




































EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               29 

 

UTILITARIAN CONSEQUENTIALISM IN ENVIRONMENTAL 

SUSTAINABILITY: AN EVALUATION  

 

Maraizu Elechi 

Department of Philosophy 

Rivers State University 

Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria 

Email: drmaraizuelechi@yahoo.com 

Phone: 08038954871 
 

Abstract 

Human society is witnessing enormous challenges that are largely 

environmental. Environmental challenges are in various dimensions including 

climate change that has left rivers drying up and sometimes disappearing, and 

the steady depletion of the ozone layer. Forests are vanishing away with wild 

animals almost going into extinction mainly as a result of deforestation and 

bush burning. Game reserves or familiar animals and aquatic lives are almost 

thrown into extinction. Human life is in danger with increasing cases of deaths 

and terminal illnesses and other challenging health conditions as a result of 

contaminated air and water pollutions. There are increasing cases of erosion 

menace worsening the situation. Worst still is the regular occurrences of 

earthquakes, tsunamis, and landslides occasioned by oil explorations and poor 

handling of natural resources. All these are consequences of human 

exploitation and exploration of the environment. This situation, no doubt, 

shows that the protection, management, and sustenance of the environment are 

non-negotiable for the continued existence and survival of humanity. It calls 

for urgent practical solutions otherwise human extinction is undoubtedly very 

near. Adopting analytical and critical methods of inquiry, this paper, therefore, 

examines some environmental ethical principles or theories on how to regard 

and relate with the environment to give prospects and hope to environmental 

preservation and sustainability. In conclusion, the paper notes that the 

solutions to environmental exploitation lie in ethico-moral resolve to take 

environmental sustainability and protection as both an individual and a 

collective duty to avert human generational doom. 

 

Keywords: environment, environmental sustainability, pollution, climate 

change, ethico-moral. 

 

Introduction  

World peace and unity, global development, and decent living condition have 

been dangerously threatened by a lot of challenges including wars, insecurity, 

the proliferation of weapons, human-induced killer diseases, racial, religious, 

and gender discriminations and segregations among other contemporary 

global challenges. However, among these challenges, environmental issues 

mailto:drmaraizuelechi@yahoo.com


EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               30 

 

and problems appear to be primal. Environmental problems are the greatest of 

all challenges confronting and threatening humanity en globo. This is why 

Pope John Paul 11 in his Message of the World Peace in 1990 avers that 

world peace is threatened not only by arms, race, regional conflict, and 

continued injustices among peoples and nations but most importantly, by lack 

of due respect for nature. According to him the plundering of natural 

resources has progressively declined the quality of human life. Jeffery was 

also right when he writes that, 

… change in human attitude, approach, and 

morality towards all living creatures that share 

this planet is warranted. In the space of few 

short decades, basic resources such as clean air 

and clean water that had hitherto been 

considered abundant, safe and inexhaustible are 

now under threat (120). 

 

 The concept of environment is generally interrelated with the human 

being and his activities, wellbeing, and wellness. Environmental issues 

pervade the economic, social, political, legal, religious, cultural, and scientific 

planes of man and his entire living and existence. Broadly speaking, it imparts 

and influences man in many numerous unprecedented ways: his thinking, 

dressing, behavior, and his overall personality, prospect, and outlook. It is 

therefore impossible to think of man outside the environment. Man is not only 

the product of his environment but more importantly, a principal actor in it. 

No one can live and operate outside the environment. Human beings need the 

environment for continued survival as much as the environment also needs 

human beings for care, preservation, and sustenance. This explains the idea of 

environmental complementarity. It explains that man is in a symbiotic 

relationship with the environment in such a way that 'injury to one is an injury 

to all.' Elechi aptly records it thus: 

…the relationship between man and the 

environment must be one in mutual dependency 

and harmony. Therefore excessive exploitation 

of the environment by man must be avoided and 

the environment seen and appreciated from its 

intrinsic worth. Otherwise, there will not be an 

end to environmental disasters since the 

environment has a way of fighting back (30). 

