Unit 3: Theory of Ethics andEnvironmental Ethics (15%)

Syllabus:

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theory of egoism and subjectivism
3.3 Cultural relativism
3.4 Approaches to environmental issues
3.5 Opposition to green environment
3.6 ROI of sustainable environmental responsibility

3.1 INTRODUCTION:

In the study of ethics there are three types: intuition-based, end-based and duty- based.
These three types of ethics seek to describe the rules, behavioural trends and moral codes that
govern human behaviour.

Ethics Types:

1. Intuition-Based Ethics

Intuition based ethics stem from the Aristotelian philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato.
Aristotle felt that human beings are born with natural senses of right and wrong. He thought
that humans have two types of virtues, intellectual virtues and appetites. Intellectual virtues
involve the rational mind and making conscious decisions, and appetites refer to a person's
desire or emotional response. Sexual desire would be an example of an appetite. Aristotle felt
that the key to moral living and ethical behaviour is balancing intellectual virtues with
appetites; a person must find a happy medium between satiating desire and using the intellect.

2. End-Based Ethics

End-based ethics require a person to do whatever will produce the greatest good. Forexample,
if a doctor is sick and needs a new kidney, then you might decide to sacrifice your life in order
to give the doctor your kidney so that she could become healthy and save thousands of lives.
In this way, you have performed a morally acceptable action, as you have sacrificed your own
life in order to save thousands of lives. Even if you sacrificed your kidney hatefully and with
contempt for the doctor this action is still considered morally right since your intention does
not matter. The only thing that matters is the greatest good in the end result.

3. Duty-Based Ethics

In duty-based ethics, your intention is of primary concern. Those in support of duty- based
ethics argue that you can never know what will actually produce the best result, so end-based
ethics are not possible. As a result, what matters is your intention to do well; although each
person may have a different concept of what constitutes a good action; individuals ought to
do whatever they think is the right thing.

3.2 THEORY OF EGOSIM AND SUBJECTIVISM:

The purpose of ethical theories is to put in place a system of principles individuals use to
make moral choices and to justify those choices. By doing this, the ultimate goal is to help
people lead the best life possible for themselves and for society.
Ethical egoism and ethical subjectivism approach these goals in different ways.

Ethical Egoism:

Ethical egoism contends each person has a duty to act in ways that promote his or her self-
interest above the interests of all others. When a moral decision must be made, the person
should exclusively consider how the results will benefit him or her.This differs from other
types of ethical theories which give weight to how the choice will affect others as well. For
example, if you would benefit more from keeping Rs.
10,000 than you would from donating it to charity then the morally correct decisionwould be to
keep the money for yourself if you are an ethical egoist.

Ethical Subjectivism:

Ethical subjectivism argues that no ethical theory is objectively true. Statements contained in
those theories, such as the duty to act in one’s self interest, are only true as long as they are
believed by the person holding the theory. Therefore, ethics becomes less a matter of what is
objectively true and more a matter of individual perception. If Person A believes it is morally
right to keep Rs. 10,000 instead of donating it to charity then for Person A that is the ethical
thing to do. However, if Person B believes donating the money to others would be ethically
correct then for Person Bthat is the correct ethical decision.

Main Difference between the Theories:

Ethical subjectivism contends that objective concepts of good and evil or right and wrong
do not exist. This leads into other theories such as moral relativism which suggests these
concepts are determined by agreement.

On the other hand, ethical egoism argues that what is right and good is the action thatpromotes
a person’s self-interest. Likewise, what is wrong and bad goes against that person’s self-
interest. Additionally, the ethical egoist believes his or her decisions can be objectively
justified by weighing the benefits for them and the costs for them. However, the ethical
subjectivist would argue that those supposedly objective justifications are really just
subjective statements of the person’s values and desires.

Whether one thinks it is ethically right to donate to charity or keep the money is not much
different for the ethical subjectivist then thinking chocolate or vanilla ice cream is the best
flavor.

Common Ground between Theories:

The common theme: the importance of the individual.

