Question

A dam was proposed to be built on a certain river in a natural setting that would produce hydroelectric power and create recreational activities, such as boating, swimming, and water-skiing. The only problem, as environmentalists see it, is that there is a certain species of fish found only in this river that will become extinct if the dam is built. The fish is not used for food or sport; in fact, no one knows what purpose it serves by being in the river. Should the dam be built or not? Why or why not? Would it make a difference to your answer if the small fish were a good food fish or could be used in some other commercial way, or is its extinction sufficient reason to not build the dam? Use at least one ethical theory.

Answer 1

In the situation where dam project is in conflict with the overarching goal of environmental protection, we can trace the moral responsibility for building of the dam using the theory of utilitarianism.

According to the utilitarian view,in order to judge the morality of an act, we must first consider
the act itself. Construction of the dam can initially seem to be morally good as it will ensure recreation and electricity to the people.
But the environmentalists will show that the act itself is tainted with damaging consequences for a species of fish. Thus, the dam project would no longer be considered as a morally good act if it leads to adversarial and irreversible consequence for the environment. Here, the extinction of a species of unique fish is a bigger and more dangerous consequence than mere loss of a recreational community pool, or hydroelectric power as the latter two outcomes can be reproduced elsewhere in alternative projects. Thus, as per the utilitarian viewpoint, the building of the dam would be an unethical action and etxinction of the species is a sufficient cause for revoking the project in itself.