by Lime Green Sphere

Created on: May 16, 2008

"The ideals which have lighted me on my way and time after time given me new courage to face life cheerfully, have been Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. . . . The ordinary objects of human endeavour - property, outward success, luxury - have always seemed to me contemptible." - Albert Einstein

First, there is Mill's utilitarianism. In theory, I really like this concept. Make the choice that will have the greatest positive effect on the greatest number of individuals and let that positive effect be evenly distributed among people. Sounds great, but I immediately face a problem with this definition. While equality among races, religion and sex are called for, equality among species is not called for. We often hear of the horrendous torture that animals raised for meat products face, which raises the question, "How does the negative effect on other species compare with the positive effects we may experience from any given decision." Looking at any video from a poultry farm will show that the current consensus is "not very much". When we are aware that other species feel the same pain and discomfort as we do, how can we go on behaving as we do without consideration of these types of ethics? Indeed, it is not economically or practically possible to stop killing other animals (and plants) for our nourishment, but there must be some consideration of the rights of other species to live happy, fulfilling lives. In terms of engineering, I feel this leads to questions like: "If public money can be saved by building a bridge over endangered species' habitat, and utilitarianism shows this benefit far outweighs the negative effect of building elsewhere (where say, people living along the river would have to be displaced), where is the suffering of the endangered species accounted for. Perhaps the other theories will offer an answer.

Kant's formalism states that we must follow universal principles of acceptable behavior. According to this theory we cannot tell white lies because it weakens our sense of conscience. My question is, "who decides what code of ethical behavior we should all follow?" If we can somehow account for other species, indeed, even the benefit for the planet as whole, then this system may solve my overarching question of where is the suffering of the endangered species accounted for.

Next comes Locke's right-based ethics. All individuals are free and equal, and each has a right to life, health, liberty, possessions, and the products of his or her labor. Again, "individuals" is ambiguous, so it is hard to decide exactly how to interpret.

Finally, Aristotle's virtue-based ethics state that happiness is achieved by developing virtues and qualities of character through deduction and reason. The best course of action is usually between the mean of excess and deficiency. I like the second part of this reasoning this having enough, but not too much is the greatest happiness. Indeed, when there is too much we often take it for granted or even waste it. When there is too little, we often suffer in the absence of what we need. But when there is just enough to meet our needs, the balance is achieved between needing and not needing, and the best use of resources to make people happy is achieved.

Learn more about this author, Lime Green Sphere.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.