 

According to Elechi, “We must consciously seek to maintain a mutual and 

complementary relationship with the environment since our survival and 

wellbeing depends on the conducive nature of our environment” (Elechi 40). 

The destruction of the environment would have unbearable consequences on 

humans and their existence. This, no doubt, is the reason why the environment 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               31 

 

and its sustainability is and will continue to be central in local, national, and 

international or global circles. The fact is that the impact of an unhealthy 

environment is enormous and colossally grave on both the economic potency 

or productivity, the socio-cultural as well as the general health condition of 

man; while the benefits of a healthy environment that is well sustained cannot 

be hyperbolized. Environmental sustainability can be achieved in many ways 

including through the institution of proper and effective environmental laws 

and policies, and its frugal implementation to regulate human activities in the 

environment. Environmental challenges will have no end when there is no 

such conscious effort to preserve and sustain the environment. In Nigeria, 

such inclination appears to be blatantly disregarded thereby giving rise to all 

forms of environmental degradations. The point is that there are 

environmental impacts or influences in whatever we do as human beings. 

Incredible varieties of human activities have turned what is supposed to be for 

the good of man against him. Such human activities like oil exploration, gas 

flaring, mining, poor handling of waste by individuals and industrial activities, 

forest logging, and bush burning have also adversely affected the 

environment, the economic and health conditions of humans. 

The occurrences of disastrous phenomena like 

erosions, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc., 

clearly indicate the destabilization of the cosmic 

relationship existing between man and the 

environment. These catastrophes arise mainly 

from human activities in the environment such 

as indiscriminate dumping of refuse, 

mismanagement of oil spill and exploration 

activities as well as his nonchalant attitude 

towards the management and sustenance of the 

environment (Elechi 31). 

 

The coastal vegetation has been adversely affected; drinkable waters have 

been polluted; farmlands, creeks, streams, rivers, and seas have been 

contaminated with a general loss of sources of livelihood of the people. One 

of the yardsticks for determining how developed society has attained is 

concerning the environment, that is, the overall manipulation, conservation 

and preservation, and sustenance of the environment. This is the reason why 

philosophers are deeply interested in understanding the nature of the 

environment and the need in making it safe for human beings to live in. The 

philosopher believes that certain moral principles and values should govern 

human behaviours and activities in and within the environment. These morally 

right or wrong principles guard human actions in a relationship with the 

environment. The point is that philosophers are united in decisions that the 

environment needs to be explored, tended, or cared for and preserved for the 

good and healthy survival of man. The human being is therefore seen for what 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               32 

 

he is, a mere caretaker of our common home: the environment. Peter Alawa in 

his article titled Kant and Heidegger on Environmental Ethics: A Comparative 

Study argues that Martin Heidegger and Immanuel Kant were unequivocal and 

resolute in their belief that the environment should not be destroyed otherwise 

generations yet unborn will suffer for it (143). The moral value that underpins 

this philosophical belief must be imbibed by the entire humanity. The 

ecosystems must be respected for their intrinsic worth, and all forms of 

harmful environmental activities must be brought to an end. This moral 

obligation, a duty to treat nature with respect and care, not with neglect, 

exploitation, and abuse, is the basic thesis of this paper. 

 

The Concept of Environment  

The concept of environment is no doubt, general, multi-faceted, and twinned 

with all human disciplines and activities. It requires conscious concern by all 

human beings. The concept “environment” is endowed with many 

interpretations; it constitutes both the immediate and remote Spatio-temporal 

bases of human existence. In his attempt to make clear the understanding of 

the concept of environment, Elechi looked at it from its root word thus, 

Environment means "that which environs us". 

