1. There are two main ethical viewpoints that policy analysts view cases through. One is utilitarianism, which believes an action is morally right if it creates the greatest net happiness. It seeks to favor the majority over the minority and focuses on the consequences (“Utilitarian”). The second viewpoint is deontology, which believes an action is morally right if it follows preset rules/laws. It oftens goes hand and hand with religion and doesn’t care about the consequences (Shakil).
Two cases that can be seen through both viewpoints include the Spotted Owl Case and the Love Canal Case. In the case of the Spotted Owls, logging was destroying the habitats of the Spotted Owl on the West Coast. A struggle between environmentalists and the
…show more content…
However two cases, the Spotted Owl case and the fracking case, have excellent examples of them. In the Spotted Owl case, the case applies to both conservation and preservation. Originally the environmentalists bent on saving the Spotted Owls’ habitat followed the preservation ethic. They wanted to stop the logging around the Spotted Owl habitat overall. They wanted to keep the nature there intact. As the case progressed, it unfortunately became obvious that the logging companies wouldn’t settle for that when they kept pressing for policy in their favor. The environmentalists then settled on conservation by naming the Spotted Owl an endangered species in 1990. They settled for a radius around Spotted Owl nests, which diminished logging but didn’t completely stop it. They allowed laws like the Northwest Forest Plan, which made sure that companies planted new trees when they cut one down, to be enacted, which leaned towards conservation(Layzer). In the fracking case, opponents of fracking use land ethics to stand against it. They want to prevent the pollution that fracking causes and prefer to do that rather than use fracking to gather oil, which is better than oil drilling but it’s still not good
These two sides of the issue bring about a major controversy in America today. Should the Pacific Northwest’s old growth forests and the welfare of the Northern Spotted Owl be sacrificed for America’s economy, and the jobs of the people in the logging industry? Which should be placed at a higher value, the forests in the Pacific Northwest and the northern spotted owl, or the American economy and the jobs and welfare of thousands and thousands of people?
The mere mention of the creature’s name brings shudders to loggers and some local inhabitants, fear over its existence has incited rallies, garnered the attention of three government agencies, and caused people to tie themselves to trees. On April 2, 1993, President Bill Clinton embarked on a quest to settle a long-standing battle. The environmentalists on one side, and their attempts to protect natural resources, and the timber industry’s desire for the same on the other. Unemployment and economic devastation was said to surely follow, due to the loss of timber industry jobs. No trees were allowed to be cut within 70 acres of The Northern Spotted Owl’s nest. Other laws protected trees in a 2,000-acre circle around the birds.
One of the main reasons that burrowing owls are becoming endangered is because the habitat changes in the United States. They require grasslands to look for holes to nest in. Since burrowing owls are unable dig their own holes they rely on prairie dogs, badgers, and gophers. Most people consider the above animals to be a hassle because they dig holes in places they shouldn’t they end up getting killed off by poisons. Burrowing owls are predators, but because they are the smallest of all the owls they are not on the top of the owl food chain. This puts them at risk for becoming prey to other predators in the wild such as other owls, coyotes, badgers, and several other predators.
In 1987, when the Endangered Species Act was put into practice, the Federal Wildlife Service refused to list the Northern Spotted Owl. The FWS was then sued by the National Audubon Society to list the Species. During this time period, it was discovered that when examining the Northern Spotted Owl for its listing the FWS had looked at both the economics and the politics in ...
The theories of utilitarianism which is a branch of consequentialism and deontology both focus on what makes an act right, or in this case a controversial policy justifiable. However, there are intrinsic differences to both in term of what the meaning of morality and their ultimate goal. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the maximum benefit that can be achieved for everyone. (Cohen & Grace 14) While, Deontology is concerned with balancing the need to be both legally in the right and morally in the right. (Cohen & Grace 16) In followi...
People have opinions and ideas when it comes to ethical dilemmas. There are many examples: The debate on abortion, the trolley problem, and moral absolutism, to name just a few. In all of these examples it appears that emotion and feelings will, at some point, override an important ethical decision that needs to be made. An important factor of an ethical dilemma is how and when it might appear. Some dilemma's, like the debate on abortion, can appear in a way that there is time to talk through all options and available ethical concepts. In this type of dilemma it is possible to see how moral rules and ethical theories can be discussed and a decision made through compromise. In contrast, when a situation that poses dire ethical consequences calls for a moral action there must be a solution that is grounded in moral principle and that can be accessed quickly and efficiently producing the most desirable results. The principal that would seem the best candidate in these situations is consequentialism.
My presentation is about the snowy owl the biome it lives in and the plant I chose to present.
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
Having considered both sides of the argument surrounding the Endangered Species Act, it seems logical to conclude that, despite the fact that they Endangered Species Act could stand some improvement in terms of the speed of the bureaucracy that governs it, the Act itself is quite sufficient as is as long as it is administered to the full extent of its power. There is a growing tendency in government, however, to undermine the strength of the Endangered Species Act by making decisions on when and where to apply it a political matter rather than an ecological matter (Munro, 2010). To do this is to insure that ultimately it will not just be the environment and the wile organisms that live in it that will lose, it will be mankind as well.
A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior (Fieser, 2009). Many of the decisions one faces in a typical day could result in a multitude of outcomes. At times it can be hard to determine whether or not the decision you are making is an ethical one. Many philosophies have been devised to illustrate the different ways of evaluating moral decisions. Normative ethics focuses on assessing right and wrong behavior. This may involve reinforcing positive habits, duties we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior (Fieser, 2009). Of the many normative philosophies two stand out to be most accepted; teleology and deontology. Although they oppose each other in how actions are evaluated, they uphold many similar characteristics under the surface.
Deontology, on the other hand, emphasizes on the moral intuitions that guide one’s conscience for or against certain actions (Curcă, 2013). Deontologists are the opposites of utilitarians because the essential judgment of taking or not taking a course of action is observed in its strictest sense. Apart from feelings and conditions, deontologists also consider the consequences of not following religious rules and natural laws of morality to guide every course of action. Thus, deontologists value three major principles of decision-making: intrinsic morality, the duty of care, and the moral consequences of an action.
Two ideologies that exist in ethics and apply to decision-making are utilitarian and deontological viewpoints. Ethical theories provide a systematic approach to decision-making toward the applications of standard principles. “In utilitarian ethics, outcomes justify the means or ways to achieve it” (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016, p. 5). Decisions made considering utility are based benefitting the greatest number of people. In utilitarianism, outcomes determine the moral nature of interventions. Some people are to experience harm, but the overall outcome is good for most individuals. Applying utilitarianism personally or professionally seems relevant when considering its ideology maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. Utilitarianism
One justifies a group of people in order to help a bigger group. And the other does not allow cases when causes harm to other people. It takes advantage of our happiness for the society. Society need good in deed, it is meaning to have a great happiness rather than sadness, not everything will have too unhappy just because of one little mistake. Everyone has a choice whether they want to be happy or not but most of all action is right. Deontology is only concerned with duties and obligations, they want everyone to follow their rules and do what is right. For example, the president of the United States makes a rule about health care, either way everyone has to follow what the conduct book says. No matter what anyone says we do what is right. Fulfilling a duty is like having to say we are responsible enough to take care of what needs to be done. Laws are morally good for people who are capable of following what is right. Everyone should be treated equally by everyone. They are both competing whether it is right or wrong, while they only believe that consequences can solve the problem of an act. It would be producing of how great good for the greatest number of people. It harms the innocent people that has been doing only the right thing. Both ethical theory has two different perspectives of what they want to prove the society, they both have a good point on each other. Finally, no one will be right or wrong because