifice on the part of the individual. Rather, it is ju
st getting into the habit of choosing those products that have are
latively lower environmental impact, as well as doing other thin
gs that are easy to do but have a cumulative effect (reusing a clo
th bag whengrocery shopping) and not doing things that have a
negative impact (improperly disposing of hazardous waste). Yet
it has been argued thatsome of the steps recommended in order
to decrease our negative impact on the environment, involve exp
enses, and that many of us whowould prefer to be more environ
mentally responsible are not really in a financial position to do
so. While it might be obvious that to retrofit ahouse with solar p
anels is a very expensive undertaking, it is also the case that org
anic food is generally more expensive than food grown in themo
re traditional fashion. A Denver Post editorial notes that the use

33. of wind and solar power will be substantially more expensive t
han fossilfuels (Yeatman & Cooke, 2010).
While this is a complaint about the differential energy costs bet
ween these various options, most of us also know on a more indi
vidual basisabout costs that are involved in "being green." Some
times these are financial costs, but there are also costs associate
d with time, convenience,and missing out on something: what ec
onomists call "opportunity costs." It may be more environmenta
lly friendly (and better for me) to walk towork, but what if I wo
rk 30 miles from where I live? Perhaps I could bike, but that me
ans I must risk riding a bike in traffic, as well as showingup to
work in less than pristine condition (in other words, sweaty). Pe
rhaps 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 tra
nsportation time that I could spend doing something else. If the
environment is my soleconsideration, then walking, biking, or p
ublic transportation may be the correct choice; but most of us m
ake these choices in the context ofbusy schedules, other respons
ibilities, 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 expensi
ve—in some cases, quite a bit more expensive—
than the standard ones wemight recognize, and some have argue
d that the organic products are not as effective (a claim strongly
rejected by those who make organiccleaners and other househol
d products). The question then becomes one that we saw earlier
in other contexts: Do I want my house to appearslightly less cle
an, for more money, or appear cleaner, for less money? Even if t
he organic products are as effective as others, they are moreexp
ensive: Perhaps the question is not so much whether I think it is
worth the extra money to do what I can to protect the environm
ent, it iswhether 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'thave the funds to make a positive enviro
nmental impact, it may not matter what one desires to do.
Those who advocate using organic cleaners, eating organic food

34. , and taking other steps generally recognize that, currently, ther
e are additionalcosts to doing so. At the same time, they have t
wo 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 takeeffect. More companies will recognize the profits avail
able in offering environmentally friendly products; competition
will bring pricesdown; and the free market will respond, as it is
designed to do, to meet customer demand with efficient, safe, an
d affordable greenalternatives. In short, when these choices bec
ome increasingly popular, economies of scale will function to m
ake them affordable for manymore people.
· There are costs to using the older, less eco-
friendly products, in terms of health care costs, loss of producti
vity due to job absences,diminished quality of life, and other co
sts that may be "hidden," but are no less genuine. When these co
sts are factored in, green productsmay be considerably closer in
price to the alternative, and these costs also provide some motiv
ation for both government money, andprivate equity firms, to su
bsidize and investment in sustainable products and technologies
.
Medication Disposal
Many of us have specific forms of hazardous waste in our home
s, which must be disposed of an appropriate way. However, one
particular formof hazardous waste has not been mentioned; alth
ough very common, it can be overlooked in such discussions, an
d should not be. This is thedisposal of medical waste: drugs, suc
h as antibiotics, as well as syringes (and other "sharps" such as
scalpels or lancets), disposable gloves,incontinence products, bl
ood-
soaked bandages, etc. Such waste is produced in hospitals, labs,
clinics, nursing homes, medical offices, and evenschools and ta
ttoo parlors, but it is not unusual for some of these things to be
in individual homes: Regardless of their source, however, theyn
eed to be disposed of properly.