And being "environed" simply means being 

encircled or surrounded. Broadly speaking, 

therefore, the term 'environment' is understood 

as the overall physical, natural, cultural, social 

conditions surrounding man. It pervades the 

economic, social, political, literary, religious, 

cultural and scientific planes. In fact, it covers 

the whole facet of human life and behaviour, 

rendering it, therefore, a universal or global 

issue (31-32). 
 

The Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act of 1992 records that the 

environment includes water, air, land, all plants, human beings, and other 

lower animals living therein, and the interrelationships which exist among 

these or any of them. In other words, the environment includes both physical 

and biological entities, living and nonliving things that are found within our 

surroundings. An environment is a complex set of physical, geographical, 

biological, social, cultural, and political conditions that surrounds an 

individual or organism and that ultimately determine its form (Barbier, 86).  

Hills, mountains, rocks, houses trees, grasses, rivers, and aquatic lives are part 

of the environment. Furthermore, Okereke writes that, 

The global environment is the surrounding, the 

universal earth within which human beings live 

worldwide and interact with one another, 

exploiting in the process, natural resources or 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               33 

 

endowment, for the benefit of mankind. It 

comprises living houses including the courtyard 

in the countryside, the municipality, the 

lithosphere (land, soil), medium atmosphere (air 

zone) and water or hydrosphere (moisture, 

groundwater, and surface water) as well as their 

inherent resources (1). 

 

The study of the environment is not an exclusive reserve of those in 

Environmental Sciences, but more a big concern to those in the Humanities 

with its place, role, and relationship with the human beings who are products 

of their environment. The concept of environment cuts across disciplines 

including economic, socio-cultural, and religious, legal, and political 

dimensions, etc., in the same way, that its benefits are embodied and expressly 

discerned within these disciplines. This lends credence to Ian Barbour's view 

that the environment is very important to us in many ways including 

biologically, economically, and aesthetically. It is useful for food, health, 

material wellbeing, and personal fulfillment. In furtherance to Ian’s claim, 

Eboh in her paper titled Ecofeminism: A Politico-Revolutionary Discourse, 

argues that ecosystems provide tremendous services to humanity. According 

to her,  

Every single species serves a useful purpose. If 

some of them should disappear, Edward Wilson 

says, new sources of scientific information will 

be lost. Vast potential biological wealth will be 

destroyed. Still, underdeveloped medicines, 

crops, pharmaceuticals, timber, fibre, pulp, soil-

restoring vegetation, petroleum substitutes, and 

other products and amenities will never come to 

light (26). 

 

She continues the argument in her other work Introduction to Philosophy and 

Philosophizing that bio-diversity is a necessity because every organism 

contributes something to the maintenance of the environment for the good of 

all. For instance, the bacteria (Nitrosomonas or rhizobium) which live in the 

root noodles of leguminous plants, fix atmospheric nitrogen into nitrogen 

compounds which are nutrients for plants, and animals feed on plants, and 

human beings feed on both. Bacteria also produce antibiotics that are useful to 

human health; many bacteria live in the guts of animals. If bacteria which are 

micro-organisms could do all these and a lot more, then the contributions of 

other organisms should not be underestimated. And the fact that bacteria live 

in plants and animals and serve useful purposes for both hosts shows 

interdependence (167). Elechi corroborates with Eboh’s view thus: 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               34 

 

The environment as a matter of fact must be 

seen and treated as one in mutual relationship or 

interdependency with man in such a way that 

each plays a crucial role in the collective 

existence and co-existence of all. What this 

means is that we need to preserve the 

environment because it is better to see the 

environment as a system and collectivity rather 

than as a separate entity in relation to man. This 

is so because there is a mutual natural 

dependency and interconnectedness of life and 

living among all realities (Elechi 34-35). 

 

The environment is so crucial to human flourishing. It must be protected and 

sustained if longevity and survival mean anything to humans. The ecosystems 

and the species constitute the web of life in mutual rapport or constant 

interaction in the environment. This is to say that humanity must be 

environmentally enlightened to always present and actively defend the 

preservation and protection of the environment and its sustainability. 

