Question

Saving the Glaciers

The glaciers have been disappearing from Glacier National Park in Montana and adjoining Waterton National Park in Canada. In 1850, Glacier is said to have had 150 glaciers; in 2006 there were 27. In response to this trend, various organizations petitioned for the parks to be designated endangered by being placed on the danger list of the World Heritage Committee. As one report says,

Endangered status would require the World Heritage Committee to find ways to mitigate how climate change affects the park, [the law professor who wrote the petition] said . . . Better fuel efficiency for automobiles and stronger energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances are among the ways to reduce greenhouse pollution that contributes to warming, the petition [said].

But some denounced the petition as unnecessary and unsupported by scientific data, while one group of scientists estimated that if climate trends continue, Glacier Park’s glaciers will disappear completely by 2030.

Justify your answers: Suppose the glaciers’ melting would have no appreciable effect on the environ- ment except that they would no longer exist. Would conservationists still be justified in trying to save the glaciers? If so, how could they justify their efforts? If not, why not? Suppose the glaciers could be saved only if the government spends $10 billion on pollution controls—money that would have to be taken away from social programs. Would this cost be worth it? Why or why not? Using the utilitarian Theory

Answer 1

1. The utilitarian position of ethics defends the morality and immorality of an action based on its effect or consequences for the greater majority of the world. If we review the issue of glacial melting as an ethical question, then it would appear that the conservationist’s decision to save te glaciers would be an ethically valid position. Even in situations where the melting of glaciers would have no impeding negative consequence son the environment, it can still be deemed as an ethically alarming development as the utilitarian theory would show that glacier melting would entail a possible increase in human suffering.

Thus,conservationist can defend their action to save the glaciers against human activities that promote climate change by using the principle of utilitarianism according to which the denigration of glaciers is ethically wrong as it would lead to negative consequences for human beings in the long run. The fact is that even if glaciers are not very useful, they would still not be judged as completely dispensable as glacier melting would mean drastically producing change in the landscape for all including animal and human communities and it would thus affect the majority of groups.