In both theories what is right and wrong comes down to the beliefs, values, and interests of
the person making the moral decision. In fact because no one can never predict the full
ramifications of their ethical decisions, it could be argued that ethical egoists are merely
basing their decisions on what they perceive to be best for them at the time and not on
objective criteria.

3.3 CULTURAL RELATIVISM:

Meaning:
Cultural relativism is the ability to understand a culture on its own terms and not to make
judgments using the standards of one's own culture. The goal of this is promote understanding
of cultural practices that are not typically part of one's own culture.

Have you ever seen or eaten food from another country, such as dried squid or fried crickets
and think of it as weird and gross? This is an example of ethnocentrism! That means you use
your own culture as the center and evaluate other cultures based on it. You are judging, or
making assumptions about the food of other countries based on your own norms, values, or
beliefs. Thinking “dried squid is smelly” or “people shouldn’t eat insects” are examples of
ethnocentrism in societies where people may not eat dried squid or insects.

Is ethnocentrism bad or good?

On the one hand, ethnocentrism can lead to negative judgments of the behaviors of groups or
societies. It can also lead to discrimination against people who are different. For example, in
many countries, religious minorities (religions that are not the dominant religion) often face
discrimination.

But on the other hand, ethnocentrism can create loyalty among the same social groupor people
in the same society. For example, during the World Cup or Olympics, you may tend to root
for your own country and believe that the players or teams representing your country are much
better. National pride is also part of ethnocentrism.

To avoid judging the cultural practices of groups that are different to yours, we can use
the cultural relativism approach. Cultural relativism refers to not judging a culture to our
own standards of what is right or wrong, strange or normal. Instead, we should try to
understand cultural practices of other groups in its own cultural context. For example, instead
of thinking, “Fried crickets are disgusting!” one should instead ask, “Why do some cultures
eat fried insects?”. You may learn that fried crickets or grasshoppers are full of protein and in
Mexico, it is famous Oaxaca regional cuisine and have been eaten for thousands of years as a
healthy food source!

Examples:
 Many countries and international organizations oppose the act of whaling (the fishing
 of whales) for environmental reasons. These environmental organizations say that
there are not many whales left and such fishing practices should be stopped. However,
other countries argue that whaling is a cultural practice that has been around for
thousands of years.
 In one of the African countries, Fathers of the families are killed when they are in their
50’s or 60’s. They believe that if their fathers die early with good health,and when they
are reborn, they will be healthy. So as a sign of more love Human Values and respect
towards to their fathers, they kill them early that before they become attacked by the
diseases of the old age. But for the people of the other cultures, when they look at this
kind of above mentioned practice, they will see it as an act of foolishness. In all the
cultures we have great respect for our parents but we show it to them in different ways.
Therefore whatever people of all the culture do is right according to them but they act
on a particularobjective value indirectly.

Anthropologists say that when we think about different cultures and societies, we should
think about their customs in a way that helps us make sense of how their cultural practices fit
within their overall cultural context. For example, having several wives perhaps makes
economic sense among herders who move around frequently.Through such an understanding,
polygamy makes cultural sense.

Moreover, each individual is a member of various groups at the same time like cultural,
ethnic, linguistic, and religious and so on. The values that exist in eachof these groups
can conflict with each other. It is up to each individual’s choice to resolve the conflicts.

3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND ITSAPPROACHES:

Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers extending

the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the nonhuman
world. Environmental ethics is about including the rights of nonhuman animals in our
ethical and moral values.

Human beings are a part of the society and so are the other living beings. When we talk about
the philosophical principle that guides our life, we often ignore the fact that even plants and
animals are a part of our lives. They are an integral part of the environment and hence have a
right to be considered a part of the human life.