 

The Idea of Environmental Sustainability 

It has been mentioned in several parts of this paper that human wellbeing and 

continued existence depends greatly on environmental sustainability. The idea 

of sustainability according to Robert Gilman refers to “the ability of a society, 

ecosystem, or any such ongoing system to continue functioning into the 

infinite future without being forced into decline through exhaustion of key 

resources.”(Omogun, 81).The point is that environmental sustainability leads 

to economic growth and sustainable national development. This is why 

Goodland defines sustainable development as “development that is socially, 

economically, and environmentally sustainable.” He aptly explained that 

environmental sustainability is “maintenance of national capacity”. 

Environmental sustainability supports economic growth, productivity, and 

national development. It simply means the need to preserve the environment 

for the future. This means that there is a natural moral urge towards self-

preservation since the environment is the Spatio-temporal base of human 

existence and coexistence. Environmental sustainability simply means 

community or societal sustainability. (Elechi 38).Obialo records that, 

Environmental protection and conservation are 

necessary to preserve the interest of the 

populace and to conserve national wealth that 

would otherwise be wasted in providing 

necessary treatment of diseases and other 

ailments occasioned by the degradation of the 

environment. The wealth so conserved 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               35 

 

constitutes additional capital inflow to the total 

value of property in that location, whereas high 

cost of hospital bills to the community with the 

degraded environment becomes a net loss of 

capital outflow suffered by that country (3) 

 

Environmental sustainability has continued to attract global concern and 

attention basically because of the threats accessioned by human activities, 

which result in environmental degradations. Environmental sustainability is 

very critical to the holistic prosperity of a nation. It leads to economic growth 

and development. Responsible interaction with the environment is necessary 

to avoid the depletion of natural resources and the promotion of long-term 

environmental quality. This means that natural resources must be wisely used 

to protect and sustain the generality of the complex ecosystems on which the 

survival of humanity depends. This belief, an ethico-moral and rational belief 

that human beings must protect those things they share and enjoy collectively, 

such as air, water, land, etc., for the purpose complementarity rather than 

antagonism clearly explains what environmental sustainability means for us. 

Ruckelshaus explains that: 

Sustainability is the doctrine that environment 

growth and development must take place, and 

be maintained over time, within the limits set by 

ecology in the broadest sense – by the 

interactions of human beings and their works, 

the biosphere, and the physical and chemical 

laws that govern it. Environmental protection 

and development are complementary rather than 

antagonistic processes (166). 

 

Ethical Issues in Environmental Sustainability 

“The sustenance of the environment has a compelling ethical dimension," says 

Elechi (38). Ethics is nothing but a collective response of the thinking 

majority to curtail the excesses of man in society. It justifies why good is to be 

done and evil avoided. One good thing about the study of ethics is that it 

profits the whole of humanity in the long run. In ethics, we are taught to 

imbibe sound moral values and principles necessary to solve concrete societal 

problems "so that we can live in peace and harmony, with a modicum of 

dignity and at least some happiness.” (Eboh 181). Morality is the health of 

society. Our environment is exploited and degraded and requires humanity to 

have a conscious moral change of attitude and actions. 

As ecologists harp on the importance of the eco-

systems, the danger of human-caused ecological 

imbalances, and environmental degradation, the 

scope of ethics gets more and more enlarged to 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               36 

 

embrace a genuine concern for the planet's life-

support systems. Hence there is much talk these 

days of environmental ethics, eco-ethics, global 

ethics, etc. (Eboh 182). 

 

We must stress the fact that anything which impairs the human life-support 

system is according to Eboh, hurts humankind. Environmental degradation, no 

doubt, impairs the human life-support system and therefore hurts humanity. 

