Aisha Tahmina

HOW FAR WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS MORE OF A CONCERN FOR A RELIGIOUS BELIEVER
THAN A UTILITARIAN ?

After many years of misinterpretation of Genesis 1:26 ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness; let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air’, Christians today understand ‘dominion’ to
be not power, as it was once thought, but stewardship and responsibility. It is after all these years, perhaps
driven by guilt over the neglected environment that Christians now take an active role in the environment.
With increasing evidence for the adverse effects we as humans have had on the environment such as climate
change, overpopulation, air pollution, depletion of the ozone layer, species extinction and more, it is time that
the people of the Earth began to consider the impact of their actions and do something about it.

For theists, the environment is much of a concern. From the Old Testament the Judeo-Christian religions have
come to understand that they were created imago dei- in the image of God. This is not referring to our physical
attributes but our ability to reflect over our actions and rationalise as to what the right course of action to take
is. For a long time the Christian faith was anthropocentric as the theists believed themselves to be the pinnacle
of creation as humans were created last in the order of creation. A lot of Genesis does imply that God created
the world for humans; for example God said, ‘I give you every seed bearing plant on the face of the whole
earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food‘. However, nowadays after
religious believers recognised that dominion did not mean power but insinuated stewardship they feel a
profound responsibility for the Earth to combat environmental issues. One might say that the environment is
more of a concern for a religious believer than a non-religious person because they feel guilt over thousands of
years of misinterpretation of Genesis which they now feel is their duty to correct. Or else it could be that they
feel they must show their obedience to God by obeying his command and conserving nature because that is
what God actually intended when he made humans in His image. It would be true to deduce from this
observation that theists are protecting the environment for God and not because they feel it has any intrinsic
worth. Is this the right way to consider the environment? It would seem here that the environment is put
second to the relationship a theist wishes to have with God. The Church is more concerned with saving souls
than saving seals.

In Utilitarian perspective, the decisions made around the environment are based on the Utilitarian principle of
‘the greatest happiness/ pleasure for the greatest number’. It would seem that this general principle would be
in the best interests of the preservation of the environment as this would benefit the majority. Not only is this
about the welfare of our current population but the future generations too. With Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism,
the emphasis is on the maximisation of pleasure which includes future generations along with the present. This
means that the pleasure and pain of all those involved must be weighed up. We would probably find that the
maximisation of pleasure would be in favour of environment conservation as we are aware now of how our
actions influence the world and pain would come from things like ground-level smog as a result of increased
fuel combustion, higher risks of skin cancer contributed by the depletion of the ozone layer which is due to
CFCs in the atmosphere. David Pearce, a modern Utilitarian uses the cost/benefit analysis as a means of
working out the right thing to do. However using this approach we may not realise whether economic worth or
aesthetic worth in the same quantities gives higher pleasure. Rule Utilitarianism can contribute here as it looks
at hierarchy of pleasures. The enjoyment and study of nature is one of the high pleasures one can indulge in
and so the environmental preservation is imperative. This means that Rule Utilitarianism also supports the
preservation of the environment.

Conversely, Preference Utilitarianism might not take such a positive attitude towards the protection of the
environment. Preference Utilitarianism, as outlined by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, defines ‘good’
as getting what we want. Preference Utilitarianism seeks to find the most moral course of action which will
bring the most satisfaction to the present generation. This would mean that if we carry on leading satisfactory
lives with our big carbon footprints and miles and miles of air-miles, and as long as it doesn’t affect our
generation in a bad way then the case for the preservation of the environment is weak. We can carry on in our
Aisha Tahmina

destructive path without much thought. In this sense, the environment would be more of a concern for the
theist than it would be for the preference utilitarian.