As per the approaches to environmental issues, the Biggest Environmental Problems of

2020 are as follows:

 The climate crisis is accelerating at an unprecedented rate, and we are not ready for it.
While the crisis has many factors that play a role in its exacerbation, there are some that
warrant more attention than others.
 Poor Governance.
 Food Waste.
 Biodiversity Loss.
  Plastic Pollution.
 Deforestation.
 Air Pollution.
 Agriculture.
 Food and Water Insecurity
 Melting Ice Caps
 Global Warming from Fossil Fuels

Features of Environmental Ethics:

1) Environmental ethics is extended. Traditional ethics mainly concerns intra- human

duties, especially duties among contemporaries. Environmental ethicsextends the
scope of ethical concerns beyond one’s community and nation to include not only all
people everywhere, but also animals and the whole of nature.
2) Environmental ethics is interdisciplinary.
3) Environmental ethics is global. Ecological crisis is a global issue. Environmental
pollution does not respect national boundaries. No country candeal with this issue
alone. To cope with the global environmental crisis, human beings must reach some
value consensus and cooperate with each other at the personal, national, regional,
multinational and global levels.

APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS:

The principal approaches to environmental ethics are:

1) Anthropocentrism: the human-centered approach

2) Biocentrism: the life-centered approach
3) Ecocentrism: the ecosystem-centered approach.
Anthropocentrism:

It is a philosophical viewpoint arguing that human beings are the central or most significant
entities in the world. This is a basic belief embedded in many Western religions and
philosophies. Anthropocentrism regards humans as separate from and superior to nature and
holds that human life has intrinsic value while other entities (including animals, plants,
mineral resources, and so on) are resources that may justifiably be exploited for the benefit of
humankind.

An anthropocentric environmental ethic grants moral standing exclusively to human beings

and considers nonhuman natural entities and nature as a whole to be only a means for human
ends. In one sense, any human outlook is necessarily anthropocentric, since we can
apprehend the world only through our own senses. Anthropocentricism results in destruction
of the planet.

The Implications of this view are:

1. The anthropocentric view suggests that humans have greater intrinsic value than other
species. A possible result of this attitude is that any species that are of potential use to
humans are a “resource” to be exploited. This has, historically, usually occurred in an
unsustainable fashion that results in degradation, sometimes to the point of extinction, of
nonhuman species, as has occurred with the dodo, great auk, and other animals.

2. The view that humans have greater intrinsic value than other species also influences
ethical judgments about interactions with other organisms. These ethics are often used to
legitimize treating other species in ways that would be considered morally unacceptable if
humans were similarly treated. For example, animals are often treated cruelly in medical
research and agriculture. This treatment of other species has been labelled “speciesism”
by some ethicists.

3. Another possible implication of the anthropocentric view is the belief that humans are the
height of the natural evolutionary progression of species and of life. This belief is often
said to be in contrast to the modern biological theory of evolution, which does not find
any scientific use for ranking some species as “higher” than any others.

 Thus, anthropocentric views can be, and often have been, used to justify unlimited violence
against the nonhuman world. However, it should also be noted that such violence does not
follow as a logical necessity from all forms of anthropocentrism. For example, an
anthropocentrism that views human beings as charged with a
 caretaking or nurturing mission with respect to the rest of Nature might urge humanbeings
to be mindful of the nonhuman.

 The individual, cultural, and technological skills of humans are among the attributes
that make our species, Homo sapiens, special and different. The qualities of humans
have empowered the species to a degree that no other species has achieved during
the history of life on Earth.

Biocentrism:

Biocentrism, ethical perspective holding that all life deserves equal moral consideration or
has equal moral standing.

Although elements of biocentrism can be found in several religious traditions, it was not until
the late decades of the 20th century that philosophical ethics in the Western tradition
addressed the topic in a systematic manner.

Roots of biocentric ethics can be found in a number of traditions and historical figures. The
first of the five basic precepts of Buddhist ethics is to avoid killing or harming any living
thing. The Christian saint Francis of Assisi preached to animals and proclaimed a biocentric
theology that explicitly included animals and plants.

Much of the history of environmental ethics can be understood in terms of anexpanding range
of moral standing. Traditional Western ethics has always been anthropocentric, meaning that
only presently living human beings deserve moral consideration. As environmental issues
such as nuclear waste disposal, humanpopulation growth, and resource depletion came to the
fore, many ethicists argued that moral standing should be extended to include future
generations of human beings. The animal welfare and animal rights movement argued for an
extension of moral standing to at least some animals, and arguments followed to extend
moral standing to plants and then to such ecological wholes as ecosystems, wilderness areas,
species, and populations.