35. Obviously enough, some medical waste poses a significant healt
h threat: A contaminated needle can be a biohazard, and can lea
d to infectiousdiseases; a number of different kinds of medical
waste can carry with them some sort of health risk if not dispos
ed of properly. Additionally, butimportantly, is the question of
unused medications. These pose various risks: Children may acc
identally swallow them, and prescription drugabusers may be te
mpted to steal them. A more significant threat may come from a
standard way many people used to dispose of unwantedmedicin
e—
by flushing it down the toilet. This sends the various pharmaceu
ticals into the waterways, introducing their active agents into th
atwater, which can be absorbed by fish and can even find their
way into drinking water. Observers point out that scientists hav
e detectedmedicines in both surface and groundwater, not to me
ntion the soil. Even low levels of medicine in an ecological syst
em pose health risks toland and marine life (Take Back Your M
eds, 2010).
In contrast, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has prepare
d 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. Inany case, as is clear, this meth
od of disposal is the source of some controversy. In any case, it
is important to be aware of the issue, and tobecome better infor
med about the risks involved with improper disposal of all medi
cal waste, including both over-the-
counter and prescriptionpharmaceuticals.
8.4 Applying the Theories
We began our look at environmental ethics by considering what
happened in Hinkley, California. Was Pacific Gas and Electric g
uilty of pollutingthe groundwater, and thus responsible for some
of the illnesses and even deaths that occurred there? Was this c
harge unfair, and were theclaims that PG&E caused these results
overblown and exaggerated? Or is there a third possibility to co
nsider, that all economic activity—including that of PG&E—

36. carries with it certain risks, but those risks are manageable and
are the kind of thing a society has to accept in order toflourish e
conomically?
These questions, to a large extent, are raised in terms of econom
ics, cost–
benefit analysis, profit and loss, health care costs, etc. But there
arealso ethical considerations here as well. If we have an accur
ate account of what PG&E did—or didn't do—
then we can examine whether it didthe right thing: not the right
thing necessarily in terms of economic gain (or in terms of instr
umental value) but in terms of moral values. Is thecompany's be
havior justified on moral grounds, or does it deserve to be critic
ized on those same grounds? Here we will look at a utilitariande
fense of PG&E's corporate behavior, and then contrast it with an
objection to that behavior in terms of deontology. Then we will
turn torelativism, 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 $333million in 1996, another $295 million in 2006, a
nd a final payment of $20 million in 2008. These are significant
damages, but in the long runthey become part of the cost of doi
ng business, and many of the costs are, undoubtedly, passed on t
o PG&E's customers.
A utilitarian examining this case has to determine what the cost
s and the benefits are in this particular situation. On the one han
d, there arethe disputed health effects of PG&E's operation in H
inkley, the costs of the cleanup, as well as the costs of litigation
and the damages paid tothose in the lawsuit. Without dismissin
g the potential and genuine damages that may have been involve
d, a broader perspective also needs tobe brought to bear in this c
ase. The operation that caused the groundwater contamination w
as natural gas decompression; Hinkley had one ofthe many stati
ons that are required to decompress natural gas between its origi
nal sources and its final delivery stage. To minimize rust in thec

