However, act utilitarian’s would use a different method to decide whether or not we should reduce our carbon emissions; the hedonic calculus. The hedonic calculus has seven elements:
- The intensity of pleasure (how deep)
- The duration of pleasure (how long)
- The certainty of pleasure (how certain)
- The remoteness of pleasure (near or far)
- The chance of succession of pleasures (continuous)
- The purity of pleasure (how secure)
- The extent of the pleasure (how universal)
So if applied to the issue of carbon emissions it can be estimated that act utilitarian’s would work out the amount of pleasure like this: The intensity of the pleasure for us would be medium because we get pleasure out of driving our cars and using factories as they make our lives quicker and easier however the pleasure isn’t extremely intense as a lot of people do not need these luxuries, the duration of pleasure is as long as our lives last and how long future generations manage to enjoy these pleasures before the negative effects of our high levels of emissions start to cause havoc on the atmosphere, the certainty of pleasure is quite certain although not all people find cars and other uses of carbon pleasurable so the certainty is perhaps medium as we cannot guarantee pleasure for everyone, the remoteness of pleasure is very near as it is this generation who is enjoying it now and the future may not, the chance of succession of pleasures is unlikely; it is more likely that the pleasure will not be repeated in years to come for our children and grandchildren as the disastrous consequences start to overtake the levels of pleasure, finally, the extent of pleasure cannot be universalised because not all countries enjoy luxuries such as large industrialisation, cars and heating etc and even in the countries that do own these pleasures it is quite common to see people not using them. From this I deduced that if you do it backwards to calculate the amount of pain for people who do not use machines that produce high levels of emissions and for future generations, the amount of pain outweighs the pleasure and therefore polluting the atmosphere to such an extent is bad and we should not do it.
When utilitarian view of environmental ethics is contrasted with the Christian ethic; situation ethics there are equal differences and similarities.
Rule utilitarian’s have a different view than followers of situation ethics because they believe that you should follow a general rule, instead situation ethics believes that you should follow the moral rule in any situation which means you cannot universalise a specific rule except that in all situations you should act in whatever way you think is most moral.
I think this is comparable with act utilitarian’s who focus not on one rule but on what is the right thing to do in that situation. Although the methods for calculating this are different (pleasure vs. moral) the outcome is likely to be the same. For example, if you consider the issue of deforestation; situation ethics would consider the moral obligation to trees compared to the moral rights of humans who consume wood and paper. Act utilitarian’s would also consider whether humans or trees gave more pleasure and the extent to which pain can be measured in each, this means to what extent can trees feel pain in comparison to how humans feel pain.
In conclusion I believe that the utilitarian approach to environmental issues is perhaps more conclusive than situation ethics, however I think that you cannot make a general decision and that you need to decide whether rule or act utilitarian’s approach is best. This is because the two methods are so diverse and although the decision made by each type may be similar I believe that act utilitarian’s can produce more reasoning for their final judgement. However, I do believe that you cannot come to a general conclusion about which method is a better approach because it does depend on the issue, the person considering it and their point of view.