All living beings, simply by virtue of being alive, have moral standing and deserve moral
consideration.

The good of all living beings creates responsibilities on the part of human beings:

Non-maleficence: Requires that no harm be done to living beings, although it does not
commit human beings to the positive duties of preventing harm from happeningor of aiding
in attaining the good.

Noninterference: requires not interfering with an organism’s pursuit of its own goals.

Fidelity: Requires not manipulating, deceiving, or otherwise using living beings as mere
means to human ends.
 Restitutive justice: Requires that humans make restitution to living beings whenthey
have been harmed by human activity.

Ecocentrism:

Ecocentrism sees the ecosphere – comprising all Earth's ecosystems, atmosphere, water and
land – as the matrix which birthed all life and as life's sole source of sustenance. It is a
worldview that recognizes intrinsic value in ecosystems and the biological and physical
elements that they comprise, as well as in the ecological processes that spatially and
temporally connect them. So, when human wants clash with the health of the Earth as a
whole or any of its ecosystems, the former should, practically and ethically speaking, give
way to the latter: human needs, like the needs of other species, are secondary to those of the
Earth as the sum of its ecosystems.

This environmental ethic is grounded in a belief that the whole cosmos is more important,
inclusive, older, and holds more significance than one species (Humans) alone. Unlike the
anthropocentric and biocentric beliefs that fixate on humans and livings beings, eco-centric
belief goes beyond the two, as in an eco-centric perceptionof nature encapsulates everything.

This scientific rationale enlightens the significance of ecosystem and the need for a
methodical change in life. The current Covid-19 pandemic scenario has forced us to
rethink our perception towards nature. It has made us realize where we stand in this
complex ecosystem, how fragile our existence is. We make an impact on our
surroundings and so we are bound to get affected by it – be it a fast- spreading outbreak
such as the Covid-19 or a natural disaster (forest fires in the United States, the Amazon,
etc.). This calls for a necessary shift from an anthropocentric vision to an eco-centric
vision of life.

The changes that the ecocentrism worldview demand are many, but high up thepriority
list are as follows:

 Humanely transitioning to a far smaller human population

 Dramatically curbing our voracious appetite for carbon
 Swiftly moving from industrial agriculture to genuinely sustainable and humane food
systems
 Help in conservation of our natural resources.
 We can – indeed, are obliged to – play a part in the necessary changes, not only by
considering our own ecological impacts as individuals, but also throughactivism.

We must nevertheless strive now to do all that can be done to see the necessarychanges
happen.
3.5 Opposition to Green Environment:

Is Going Green Worth It?

Sometimes being green can be easy and a worthwhile business pursuit. A concern for social
responsibility can increase the bottom line as consumers search for more sustainable food and
household products and prepare to part with larger sums of money to support personal
beliefs. In addition, it also increased revenue and the reputation of a corporation.

It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power
will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. So Going Green can take some
time, because making the decision to go green can happen overnight, but putting it into
practice can take time. Another reason is the initial investment can be costly. Green
technology is fairly new and being developed on a relatively small scale.

Some companies have made an effort to become more environmentally friendly, also known
as “going green.”

Reasons for going green can include achieving better public relations, tapping into thegrowing
green market or even because the company may simply feel it is the right thing to do to help
protect the environment. Greening a company can involve changes to lessen greenhouse gas
emissions, use safer, non-toxic chemicals in products, protect ecosystems, or all of the above.

However, there can be a number of disadvantages to going green for corporations.

Going green can help protect the earth's natural systems, but for businesses, it often means
bearing extra costs that can be difficult to absorb.

1. The Switch Can Be Expense

It can be costly for a corporation to go green initially. For example, the switch to solar power
will create the need to install solar panels at business facilities. The cost reductions in energy
savings gained by going green are not always enough to offset the initial upfront conversion
costs. In some locations, however, tax benefits are provided that can help companies offset
the costs of making the switch.
Even switching energy suppliers – purchasing wind-power electricity, say, rather than
conventional electricity from a petrochemical-fueled power plant – can mean paying a
premium price for the green energy source.