37. ooling towers, chromium 6 was used, and the discharged water
was kept in unlined pools; this had been done since 1952. When
we look atthe broader picture, however, we see several compell
ing facts: PG&E is a major source of energy in California, upon
which people rely. Withouta consistent, affordable power source
, households would be prevented from doing a great number of t
hings, from laundry to watching TV torunning air conditioning a
nd heating. Furthermore, without this reliable source of natural
gas to the many industries in California that use it, theCaliforni
a economy would grind to a halt; people would be thrown out of
work, agriculture and industry would be irreparably harmed, ta
xeswould be raised to pay for unemployment and other costs ass
ociated with a sharp increase in unemployment. Additionally, al
l the salaries andbenefits have a multiplier effect: Those who lo
se their jobs working for PG&E no longer have money for babys
itters, going out to eat, and otheritems on which they traditional
ly spend their disposable income. In turn, all those who rely on
that money are harmed. In short, even if theworse case scenario
is painted of PG&E's activity in Hinkley, the alternative is almo
st incalculably worse and affects far larger numbers ofpeople. It
is virtually impossible to make a utility calculation under whic
h more people—again, on the worst case scenario—
would be better offwere PG&E prevented from the exploration,
development, and delivery of natural gas. All such activity has r
isks, but the benefits so vastlyoutweigh the risks than on any uti
litarian evaluation, PG&E did the right thing.
This conclusion hardly supports the idea that corporations can d
o what they wish without any consideration of effects on people
and on theenvironment. Obviously enough, once the risk of chr
omium 6 had been established, PG&E had an obligation to respo
nd and to minimize thatrisk. That is not only the ethical result t
hat would be suggested by the utilitarian; it is also sound busine
ss practice. But on a utilitarian view,assuming that no energy pr
oduction 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 rew

38. ards of a generally safe, affordable, and necessary source of ene
rgy. At thesame time, it should be noted that different utilitarian
s will evaluate the specific benefits—
and therefore the overall benefits—
of an activitydifferently, just as they may evaluate the costs diff
erently. How much does one value preventing a child from deve
loping asthma, or a potentiallyfatal disease? How does one weig
h the value of a low unemployment rate in a town, with all the d
irect and indirect benefits it provides? Aswe've seen, clean air a
nd clean water may have some specifiable value; at what point d
oes the value of making air cleaner not justify theexpense requir
ed to do so, or the sacrifice of economic development it might r
equire? 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 fu
ndamental to their ethical theory two basic points: We must nev
er treat anotherhuman being as a mere means to an end (human
beings, that is, cannot be treated as having solely instrumental v
alue), and we must act insuch a way that our decisions could be
universalized—
that our decision, in the given context, would be what everyone
should do in that samesituation. PG&E's actions violated both o
f 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 oth
er animals. Asa profit-
oriented organization, it is understandable that PG&E wished to
keep its costs down; however, using unlined pools to store wate
r thathad been contaminated with chromium 6 was a decision th
at treated the people of Hinkley as means to the end of PG&E. R
ather than treatingthose people with the dignity and respect requ
ired, which they deserve simply in virtue of being human beings
, PG&E dealt with them as oneof several obstacles to overcome
in order to achieve its end, namely the highest profits possible.

39. To sacrifice people for profits in such a way isto violate the firs
t principle of deontological ethics, and to deny them their inhere
nt, intrinsic value; doing so is, of course, unethical. PG&E hada
moral obligation to take into consideration the human beings an
d the potential hazards they were being exposed to; to ignore th
ose factors,simply to achieve its goal, is immoral.
Unless the lawyers prosecuting the case against PG&E were trai
ned as Kantian deontologists, it was probably not asked in court
whether theyregarded their actions as universalizable, or follow
ing the Kantian categorical imperative that one act only in accor
dance with that maximthrough which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law. While a lawyer might have a
sked PG&E what the results mighthave been had all energy com
panies had such a cavalier attitude toward exposing human bein
gs to such risks, it seems more plausible thatPG&E would have
been asked this: Would you think you were being treated ethical
ly if you lived in Hinkley? Or perhaps the company was askedif
it would object if such procedures, such as storing water contam
inated with chromium 6, were kept in unlined pools in the neigh
borhoodwhere PG&E's directors, legal team, and all their childr
en lived. In this way, we can bring out the universality test by a
ppealing to the GoldenRule: If you would object to being expos
ed to chromium 6, then obviously it would be wrong to expose o
thers.
Because PG&E's behavior treated others solely as means to an e
nd, and could not defend that behavior as being in conformity w
ith a law thatcould be made universal, it was fundamentally im
moral. Such violations of human dignity cannot be defended on
the basis of profits or otherconsequences; the act itself is in viol
ation of these fundamental principles and must be found to be u
nethical.
Relativism
The relativist has various options here in considering PG&E's b
ehavior. 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