Utilitarianism mainly uses the environment as a means to an end, the use of the environment must produce
the greatest benefit for humans. It can be thought of as quite a selfish way to view the environment, but unlike
Christian view, it is based upon calculation and not interpretation which is surely the way forward. Would one
say that the environment is more of a concern for the Utilitarian though? We need to consider whether the
Utilitarian is considering issues in the long term or short term. If we were to take a case such as the building of
a games resort in a forest area then in the short term it might generate jobs for local people and bring more
tourism in which would make many people very happy but in the long term it would mean that there are
higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and this contributes to global warming which could see the
destruction of many peoples’ homes in the future.

A Natural Moral Law believer would say take an anthropocentric view also, they believe that humans have a
higher purpose than the environment and observing human nature can lead us to agree with humans taking
control over the environment. All things have a purpose and a natural law thinker might either focus on the
telos of the natural world, giving it intrinsic worth but more likely the other opinion which is to consider the
purpose of the environment to serve us and meet our needs. The five primary precept are; preservation of
life, reproduction, nurture and education for the young, living peacefully in society and to worship God.
Though we may think humans to be higher beings, it is still true to say that plants and animals have life and the
first precept is to preserve life and therefore this is in favour of conservation. Taking ‘to worship God’, as was
discussed earlier, the natural moral law thinker would treat nature well as God gave them stewardship as is
understood today. Living peacefully in society would constitute that if we are to do this we should protect the
environment as the connections between the environment and our lives are much intertwined and to disrupt
nature can cause disruption in our lives also. Yet at the same time the precept of reproduction could lead to
overpopulation which is a type of pollution in itself.

Unlike Natural Moral Law which is a deontological theory, Utilitarianism is a consequential ethical theory.
There is a definitely a fundamental flaw in this type of thinking. What may be decided in response to what we
conceive at the present moment, the mathematical models statistically and objectively predicting the future of
our world- how can we really know the implication of our actions? Even now there are doubts as to whether
climate change is partly our fault or whether this is a natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature over many
thousands of years. Yet it is difficult to think of natural moral law as a non-consequential theory when it comes
to matters around the environment. The follower of natural moral law must consider how the environment
will serve us. Whilst the natural moral law thinker might eat meat as they believe the purpose of a cow was to
provide us with meat for sustenance, they may also look at the bigger picture and say that the environment
would best meet our needs if we treat it well at the present time. It is difficult to separate consequentiality
from morality when it comes to concern for the environment.

Situation ethicists take a liberal view as they are relativists, but work around the rule ‘Do the most loving
thing’. How could this be applied to the environment? Would we consider the environment as our neighbour,
and ‘love thy neighbour as you love yourself’? This would mean we gave nature intrinsic worth to nature to
treat it as though it were equal to us. On the other hand, the agape-way may be towards the developing world
and future generations. It is apparent that all things are connected; many earthquakes would not be so
disastrous on certain areas, for example, if corrupt governments used money for building earthquake
withstanding buildings instead of other pursuits or the way our increased fuel consumption has contributed to
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The environment is not just there for us to use as we please, but for us
to nurture so that it too will nurture humans. The natural world should be cared for this was encouraged by
God in the Bible. In fact, one of the first manuals in sustainability is found in the Old Testament just after the
story of Noah and the Ark. This tells us that the natural world is worthy of praise and reverence.
Aisha Tahmina

It is evident that both religious views and Utilitarian view of the environment is not a primary issue, and is
almost always put second to the needs of humans. In my opinion, the environment is a concern for all people
regardless of religio-cultural background. However it is not because they are themselves concerned about the
state of the environment but rather about the impact of the environment on us. Maybe this is a justified
reason to be concerned about the environment. Yet I would still think that the fact that the (Act and Rule)
Utilitarian is not driven by guilt or by the command of God but rather their own distinction as to what is the
moral course of action, this means that they have a true sense of the concerns of the deterioration of the
environment. The world does not just belong to theists because they feel that God has given them a
responsibility which only they can realise, but the world belongs to us all and it is from self-realisation that we
can move forward and see how we can benefit the environment instead of ourselves.