The major reason for environmental ethics is to awaken the moral 

consciousness of human beings towards the environment by inculcating in 

them moral values in their relationship with the environment. The inculcation 

of moral consciousness towards the environment will help to bring 

environmental exploitation and degradation under control. It is therefore 

important we examine some environmental ethical theories suggested by 

philosophers on how to relate and regard the environment. The relevance of 

some of the environmental ethical theories is that they seek to give hope and 

prospect to environmental sustainability. According to Warner,  

The Earth and its creatures have “moral status”, 

so, are worthy of our ethical concerns; the Earth 

and its creatures have “intrinsic value”, so, they 

have moral value because they exist, and not 

merely because they meet human needs; 

drawing from the idea of an ecosystem, human 

beings should consider the “wholes” that 

include other forms of life and the environment 

(1-2). 

 

Environmental ethical theories to be considered here include utilitarianism 

and consequentialism. However, we shall also evaluate deontological ethical 

theory as a way forward in this study for the preservation and sustenance of 

the environment. 

 

Utilitarian Consequentialism: Dimensions of Environmental Ethical 

Theories 
Utilitarianism, an ethical principle popularized by the English philosophers 

Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, holds that the test of the morality of 

any action must be determined based on the extent to which it produced good 

or bad consequences, that is, pleasure or pain. It is a theory that is based on 

utility. Utility is for Bentham, nothing other than “…that principle which 

approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the 

tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the 

party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, 

to promote or to oppose that happiness” (26). The purpose of utility is the 

satisfaction of human needs. As a theory based on utility, utilitarianism asserts 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               37 

 

that moral rightness is determined by what leads to the greatest good for the 

greatest number of people. There are two shades of utilitarianism that stand 

out for discourse in our context namely: Act Utilitarianism and Rule 

Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism holds that what is morally right is 

determined by the consequences of such acts. This is to say that the rightness 

or wrongness of an act is determined by the result of such an act. If an action 

produces a good result for the greatest good of the greatest number of people, 

it is ethically right and should be desired, otherwise, it is wrong and should be 

rejected. Rule utilitarianism on the other hand asserts that morality is a matter 

of conformity to rules or principles. This is to say that moral rules must be 

based on the principle of utility. The right principles or rules are those that if 

adhered to, lead to the greatest good of the people. The right action is that 

which conforms to the principles or rules that have been accepted and adopted 

as the best for the advancement of the greatest utility. The rules serve as the 

basis for determining which acts will lead to the greatest happiness for the 

greatest number of people.  

 

Conversely, consequentialism as an ethical theory holds that correct moral 

conduct is determined solely by a cost-benefit of an action’s consequences. 

This implies that an action is morally right if the consequences are more 

favourable than unfavourable. It suggests that one can affirm that 

consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good 

and bad consequences of an action, before determining whether the total good 

consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. Therefore, if the good 

consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad 

consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. 

Consequentialist theories are sometimes called teleological theories, from the 

Greek word telos, which means an end, since the result of the action is the 

sole determining factor of its morality. It is said that this branch of ethics is 

mostly used by philosophers who want a quick way to morally assess an 

action by appealing to experience, rather than by appealing to reason and the 

gut intuitions or long lists of questionable duties. The most attractive feature 

of consequentialism is that it appeals to publicly observable consequences of 

actions. Consequentialism is an ethical principle that resurrects Plato's 

assertion that "things can be good in their consequences”. It can be said that 

the environment exists as an environment qua tale, not for its sake, but for the 

purposes for which it was created, that is the ends or purposes envisaged by 

the Creator. In other words, it exists for the consequences that it fosters in 

society. An aspect of the consequentialist theory, namely, ethical egoism, 

regards an action as good, which only satisfies or maximizes one's good only, 

in contradistinction to that of others. This theory, no doubt, threatens the very 

foundations of environmental sustainability.  