40. risk was not worth it, anddecided to ban all operations of PG&E
from Hinkley. Perhaps the community of Hinkley wished to ma
ke a trade with PG&E: For free natural gasfor the next 50 years,
PG&E could flood the town with water contaminated with chro
mium 6. While the last option seems implausible, it isdifficult t
o see what result the relativist could not, in theory, support; it i
s a function of what the community regards as what is best for t
hecommunity.
One might suggest that appealing to relativism here in drafting
actual legislation and policy would be a logistical nightmare. H
ow is it decidedwhat, precisely, the community supports? Is it d
one on the basis of majority rule? Why would majority rule nece
ssarily be favored by thiscommunity? After all, relativism doesn
't have some in-
principle commitment to democracy or majoritarianism, does it?
Furthermore, if majorityrule is used to determine what the com
munity wishes to do, this brings with it the various objections to
such a procedure that have beenprominent since at least Socrate
s: One thing most of those in the minority are quite familiar wit
h are their views being ignored, or worse, bythose in the majorit
y. As Socrates (and Plato) also observed, experts in a communit
y are rarely the majority of that community; thus, if we wantexp
erts (for instance, on the hazards of chromium 6) to make these
decisions, then that is the rule of the few: an aristocracy or an o
ligarchy.
But in defense of relativism in this context, it is more likely a q
uestion of the general sense of the community's priorities, rather
than a questionof how policy is formulated or legislation enacte
d. Some communities may wish to make the tradeoff: cheaper en
ergy and a higher risk (withinreason) of some cancers; if the ris
k is seen to be relatively low, and the payoff relatively high, so
me communities may think this well worth it. Atthe same time,
other communities may look at the same calculations and data a
nd decide it is not worth the risk; they may choose to decreaseth
e potential health risks and pay higher energy costs. Each comm
unity chooses what is best for that community, and neither is ne

41. cessarilywrong. The one issue that does arise here, however, is t
he traditional question of NIMBY: "Not in My Back Yard." If a
community claims thatPG&E must be able to maintain its coolin
g 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 tower
s have to go in someone's backyard. This is a common feature of
thosenecessary consequences of activities that bring with them
unavoidable risks, such as toxic dumps and hazardous waste inci
nerators. People needthem and want the benefits, but they want
someone else to assume the risks. Here again we run into the pr
oblem of externalities, and thedegree to which these conflicts ha
ve been solved in ways that could generally be regarded—
on any ethical theory—as fair.
Conclusions
Environmental hazards are unavoidable: Whether obtaining natu
ral gas by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"), mining and burning
coal forelectricity, or developing sophisticated antibiotics, man
y technological developments bring with them risks. Evaluating
the benefits and risks is anessential component of making sound
environmental and economic decisions, and it is important—
although often very difficult—
to balance inan appropriate way the demands made on the envir
onment by development and progress with the desire to preserve
and protect the beautyand value of nature. How we view the val
ue of nature—
as having only instrumental value, or also as having intrinsic va
lue—
will do a great dealto determine how we evaluate the issues invo
lved and what balance is to be struck. Assuming, as it is safe to
do, that progress anddevelopment will continue, those concerne
d about also maintaining their commitment to the stewardship of
nature will also continue toconfront vexing and difficult challe
nges.
We have seen a number of the different stresses human beings p
ut on the environment, in terms of the need for resources, be it c

