Ethical Review of NGO Policy Statement

In a recent policy statement by NGO many aspects of climate change were reviewed. The statement suggests ways of helping to curb carbon emissions and lead a more sustainable life. Among these many suggestions it was recommended to governments and industries "(halt) the development of nuclear facilities as they are neither safe nor environmentally sound [nor] sustainable]." From examining the context of the policy and the nature of the suggestions, it is clear to see what the suggested moral agents are, however, the ethical right or wrongness, depends on the nature of the two very different philosophies.

The nature of the policy statement was of salvation and sustainability of the earth's atmosphere and climate. The suggestions which were listed were categorized into such subheadings as "climate change" and "sustainable development" which shows an obvious emphasis on the environment and sustainability as each subheading offered ways countries could improve upon their current policies. The demarcation problem in this sense has a clear answer. The NGO policy is directed towards improving our future development and sustaining an atmosphere and climate which is healthy. Since the policy is acting to try and help the earth as a whole, it can be seen that the policy is treating the inhabitants of earth as moral agents worthy of help and support, which is a view shared by most humans residing on earth. However, the policy has to sides to it. The changes the policy suggests, depending on either a consequentialist's point of view or a non-consequentialist's point of view.

In the eyes of a nonconsequentialist, or a deontologist, the change suggested, to not build nuclear power plants, would be seen as morally incorrect. Since the outcome of an action does not matter to a deontologist, the negative effects towards an industry or company would outweigh any bad that may or may not occur later. Since the company is, as seen in the eyes of a deontologist, a moral agent, it carries rights and needs and has wants. Since deontologists follow the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you", it cannot be morally correct to stop a company from profiting since a lack of profit would go directly against that companies wants and, technically, needs. The company has rights wants and needs which, being a moral agent, means that we as a society need to fulfill them when looking at the issue through the eyes of a deontologist, and therefore the changes can only be seen as bad.

The other point of view that needs to be considered is one which takes into account the long term effects of the changes suggested. This point of view is the utilitarianism philosophy, or a consequentialist view point. In the eyes of a utilitarianist, the change would be a good thing, assuming that the change would later affect the health of the planet or could help create a sustainable life style. A utillitarianist must think only of the aggregate happiness. While, in the present day, not building a nuclear power plant affects the power plant and perhaps industry, the effects of building would create a lot more unhappiness. The salvation of the planet, from a utilitarian standpoint, is a more ethically right decision than embarking on a quest for individual growth and profit.

It is clear that while the policy shares a common moral agent, the change can be viewed in two highly contrasted ways. One which states that we have a moral obligation to a company and one which states we have a moral obligation to ourselves and our future. Perhaps there is no clear cut correct moral stance and we all just need a philosophical hug.

References

NGO. October 21, 2009. "Cures: NGO policy statement for CSD 15: a new paradigm" Retrieved November 2nd, 2009 from http://www.cures-network.org/docs/csd_statement.html .