Baxter argues that, in dealing with pollution, it is important to establish a precise general objective so that sub-goals such as clean air can be seen as a means of achieving that objective rather than being the objective themselves. According to Baxter, the general objective is geared towards maximizing human satisfaction and the treatment of plants and animals is therefore dependent on human interests. Baxter uses the spheres of freedom principle as an example to explain that general objectives become unquestionable when they contain a widespread cultural belief. He explains that it is impractical for society to have broad goals such as “clean air” and that humans should define the “right” composition of the atmosphere as the one which yields the greatest possible amount of human satisfaction.
Baxter acknowledges counterarguments, most notably that the change in human satisfaction which would result from halting the use of DDT in agriculture is trivial compared to how the death of penguins due to DDT impairment would affect humans. Therefore, the first criterion on Baxter’s list is phrased in such a way as to exclude animals from his arguments. He admits that this stance is inherently selfish, but argues it is the most realistic. Moreover, he rejects the proposition that humans ought to respect the balance of nature for what it is unless doing so will directly benefit human satisfaction. This conclusion is based on the premise that “nature” has no normative connotations and is therefore not deserving of our moral consideration unless human interest is factored into the moral calculus.
Baxter argues that since plants and animals do not have the ability to vote, they do not have rights. However, basing moral consideration on sufficient intelligence to participate in democracy is dangerous. For example, using this premise, one could conclude that severely mentally handicapped people do not have rights because they do not have the ability to formulate and vocalize an opinion.
Baxter argues that addressing pollution to increase human satisfaction will minimize the impact of other sources of human satisfaction such as food and shelter. Thus, he suggests that absolute environmental goals such as “clean seas” unnecessarily detract from other services which benefit humans. He explains that in order to build a dam, for example, x amount of resources and y amount of labor must be diverted from other means to human satisfaction such as education and healthcare. However, Baxter thinks that a balance can be struck. By giving up nonessential goods, more labor and resources can be expended addressing pollution. He concludes by suggesting a new system where humans trade material goods for reduced pollution until the point when the consumption of material goods provides greater human satisfaction than further improving air quality.
Although Baxter’s conclusions are valid, I do not agree with his first premise. The spheres of freedom principle would appeal to me a lot more if “interests of other human beings” was replaced with “interests of other sentient life”. However, this was to be expected. At the beginning, Baxter underscores the value of leaving his premises open to interpretation. If one agrees with his premises and disagrees with his conclusions, then whoever’s solution best matches the criteria wins. On the other hand, if someone disagrees with the criteria, Baxter invites them to identify a new set of criteria based on their personal beliefs.
Comments