42. oal,petroleum, water, food, or even medicine and health care. A
s we head further into the 21st century, several factors seem esp
ecially crucial:
·
The economic development and increased energy use of countrie
s that in the past made fewer demands on the system: specificall
y the twolargest countries in the world, India and the People's R
epublic 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 t
hat the leadership of thesecountries seems well aware of these c
hallenges.
·
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 a
s real and as likelythe result of human activity (NASA, n.d.). Va
rious consequences may follow from increases in temperature, i
ncluding increased energy instorms (hurricanes, cyclones), muc
h higher sea levels that can inundate low-
lying areas (Manhattan, Bangladesh, Indonesia), and variousthre
ats to animal populations and to the food supply. If climate chan
ge is a genuine threat, then most of the other environmental con
cernspale in comparison.
·
An environment's ability to process, absorb, and otherwise deal
with such hazards to that environment (pollution, waste) is calle
d its "sinkfunction." Some have suggested that human activity, i
f unchecked, risks causing the Earth's sink function, or ability t
o deal with suchstresses on the system, to shut down. Some envi
ronmental economists have argued that this aspect of the Earth's
ecology does not receivesufficient attention, risking long-
term damage to the planet.
Chapter Summary

43. In this chapter, we have looked at some important environmenta
l concerns, although many more important concerns could not b
e examined. Aswe saw, both corporations and individuals have a
role to play in protecting the environment, particularly if both
developed and developingeconomies wish to grow and flourish.
Over the last several decades, society's awareness of the various
threats to the environment has increasedconsiderably, with a re
sulting increased focus on the need to "go green" (or at least gre
ener). While these challenges will persist, and in somecontexts
possibly become worse, with this increased awareness also com
es a new desire to develop more sustainable products and a mor
esustainable approach to development, including minimizing the
human carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible.
Critical Thinking Questions
1.
Name three things you might do to reduce the amount of resourc
es you consume. Do you have a moral or economic reason to do
so? Why orwhy not?
2.
Can something have both intrinsic and instrumental value? If so
, identify it and describe the distinct values it has; if not, explai
n why nothingcan possess both values.
3. Does a corporation have a responsibility—
beyond conforming to existing laws and regulations—
to protect and preserve the environment? Whyor why not?
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:

44. 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 wast
e 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 Programshttp://www.hcn.or
g/articles/clean-coal-is-an-
oxymoron/print_viewhttp://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 Wastehttp://www.dtsc.ca.gov/hazardouswaste/univers
alwaste/

45. Organic Foodhttp://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organic-
food/NU00255
Clean Coalhttp://www.cleancoalusa.org/clean-coal-technology
Now that we have discussed the basics of ethical theory, we can
apply them to actual situations, and see what they have to say a
bout moralissues in specific, concrete situations. This approach
has two practical advantages. First, by seeing how a specific eth
ical theory can be applied toan actual issue, we will see how the
theory can better help us understand what the real problems are
. Ultimately, we may not solve theseproblems in a way that will
satisfy everyone, but we should have a much better grasp of the
problems themselves. This will help us focus ourability to think
about these questions more critically and eliminate some of the
detours, side issues, and irrelevant parts of the debate that mayi
nterfere with our understanding of the questions.
Second, by applying the various theories to actual moral proble
ms, we will also come to better understand the theories themsel
ves. It is onething to understand what a basic ethical position is,
but it can be very helpful to see how that ethical position works
in dealing with difficultethical questions.
In this chapter, we will look at questions that arise when individ
ual rights are threatened or violated, as well as instances when o
ne person'srights may infringe upon another person's rights. As
examples, we will look specifically at school prayer and pornog
raphy. We will also look at ahistorical debate over a woman's ri
ght to vote. This historical discussion should help us realize tha
t some ethical questions can be resolved, andthat talking, and ar
guing, about them may lead to significant changes in people's li
ves.
Each discussion will present a debate on a specific topic. For ex
ample, we will give an argument for why prayer should be allow
ed in publicschools, and then look at the counterargument for w
hy it should be restricted or prohibited. After presenting the deb
ate, we will show howthese positions relate to the ethical theori

