This essay will discuss whether ecological integrity should take priority over economic growth. From the position of utilitarian ethics, I will argue in favour of environmental protections and propose a harm-based argument.
Most ethical theories are concerned with harm one way or another, and it is the defining feature of (Jeremy Bentham’s) utilitarian philosophy. The basic premise of utilitarianism lies in that “the greatest pleasure of the greatest number” takes precedence. For example, its proponent would agree that a smoker should not smoke near children, since the harm they could suffer is greater than the pleasure of the smoker. I find utilitarianism intuitive, and believe that a similar argument could be proposed in this context.
A major risk concerning the development of national capital are the consequences negligent treatment of nature could bring. Usually, it is achieved through (a) extraction, or (b) production. While moderate improvements may have little effect by themselves, they might spill over when stacked together. For example, suppose that both efficiency and demand grew in the agricultural sector. A lot more resources are being extracted now, and over time, the land is left barren and infertile. Lacking in important nutrients, migration might become necessary for wildlife to survive. As less and less land is habitable, competition and conflict increase, inevitably leading to more pain and suffering.
Taking the premises of utilitarian philosophy, I argue that the harm animals could suffer is by far the greater quantity, dwarving any pleasure or happiness humans could experience from economic growth. Therefore, I agree that environmental protection is more important than the development of national capital.