 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               38 

 

A cursory analysis of the theories of utilitarianism and consequentialism with 

the environment indicates that the dominant premise as far as we are 

concerned, by which human beings should operate or relate with the 

environment must be seen to be pleasure and material benefits. By this, it 

claims that human beings must explore or relate with the environment in such 

a manner that will guarantee the greater happiness, pleasure, and material 

benefits of the greater number of people within the environment or 

community. Here, the self-interest, pleasure, and material considerations of a 

person is the focus, rather than the realization of the good and wellbeing of the 

entire ecosystem. This is unacceptable. Activities in the environment must be 

done in consideration of the good and wellbeing of all the eco-systems in 

general. In this case, we are not only concerned with human beings alone but 

also other beings or realities that make up the environment. Again, at this 

point, we must be very careful not to think that whatever one does with the 

environment leads to happiness because that is what many people claim. This 

belief is equivalent to engaging in a circular delusion. Indeed, there are times 

when one sets out to do things that will lead to happiness, but rather end in 

calamity. It is wrong to consider pleasure as the ultimate standard in 

relationship with the environment. Pleasure is not the ultimate consideration 

of a man; it is not synonymous with happiness because it does not always lead 

to happiness. Elechi asseverates this idea thus: 

To begin with, material benefits are not ultimate 

issues in the mind of a philosopher. Therefore 

the conceptions of why a man should preserve 

the environment as rooted in terms of material 

gains or pleasure are implausible. It is fraught 

with the consequences of reducing man to the 

appetitive level of lower animals. In order 

words, humans need the environment to be 

properly human. Rather than just a means to an 

end, the environment also serves an end in itself. 

Therefore nature needs to be respected and 

preserved not only because it is simply the right 

and appropriate thing to do regardless of some 

sorts of benefit it be-stores on man, but also 

because it has values in itself (34) 

 

Most material and pleasurable things, from experience, bring about 

unhappiness in the end. Therefore, not all material pleasures concerning the 

environment are good and desirable. The care, preservation, protection, and 

preservation of the environment are unconditionally right, good, and desirable. 

Utilitarianism and consequentialism theories of the environment seem not to 

defend the collective interests of all the ecosystems concerning the actions and 

activities of humans in the environment.The environment generates and 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               39 

 

accommodates the general or collective happiness of all; it has greater 

beneficial effects over and above bad or painful ones. It is based on this that 

Victor Frankl rightly argues that happiness is not the product of direct choice 

but is attained as a concomitant of other actions. Pleasure and material 

considerations are therefore not a guarantee that every act sanctioned by them 

is validly ethical. 

 

Deontological Theory of the Environment: The Search for a Way 

Forward 

The word deontology derives from the Greek words deon meaning duty and 

logos which means science or study. It can be understood roughly as ‘the 

study or science of duty’ In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is 

one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally 

required, forbidden, or permitted. Deontology or Deontological Ethics is an 

approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions in 

themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of 

those actions (consequentialism) or the character and habits of the actor 

(virtue ethics). This branch of normative ethics determines the goodness or 

rightness of action from examining acts, or the rules and duties that the person 

performing the act strives to fulfill. The deontologists hold that some actions 

are wrong in themselves – or at least that they are wrong prima-facie – not 

wrong merely because of the results of the actions. This means that the 

rightness or wrongness of an action is not determined by the consequences of 

the act nor upon the motive from which the act was done, but solely upon 

what kind of an act it was (Popkin and Stroll 50). For the deontologists, it is 

the intrinsic nature of an action itself that can make such act good or right. In 

order words, some acts are inherently right while others are wrong. This 

theory can also be called 'duty ethics'. Accordingly, duty ethics holds that 

humans have to act in a way that their actions can be considered to be 

inherently good acts. This implies that in duty ethics, an act may be 

considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence. The care, 

protection, and preservation of the environment must be done from a sense of 

duty irrespective of one’s inclination or tendencies. The care of the 

environment is not an inclination but an obligation, a duty for all. An 

obligation is what we are conditioned to do irrespective of personal 

perception. Inclination on the other hand can only thrive in the absence of 

obligation. The point is that we must suppress our feelings or inclinations and 

do only that which we are obliged or duty-bound to do towards the 

environment. Duty is an act in response to practical reason because it 

corresponds to the right course of action. It is one conferred on humans by 

nature that we must act rationally, morally, and legally towards to 

environment. This is what we ought to do because lack of environmental care 

and protection places an epistemic-moral questionable burden on us. Such 

burdens put to question our rational and moral worth or value as human 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               40 