46. es in Chapter 1—
in this case, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. On other o
ccasions, we mayapply the same theory in two different ways, to
demonstrate that a specific ethical theory may give quite differ
ent results in some cases. Thiswill help remind us that although
ethics provides guidance and insight into moral issues, very rare
ly does it offer solutions that everyone willaccept. We will then
look at some of the results of the debate and the theories involv
ed, and some of the implications that may emerge fromthose res
ults. After each specific issue is treated in this way, we will brie
fly discuss a different, but related, question that will make clear
some ofthe larger issues involved.
A Brief Review of Ethical Theory
The ethical theories being applied in this chapter are discussed
at greater length in Chapter 1, but as a quick reminder, here are
thebasics of the three classical ethical theories:
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism evaluates the morality of an act in terms of its co
nsequences: Act utilitarianism emphasizes the act itself, and wh
etherwhat one chooses to do will produce, given any other alter
native, the greatest good for the greatest number of those affect
ed bythat choice. Rule utilitarianism focuses on whether the cho
ice conforms to a rule that, in general, produces the greatest ben
efit forthe greatest number of those affected. Because it focuses
on the results of an act in its evaluation, utilitarianism is aconse
quentialist theory of ethics.
Deontology
Deontological theories focus on duty, and the rules one is requir
ed to follow to be moral; this can be seen in the etymology of it
sroot word deon, a Greek work meaning "necessity" or "obligati
on." Deontology does not regard the results of an act as relevant
tothe moral evaluation of that act, and is thus a nonconsequenti
alist theory of ethics.
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics emphasizes the moral character—the virtue—
of the agent in evaluating its morality. Thus, instead of looking

47. at theresults of the act (as in utilitarianism) or the necessary rul
es that constitute morality (as in deontology), virtue ethics turns
itsattention to the person carrying out the act, and whether that
act demonstrates, adds to, or subtracts from the virtue of thatper
son.
In addition, there are other approaches to ethics that were also d
iscussed. Particularly significant for the current discussion isrel
ativism:
Relativism
Relativism argues that there are no objective moral truths, but t
hat any moral evaluation is relative to someone, whether a singl
eperson or a larger group, such as one based on language, cultur
e, gender, ethnicity, ideology, or another type of community.
2.1 Can Ethical Principles Conflict With the Law?
Remy de la Mauviniere/Associated Press
Many French Muslims saw the ban on full-
face veils as a restrictionof their religious freedom.
Laws, for a given society, are designed to guarantee those rights
recognized in asociety, as well as guarantee the security of thos
e who live in it. Debate hasraged for thousands of years about w
hat specific rights and responsibilities areinvolved here. Some a
rgue for a minimal state that does little but guaranteecontracts a
nd protect the safety of citizens by providing secure borders and
such minimal services as police and fire departments. Others ar
gue for a muchbigger role for the state, insisting that the state f
unction to provide health care,education, parks, libraries, unemp
loyment support, and many other socialservices to support a wel
l-
functioning and productive society. Of course, thereare also ma
ny positions in between these two.
Often individual or group ethical principles conflict with the la
ws that governthe state in which the person or group lives. As w
e know from history, onemight be a member of a religious mino
rity in a society where virtually all theother members of the soci

48. ety follow a distinct religious tradition, or even in acountry that
has an official state religion. But even in a society that is diver
seand places a high value on tolerance, this issue can arise. Whe
never a societyenacts laws, there is the potential that those laws
will conflict with the views of some of the individuals in that s
ociety. For instance, a statemay outlaw a drug, or ritual, that a g
roup living in that state regards as sacred and fundamental to its
religious practice. In 2011, Franceoutlawed the wearing of full-
face veils (the niqab) (Erlanger, 2011); many French Muslims (a
nd others) objected to this as a restriction ofreligious practice,
while the French government saw the law as fundamental to pre
serving traditional French culture. Numerous such examplesof t
his kind of conflict—
between a state and the values of those who live in that state—
can be found throughout the world. The issue thisraises for ethic
s 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 d
oes that mean a person must either leave the state—
if that is even possible—
oraccept laws that are fundamentally at odds with his or her mos
t profound ethical (and possibly religious) views? Traditionally,
in a democraticsociety, citizens have the right to organize, expr
ess their opinions, and use the democratic process to change, eli
minate, or enact laws. But whilethat seems to be a theory with
many attractive features, it may be a daunting thing to accompli
sh. 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? Andcan i
t give us any guidance when there is a harsh contradiction betwe
en one's moral viewpoint and the laws of one's society? These a
re difficultquestions that arise within ethics, and particularly wh
en ethics is combined with an examination of the political proce
ss. They may be difficult toanswer, but they are good questions
to keep in mind when thinking about ethics and the moral values
one's state chooses to enforce as itsrules and its laws.

