Role of Utilitarian and Hedonic Values †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Role of Utilitarian and Hedonic Values. Answer: Introduction: The journal that has been chosen for a critical review is Utilitarianism of environmental ethics by the author Valentinov. It highlights the effect on the key issues of business ethics (Valentinov 2017). The ethical component that has been analyzed is regarding the concept of utilitarianism on the ethics of environment and business. Environmental ethics highlights on the facts that are ought to inhabit the world. The concept of environmental ethics raged as a reaction to the causes for the growth of environmental crisis as the transformation of the forests in Australia into pine plantations. However, as per the journal environmental ethical theories have an effect on the stakeholders and the corporate social responsibility. Issues of Environmental ethics particularly affect the environment of the corporations. Ethical theory majorly focuses on the surroundings of how a corporation works. Over the years, there have been traditional ethical theories that were not being able to provide an enough amount of the relationship (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). The purpose for the motivation of the environmental ethics was a reason to originate the ethical theories to achieve better results in their work. Utilitarianism is considered to be as the most common and traditional form that is treated to be both a theory of the right and theory of the good. Such ethical issues are used in companies majorly. It affects the However, the key theme of understanding the utilitarianism is by applying the ethical theories. The concept of utilitarianism is generally engaged with a bunch of economic theories that proves that individuals in their best form when they are able to track and fulfill their kind of preferences in the free market (Beatley 2017). According to the journal, utilitarianism has played a significant role in the process of protecting the ecosystems, wildlife and species. Several ethicists on various grounds have criticized this key theme of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics have distanced themselves from the theories of tradition like morality and by denying the significance of intrinsic value theories. In defense of a Utilitarian Environmental Ethic, organisms and human beings chiefly depend on the services of ecological, natural and wild organisms (Percival et al. 2017). These wild organisms and natural system alters the climate and the biochemical cycles that are an essential source of food, produce and protect fertile soils for controlling pests and increasing the genetic material. The components of utilitarianism should respond to the specific number of claims that the environmental ethicists have made concerning the nature of the utilitarian ethics. Due to the environmental problems and ethics, all the corners and spheres get affected. However, the claim of utilitarian ethics have formed a general criticism of this kind of ethics that can be applied. On the other hand, utilitarian ethics identifies the pain and suffering of the organisms that does not support human humanity (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). It has been argued that utilitarian ethics has ignored the values and rights of some ethicists who believe that life creates possess. This is considered to be a virtue of utilitarianism instead of a liability (Braito et al. 2017). The journal has discussed the concept of utilitarians, which has legal rights, ecosystems and value species that have been identified. The existence of such rights and values are of a special kind. These rights and value s have proved to be a complicated problem for the environmental ethicists as they did not succeed in convincing the policymakers that micro-organisms, trees and communities have the right kind of values that makes the situation a direct moral concern. It has been observed that utilitarianism have encouraged a healthy argument related to the features of a satisfactory environmental ethic (Mill 2016). A utilitarian environmental ethic will not restrict culling when the objective is to promote the welfare of the population in the purpose of protecting the ecosystem (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). It has been argued based on a point that the ones interested in the sufferings and pain of the individuals will have to abstain from predators and hunting. Educators and environmental ethicists have the object to teach utilitarianism on the grounds that it will be flawed in such ways that will have nothing to do with the issues of the environment. The ethical difficulties that are encountered in public medicine and education in the nature of such an ethic (Braito et al. 2017). Educators identify the fact that environmental ethicists encounter both the philosophical and practical problems when the attempt made is to be subject of direct moral concern. Any ethic that focuses on the communities, species and ecosystem rests on the foundations that since these are incorporeal entities. Therefor e, the value of individuals does not have greater values as compared to the values of species to communities and the ecosystem (Percival et al. 2017). Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that is applied in the evaluation process of ethics and the environment that is looked for an outcome (Hourdequin 2015). Bentham has argued that deals with environmental ethics is important in the theory of utilitarianism. Bentham stated that he would look after the pleasure of both humans and animals. Utilitarianism is the biggest issue in the environmentalism since it is a fact that it does not provide any inherent value to the environment. This method is beneficial for the concept of global warming as well if animals and other organisms are considered (AM and Francis 2017). According to utilitarians, the overall process of executing things for decreasing the carbon footprint results in the protection of the environment (Gasparski 2017). This theory covers and researches each of the case individually if the reason is harming the environment around. However, every environmental ethicists believes that in a valid environmental ethic should encourage and accept the intrinsic values. It can be observed from this explanation that there is no kind of alternative to a utilitarian environmental ethic (Hourdequin 2015). On the other hand, it can be observed that without the emissions that are produced in the country, many individuals would have led a different lifestyle over the years. Maximum number of environmental ethicists believe that a proper environmental ethic is treated to be that one which makes other organisms like ecosystems subjects of proper and direct moral concern (Ozturk et al. 2016). This way it has been determined and proved that the scope of e nvironmental ethics is an academic discipline. However, it is too narrow to serve the needs of the present and the future policymakers of the environment (Campbell 2016). The concept of environmental ethics should not formed with the means of practical concerns but the arguments of the ethicists appeal to the moral of the species. Other ethicists and educators argue that utilitarianism has destructive policies and methods of the environment that leads to degradation. Rights and traditional utilitarian is based on ethics that can be put to use for rejecting the practices that are frequently blamed for endorsing (Lucas, Van Wee and Maat 2016). Therefore, such policies can proved to be unethical from the perspective of a utilitarian. Generally, environmental ethics is treated to be a part of the philosophy of environment that is considered in extending the boundaries of the ethics, which includes humans to including the non-human world. It has been claimed by the critiques that utilita rianism is a concept used to test the products on animals as those same tests were supposed to be carried out on human beings (Mill 2016). In the argument, it was observed that utilitarianism was not considered to be an effective means of ruling the activities. This have been claimed that placing animals on the same moral reasons as humans refers to a situation of their ability to suffer. Ethicists compared the intelligence of human and animals. However, the ethicists of environment have highlighted proper focus on the limits of utilitarianism and described the term in a manner that refers to be an oxymoron. Utilitarian ethics can be supportive towards the strong environmental policies. These ethics have not produced an environmental ones that consisted of broad appeal (Braito et al. 2017). Utilitarianism is identified as a theory of technology and ethical activities that are the results of the activities opposed to the action itself. An argument can be stated saying that the approa ch of Bentham to act as utilitarianism does not employ a degree of duty and justice (AM and Francis 2017). No such guidelines exist concerning as to what can be done in these specific situations where the necessity of something else is beyond the pleasure of the majority of humans. The fossil fuel of the environment supplies is depleting steadily. Therefore, there is a conflict that arose between preserving the natural resources and providing efficient energy to the world and, as it is complicated for institutions to do so without preserving fuel. On the other hand, consideration did not exceed for restoring the natural resources and the company as an ethical understanding for the welfare of human beings over the existing surroundings and environment as fossil fuels cannot experience pleasure. Such kind of an implication makes it tough for individuals to utilize the activities that are related to the duties (Mill 2016). Rule of utilitarianism accepts the rules and principles of utility. Further, it was argued that the concept of justice should be exercised in environment and society. However, it is not easy to conclude by stating that the concept of utilitarianism is the best possible method to environmental ethics. Ethics states a sense of duty that acts as an element in the process of decision-making. References: AM, A.F.A. and Francis, R.D., 2017. The trouble with leadership: theories of good and troubled leadership and their ethical implications. InThe Palgrave Handbook of Leadership in Transforming Asia(pp. 143-162). Beatley, T., 2017. Environmental ethics and the field of planning: Alternative theories and middle-range principles. InValues and planning(pp. 20-45). Routledge. Braito, M.T., Bck, K., Flint, C., Muhar, A., Muhar, S. and Penker, M., 2017. Human-nature relationships and linkages to environmental behaviour.Environmental Values,26(3), pp.365-389. Campbell, T.D., 2016.The legal theory of ethical positivism. Routledge. Filip, I., Saheba, N., Wick, B. and Amir Radfar, M.D., 2016. Morality and ethical theories in the context of human behavior.Ethics Medicine,32(2), p.83. Gasparski, W.W., 2017.Environmental Political Philosophy. Routledge. Hourdequin, M., 2015.Environmental ethics: From theory to practice. Bloomsbury Publishing. Lucas, K., Van Wee, B. and Maat, K., 2016. A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches.Transportation,43(3), pp.473-490. Mill, J.S., 2016. Utilitarianism. InSeven Masterpieces of Philosophy(pp. 337-383). Routledge. Ozturk, A.B., Nusair, K., Okumus, F. and Hua, N., 2016. The role of utilitarian and hedonic values on users continued usage intention in a mobile hotel booking environment.International Journal of Hospitality Management,57, pp.106-115. Percival, R.V., Schroeder, C.H., Miller, A.S. and Leape, J.P., 2017.Environmental regulation: Law, science, and policy. Wolters Kluwer Law Business. Valentinov, V., 2017. The Rawlsian critique of utilitarianism: A Luhmannian interpretation.Journal of business ethics,142(1), pp.25-35.