 

beings. Not to protect the environment debases the moral integrity of 

humanity.A notable scholarwhose theory or argument is similar to the kind 

presented in this paper is Immanuel Kant when he argues that human beings 

have the unique capacity for rationality and moral action. No other animal 

possesses such a propensity for reasoned thought and moral action, and it is 

exactly this ability that predisposes human beings to act in accordance with 

nature, and for the sake of natural and moral laws or duty towards all things 

especially the environment.  

 

Humans have moral duties to oneself, to others, and the environment. Kant 

argues that there is a more foundational principle of duty that encompasses 

individual responsibilities. It is a single, self-evident principle of reason that 

he calls the “imperative.” The imperative in the case of our position in this 

paper is that the environment must be cared for and protected. It must not be 

exploited and abused. Categorical imperative, according to Kant, simply 

mandates an action, irrespective of one's desires, such as "You ought to do X.”  

Treat the environment as an end, and not as a means to an end, is imperative. 

That is, we should always treat the environment with dignity, and never use it 

as mere instruments. Reflecting on Kant’s postulations, Omoregbe writes: 

If we simply follow our natural inclinations in 

our actions or if we have some material benefits 

from such actions, our actions have no moral 

value. The moral values of an action do not 

depend on the result of the action, but on the 

fact that it was performed strictly for the sake of 

duty (220-221). 

 

It is our considered view that the “imperative” commands all humans to 

protect the environment because the environment is an end in itself, that is, it 

is good in itself. This imperative, in recourse to Kant's principles, obliges 

everyone without an exemption to protect and preserve the environment. 

Compliance over certain actions is achieved through compulsion, coerce, 

force, or threat but the protection of the environment is one that we must 

freely do because we are free agents. This is what it means to act morally 

because there is a correlation between moral action and duty or obligation of 

humans. By this, we mean that a moral person is one who acts from duty or 

obligation. For instance, when a person cares for the environment because he 

is afraid of being arrested by the police for refusing or failing to do so, he is 

not acting from duty or obligation. He would be acting from duty only if he 

realizes that he has a special duty or obligation to care and protect the 

environment. This is a moral obligation. Kant believes that the morality of all 

actions can be determined by appealing to this single principle of duty. This 

duty is according to Ross "part of the fundamental nature of the universe." 

Humans have a natural obligation or duty to preserve and protect the 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               41 

 

environment not only because it is good in itself, but also because by 

depleting resources and polluting the environment, there will be increasing 

jeopardy of the welfare of the present generation and next generations to 

come. The oil spill, erosion menace, and other degradations will continue to 

affect human life for many years to come if nothing is urgently done now. 

(Barbour, 64). 

 

Conclusion  

Humans are ends in themselves; it is wrong to treat a human being as a means 

to an end just as it is very wrong to see and treat the environment as a means 

to an end, it should be treated with some worth because it is an end in itself. 

Both the utilitarian and consequentialist principles that guide some people's 

attitudes concerning the environment will not do us any reasonable good. Man 

must adapt a deontologist attitude towards the environment, whereby the 

environment is seen under all situations as an end in itself. This means that 

humans in relating to the environment must act in such a way that truly shows 

and reflects respect and care towards the environment. Human beings must be 

democratic towards the environment. The rights of the environment must 

always be obeyed and protected including those of the lower animals and 

other appetitive creatures. The environment deserves some forms of justice 

and fairness. No one should treat it as a slave because that is not what it is. To 

achieve this, laws and decrees must be introduced and effectively enforced to 

curb environmental exploitation and degradation and regulate human activities 

towards the environment. This must be a crucial objective of any government 

in power. There must be ongoing and continuous citizens' education and 

enlightenment of the need to care and preserve the environment not only for 

the present generation but even for the next or future generations to come. 