49. 2.2 The Issue: Prayer in Public Schools
Prayer is a particularly personal topic, and thus the role of pray
er for an individual has led to some of the most divisive argume
nts over religiouspractice, such as prayer in public schools. Her
e, will we look at this debate, and then apply the theory of utilit
arianism in two different ways toclarify the issues involved.
Let's examine some of the arguments over whether organized pr
ayer should be allowed in public schools and try to clarify the is
sues involvedby distinguishing between "allowing" prayer and "
promoting" prayer, as well as noting the difference between an i
ndividual praying privately anda group participating in an organ
ized, 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, r
ecognizing this,the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States prohibits any interference with religion. Because
prayer can be considered themost sacred right a religious person
possesses, the government absolutely cannot, and should not, in
terfere with that right by preventingsomeone from praying. As t
he First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respect
ing an establishment of religion, or prohibiting thefree exercise
thereof" (U.S. Const. amend. I). To prohibit school prayer is to
prohibit the free exercise of one's religion. Thus, not only iseli
minating prayer from public schools wrong, it is also unconstitu
tional. Moral and legal reasons demonstrate that prayer in publi
c schoolshould, therefore, be allowed.
Clearly, one's right to prayer is protected by the Constitution; h
owever, there are many other benefits to allowing prayer in publ
ic schools.Religious values, such as honesty, charity, and nonvi
olent problem solving are important to a well-
functioning society. Few places are moreimportant than public s
chools to emphasize these values; indeed, public schools provid
e a tragic example of how these values have beenneglected. Tee
nage pregnancy, STDs, gang violence, and drug and alcohol abu

50. se are common in many public schools. Reminding students that
these are wrong and that there are ways of avoiding them are va
luable moral lessons students need now more than ever.
Fuse/Thinkstock
Some would argue that since fewer people have objected to thec
ustom of saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, history and
practice support allowing prayer in school.
This is not an argument for a specific religion's view to be impo
sed on publicschool students; that would, indeed, violate the lan
guage of the FirstAmendment and what is known as the Establis
hment Clause. Rather, theargument here is for voluntary prayer
for students who wish to participate. Thisallows these students t
o exercise their religious rights and to promote importantmoral
values. Furthermore, most religions promote the same kinds of
moralvalues. The Golden Rule, for instance, can be found in ma
ny different religionsand in many different cultures. To remind
students to treat others as they wouldwant to be treated establis
hes no specific religion and reinforces a valuefundamental to a
well-ordered and moral society.
History and current practice also support allowing prayer in sch
ool. From thefounding of the United States, and for almost 200
years, public schools allowedvoluntary prayer. Thomas Jefferso
n refers to the unalienable rights of Americancitizens as having
been granted by their "Creator" in the Declaration ofIndependen
ce. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives maintain a
chaplain, who begins each legislative session with a prayer; leg
al 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 bothpolitical parties frequently end spe
eches by saying "God bless America." Few people have seen the
se practices as violations of the FirstAmendment.
To prevent students from the exercise of their religion is to requ
ire students to obey the dictates of a nonreligious minority. A sh
ort prayer at acommencement exercise, at a football game, or at
a school assembly not only reminds students of the importance o