In earlier discussions, we have begun to address the question, “How can the value of land or water resources be properly defined and then managed so that human actions toward these resources is what it ought to be?
A utilitarian-based ethic frequently calls for the use of free marked economics as a means of determining value and allocating resources so as to produce “the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time.” This approach is the subject of DesJardins’ Chapter 3 and it is applied to particular cases in the “Discussion Questions.” We will divide the reading and “Questions” over two assignments. For each assignment, you will be assigned one of these questions as the focus for your next blog comment. The assigned questions are given in an e-mail message sent out today. See specific instructions for your blog comment in the assignment web page for Lecture #7.
Question 2
Conservation, as defined in DeJardins, is when natural lands are conserved or set apart in order to be used and controlled by all citizens for their enjoyment and use. Preservation is defined as protecting a natural resource from human activity so that it will not be degraded and will be kept pure. I think in the instance of the Hetch Hetchy I would side with John Muir and the preservationists. My underlying ethical values are that the area being flooded has intrinsic worth as a natural area as well as a partially instrumental worth for humans to enjoy. I think there is definietly room to say that in some cases conservation would be a better route then preservation when the case directly pits human intrinsic worth against natural instrinsic worth. This could change the case if this were the only way the people in this area could get water and if the valley was not flooded all the people in the city would die. Since this is not the case I do not think the benefits to humans outweigh the cost of the natural area, which could never be returned to its former glory.
If Cedarville University happened to have difficulty enrolling students, and therefore decided to attract more students to campus by dropping the Bible Minor requirement, they are in essence at risk of going against their current mission statement. In this statement the University testifies that students will be equipped “through an education…grounded in biblical truth”. This leads us to wonder, “What really would happen if there was no Bible Minor requirement?” Is the current Bible Minor program effective in equipping students in knowledge about biblical truth? Here we define the “good” as getting a valuable and effective education in Bible knowledge and biblical principles. Thus the good is defined by the end result the university promises to achieve, leading to a utilitarian perspective of ethics. Therefore, you assess the need for a Bible Minor based on whether or not it will achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The university could both continue the Bible Minor education and risk a continual decline in student enrollment, or they could drop the Minor requirement and continue as a functioning university with compromised standards. Will the university choose to risk the jobs of numerous employees, or will it compromise its foundational faith and choose to not trust God to provide? The latter, leading to a continuation in employment, is what the utilitarian view would favor in this situation. Obviously there are some deeper issues to discuss and contemplate here than there is space to write about!
Before responding to the question of whether I would support Pinchot’s conservationist policies or Muir’s preservationist policies, I want to be careful and nuance my stance with moderation. To say that either approach is always right without any qualifications would be too extreme in my judgment. However, in regard to the Hetch Hetchy valley and similar wilderness areas, I would side with Pinchot and the conservationists. The preservationist viewpoint is unacceptable because it denies access to world’s resources for humans who can benefit in various ways from those resources. Therefore, based upon the value I place upon the sanctity of human life compared to the value of habitat, I prefer a conservationist approach toward wilderness areas.
Answer to Question #1:
I believe that if a ski resort opened in a wilderness area near my home, I would be willing to pay money to visit it. A statement like this raises a number of questions, the foremost of which asks “is this evidence that you prefer development to wilderness preservation?” This ultimately questions the method I take when my entertainment desires confront my environmental ethic. The answers to questions such as this, while never simple, must be informed by a careful understanding of the values (virtues) that serve as the motivation for the actions, not simply the quantified end result. I believe that a creative synthesis of the ideas proposed by both sides of the argument is the correct answer to this specific problem, and a guide for similar problems. The preservationist side makes some important points about the non-quantifiable aspects of the wilderness area. However, if carefully constructed with a thorough view of all the implications, the resort could serve to widen the appeal of the wilderness area to people who would not otherwise utilize the area. With this train of thinking, I do not think that the question of preferring development to preservation is a fair or applicable question in this situation. Finally, to respond to the third question of this discussion, I think that often the things that people pay for are not necessarily the things they most value. A great example of this is family and friends, there is no way to quantify or reduce to calculable values the benefit of loving relationships in one’s life.
answer to question #1
If we accept a Utilitarian view of things we begin to see things in a little different light. In this view nature does not have any value of its own, but it is only given value to the extent that it helps and satisfies man’s desires. The optimal way to determine what will satisfy the most people for the longest time is to have a free market system. Then it is possible to determine what most people want the most by where they spend their money. If we were to apply this thinking to a situation where a Disney-like resort were to open in a wilderness area, we would be able to determine if it would satisfy most people by whether or not they would be willing to pay for it or not. If they would be willing to pay for it, it would be evidence that they prefer development to wilderness, according to a Utilitarian view. Even though this view seems logical it is lacking in some areas. It views people merely as consumers and does not consider them as citizens with goals and beliefs that are not always evidenced by where we spend our money. Even though people may seems to be more willing to spend money on a ski resort than to visit a wilderness does not mean that they value the development over wilderness. They may just believe that they should not have to pay to visit nature, but believe that it should always be there for us to enjoy.