There should not be any playing of politics with the environment; no semantic 

considerations in the making of the laws that will protect, preserve and sustain 

the environment, and no yielding to any form of technicality with the 

tendency of delaying the passage of such laws or perverse efforts towards the 

stringent implementations of such laws. This should become a universal 

principle or imperative otherwise all efforts towards the preservation and 

sustenance of the environment will continue to be illusory. In no situation 

should we feel obliged to degrade the environment because we have a natural 

and moral duty to protect, preserve, and sustain it. This is a categorical 

imperative; a self-regulating moral duty of all human beings. 

 

 

References 

Alawa, P. (2016). “Kant and Heidegger on Environmental Ethics: A  

Comparative Study” in Port  Harcourt Journal of History and 

Diplomatic Studies,vol. 3(1), 2016, Pp.143-157. 

Barbier, M. (1979). Introduction to Chemical Ecology. London: Richard Clay 



EVAIA: International Journal of Ethics and Values, Volume 1, Number 2, October 2020 

 

 Elechi                                                                                                               42 

 

 and Chauser  Publishers. 

Barbour, I. (1993). “Ethics in an Age of Technology” in Gifford’s Lectures,  

 vol. 2. London: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., Pp. 53-72. 

Bentham, J. (1962). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and 

 Legislation (ed.) by John  Bowing, New York: Russell and Russell. 

Eboh, M.P. (1999). Introduction to Philosophy and Philosophizing, Port 

 Harcourt: Pearl  Publishers. 

Elechi, M. (2020). “Critical Analysis of Basic Challenges in Environmental  

Ethics and  Sustainability in Nigeria” in EVAIA: International 

Journal of Ethics and Values, vol. 1(1). Pp.30-41. 

Goodland R. (1995). “The Concept of Environmental Sustainability” in 

 Annual Review of Ecology  and Systematics, vol.1(4), Pp.1-4. 

Jeffery, M.I. “Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Development: Ethical 

and Human Rights  Issues” in Implementing Indigenous Rights. 

MQJICE, vol.2, Pp. 105-120.  

Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Trans by Ellington, 

 J.W.,  Indianapolis, Hackett Publishing Co. Inc. 

Lawrence Atsegbua et al., (2010). Environmental Law in Nigeria: Theory and 

 Practice, Benin  City: Ambik Press. 

Obialo, E. D. (1992). “Environmental Pollution and Property Value”,  

 Presidential Address at the  Opening Ceremony of the 22nd Annual  

 Conference on the Nigerian Institution of Estate  Surveyors and 

Valuers, Port Harcourt, 25-29th March. 

Okereke, C.D. (2006). Environmental Pollution Control, Benin: Barloz  

 Publishers Inc.,  

Omoregbe, J. (2000). Ethics. Lagos: Joja Educational and Research  

 Publications. 

Omoogun, Ajai C. (2009). Ethics and Environment: Issues and Perspective,  

 Calabar: Baye  Communications. 

Ruckelshaus, William D. (2016), “Toward a Sustainable World” in Scientific 

 America, vol. 261,  Pp. 152-168.  

Popkin, R. H. and Stroll V. (1983). Philosophy Made Simple. London: 

 Heinemann. 

Warner, K.D. and Decosse, D. Thinking Ethically about the Environment. 

 https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusarcas/environment_ethics/s    

hort_course.html.1 -2.2009.  

Zimmerman, Michael E. (2001). Environmental Philosophy: From Animal 

 Rights to Radical Ecology, London: Prentice-Hall. 

 

 

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusarcas/environment_ethics/s%20%20%20%20hort_course.html.1%09-2.2009
https://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusarcas/environment_ethics/s%20%20%20%20hort_course.html.1%09-2.2009