2. Pushes Up the Price of Products

In some cases, the switch to using green materials can lead to higher costs in your production
process or elsewhere in your facility. A furniture manufacturer, who switches suppliers to
buy only sustainably harvested wood will likely have to pay a premium price for his lumber.
The larger costs either have to be passed along to customers in terms of higher prices or
have to come at the company's expense in terms of a smaller profit margin on its products.

3. Going Paperless Means Data Risks

For some companies, a common method of going green is to minimize or even eliminate the
use of paper. This can pose some disadvantages. For example, if employees lose or
experience the theft of laptop computers, sensitive information that would normally be kept in
a locked paper file could fall into the wrong hands. If companies don’t properly back up their
computer files, a system crash could prove disastrous.
Paper records, however "nineteenth century" they may seem, still serve as a valuablebackup to
the electronic documents that dominate record-keeping in the modern era.

4. Customer Backlash
Companies may intentionally or unintentionally make false claims regarding the
environmental friendliness of their products, a process known as “green washing.” A product
that insists it has "no added chemicals" for example could be criticized for its choice of
wording, since even naturally-derived ingredients consist of chemical substances. If
consumers become aware that a company is engaging in green washing, the company may
suffer harm to its credibility.

3.6 ROI of sustainable environmental responsibilityMeaning of ROI:

Return on Investment (ROI) is a performance measure used to evaluate the efficiency or
profitability of an investment or compare the efficiency of a number of different investments.
ROI tries to directly measure the amount of return on a particular investment, relative to the
investment’s cost.

To calculate ROI, the benefit (or return) of an investment is divided by the cost of the
investment. The result is expressed as a percentage or a ratio.

Meaning of ROI of Sustainable Environment:

Business executives and customers agree that companies should be concerned with their
impact on the environment. It’s also true that an increasing number of organizations are
incorporating sustainability into their business strategies, taking steps to reduce waste and use
resources more efficiently.

However, no matter what the companies are doing for sustainable development, the
prime focus still lies on measuring and maximizing the company’s profitability. This is
where the measurement of ROI of sustainable environment comes into picture.

ROI of Sustainable Environment = Gains obtained from sustainable environment

_
Cost of Investment for sustainable environment

ROI of Sustainable Environment is a performance measure used to evaluate the gains

produced as a result of corporate sustainability initiatives relative to the amount of money
invested in those initiatives.

The “gains” produced by sustainability efforts may comein different forms:

An increase in investor demand.

Around the globe, investors are increasingly looking for ESG [Environmental, Social
Governance] funds. Even as per Forbes report, investors are preferring investing in
companies having more focus on environmental sustainability. The number of sustainable
investment funds have increased by nearly 50%, with a record number of them—37. Not
only did the sustainable funds attract record net flows, but most of them also finished the
year in the top half of their respective categories. Hence, we can conclude that by
focusing on environmental sustainability will definitely grab eyeballs as well as investors
money. And obtaining financing is very crucial for expansion and diversification. This can
help a firm in maximising its profitability.

An increase in brand value.

Reports have shown that even the consumers are preferring to purchase from the
companies which are involved in sustainable development. Thus, it helps to increase the
brand value of a company. This has also encouraged the companies to continue with the
social endeavour. This is based on the belief of the people that by sustainable development
only we can go a long way. A very good example is of Tata Group of Companies. Tatas
have always been involved in sustainable development and hence they are one of the top
most leading and most profitable companies since decades in India. Such is the power of
sustainable development.

Increased employee engagement.

What employer doesn’t want employees who are “all-in” when it comes to their mission?
Mostly employees want to work for a company that is environmentally and socially
responsible as they feel it shall be in their best interests. Other research has shown that
providing a healthy, green environment for your employees to work in boosts their
productivity and satisfaction levels, as well as improves their overall health. Employees
are the most valuable asset for a company and hence it is very important to keep them
satisfied. Only satisfied and happy employees can help a company go a long way.