Katherine Elliot

Professor Stephens
Environmental Ethics & Policy
13 February 2018
Ineffectiveness of Utilitarianism

Reflected in many of the most important policy decisions of today is the philosophy of

Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral idea that “what is right (or a duty) is whatever

maximizes the total amount of net utility.”1 Utilitarianism, at the time of its introduction, was a

revolutionary moral philosophy. This is because utilitarianism underscores the idea that the

consequences of a person’s actions are the most morally significant. So it is not the agent’s well-

being that is morally significant, but instead the maximum well-being of others2 In terms of

public policy, politicians often use utilitarianism in the form of “cost-benefit analysis” in order to

make decisions. Cost-benefit analysis uses utility to “approximate the principle that we should

maximize benefits minus costs in terms of monetary measures of cost and benefit.”3 Because of

how frequently politicians use utilitarianism to assess public policy endeavors, and specifically

those related to the environment, it is important to now assess if utilitarianism and the cost-

benefit analysis model are adequate methods of judgement.

Almost all modern moral codes, in light of our environmental crisis, are subject to

criticism for being too anthropocentric to properly assess environmental issues. The same

criticisms extend to Utilitarianism. First, there have been many questions as to who/what

utilitarianism should apply. Bentham and Mill, the two main originators of utilitarianism, would

say that it applies to all beings that feel “pleasure and pain” so essentially, “sentient creatures,”

1VanDeVeer, Donald, and Christine Pierce. The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book: Philosophy, Ecology, Economics.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014, 24.
2 Ibid.,24.
3 Ibid.,24.
which would include animals.4 However, as is very evident from the general negligence

American policy has towards the natural world, this component of utilitarianism is often not

prevalent. There are also criticisms of justice and fairness with utilitarianism. Although

utilitarian-guided decisions aim to create the greatest amount of happiness possible, there will

always be negative consequences of every action. So, who endures these consequences? Often,

the bad consequences are more heavily distributed to those who do not have a voice for

themselves, specifically in terms of public policy.5 These can be both marginalized people, who

often bear the brunt of pressing environmental issues, or the environment itself. Lastly, in terms

of the cost-benefit model, “cost and benefit” ultimately refers to what harms humanity. Thus, it

does not take into account other beings, but still assess environmental policy. The inadequate

nature of utilitarianism as a means to create effective environmentally-based public policy is

evident in the current condition of many parts of the Bronx.

The issue of Environmental Justice is one that is incredibly relevant in today’s political

climate. Many lower income areas endure harsh environmental conditions unjustly. This issue is

extremely prevalent in the Bronx. Despite the fact that the EPA has a division dedicated to

working with environmental justice issues, it is mostly the work of local non-profits that are

improving conditions. In the Bronx, The Bronx River Alliance is extremely active in attempting

to improve quality of The Bronx River. The Bronx River, for many years, was a dumping group

for all different type of waste. The once pristine ecosystem, is now, in some areas, toxic.

According to an article from NY City Lens, in 2014 The Bronx River Alliance found remnants

4 Ibid.,25.
5 Ibid.,26.
of human sewage in the water.6 While there have been some efforts to clean up the river on a

state and national level, according to this article “Bronx communities have received the fewest

resources to restore their section of the river.”7 This lack of resources traces back to the

utilitarian ways of thinking. Those in government may believe resources are better spent in

wealthier areas, where the potential of financial return is greater. Even though the Bronx River is

suffering immensely, from a certain standpoint, allocating money other places creates the

greatest amount of happiness overall. However, the people of The Bronx deal with these severe

consequences. Furthermore, incidences of environmental neglect occur frequently in The Bronx,

with issues such as air pollution and access to healthy food, so people repeatedly suffer. In terms

of how to address this issue, it is time for government to start understanding that traditional

moral codes are not the way to approach environmental issues. We need an environmentally-

minded politician or influencer to start getting those in power to realize this, hopefully creating

sustainable, impactful change.

Word Count: 788

Question: Is there any existing moral code, that was discussed in the chapter, that would

adequately apply to environmental issues? If not how can we tweak some to make them

applicable?

6Maea Lenei Buhre, "Local Nonprofit Finds Pathogens in Bronx River," NY City Lens, February 12, 2018, , accessed February
13, 2018,
7 Ibid.
 Works Cited

Buhre, Maea Lenei. "Local Nonprofit Finds Pathogens in Bronx River." NY City Lens. February

12, 2018. Accessed February 13, 2018. http://nycitylens.com/2018/02/local-non-profit-

finds-pathogens-bronx-river/.

VanDeVeer, Donald, and Christine Pierce. The Environmental Ethics & Policy Book:

Philosophy, Ecology, Economics. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,

2014.