Ethical issues often manifest in every aspect of society. One of these issues is the moral dilemmas that arise due to the need to handle the challenge of global warming. Indeed, climate change has emerged as a serious issue that the world faces today. Sporadic climatic changes and events such as droughts, intense cyclones, and increased precipitation exemplify the need to take drastic measures to address the issue of climate change. Given the adverse impacts that climate change causes on people, animals and the entire planet, several arguments are given that propose and oppose a solution to such impacts. Ethical views on these claims oppose and support climate change policies. Particularly, utilitarianism proposes that an action should be taken to control global warming and climate change provided that such action benefits the greatest number.

Given that utilitarianism values actions that lead to the most good, it shows that all actions that result in global warming do not lead to the common and most good; hence, they should be prevented or stopped altogether.  The present path that humanity has taken has facilitated global warming, and it is likely to worsen and cause destructive effects on everyone. Consequently, every individual has a moral obligation to engage in actions that will feasibly prevent or not contribute to climate change. For instance, people have a moral obligation to shift from their overdependence on non-renewable energy sources such as fossil fuels and coal to renewable sources such as solar and wind. Such actions will lead to the most good and benefit the greatest number since the overreliance of renewable sources of energy will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

I agree that the utilitarianism view of climate change is right. The emission of greenhouse gases contributes greatly to the depletion of the ozone layer, increasing global warming. Therefore, when several stakeholders such as governments, corporations, the society, and individuals engage in activities that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, they will create the most good and benefit the greatest number. Given that climate change will have adverse effects on everyone, a utilitarian action will maximize the most good and minimize adverse effects on all people. Moreover, a utilitarian act is morally right since it will eventually lead to relieving the suffering of millions of people experiencing water shortages, flooding, droughts, and food shortages. Because of this, society has a moral obligation to decrease the emission of greenhouse gases to prevent the harm it causes on many people. Utilitarianism allows the government to pass laws and undertake stringent measures to reduce global warming.

According to Williams, what mainly matters is whether the actions taken to control climate change determine the moral status as required, right, impermissible or permissible. He argues that actions are relevant to moral status as long as they produce an amount of good. It means the action is right when it generates the most good. In effect, what Williams proposes here is that several stakeholders involved in addressing the issue of climate change should identify what is good before determining what is right for the planet and its inhabitants. Humanity presently faces a threat, which will shape their future. Global warming has led to adverse climatic changes, which has an adverse effect on the planet’s ecosystem and people. Then again, the state can regulate global warming by violating some rights of people and animals and making sacrifices as long as they lead to the most good. The goodness of the outcome relies on the wellbeing of the planet. Utilitarianism offers people the option to accept an action or reject it by expressing the obvious outcomes of every action (Williams 124-5). It expresses that every person has an individual responsibility for every action. Consequently, utilitarianism ensures the integrity of people’s actions.

Utilitarianism acknowledges that the pursuit of happiness is not the only outcome of moral action. Given that, it commands the involvement of all stakeholders in the efforts to prevent global warming (Williams 129).  It views that: “the determination to an infinite degree of my decision by other people’s projects is just another aspect of my unlimited responsibility to act for the best in a casual framework formed to a considerable extent by their projects” (130).  It means that the decisions determined for utilitarianism are the right ones. Although several questions arise about the abatement of global warming from a utilitarian viewpoint, the fact that global warming will extend to the coming centuries signify the need for aggressive abatement policies. In this regard, utilitarianism views that abatement policies can become the best mitigation approach to climate change. Utilitarianism also views that since several events have created environmental challenges, there is a need for decisive and transformative action.

The discussion has supported the utilitarian view that actions should be taken to control global warming and climate change provided that these activities benefit the greatest number. Global warming and climate change cause harm, which is likely to continue in the unforeseen future. The impact on people, animals, and the planet are proof of the need to take an aggressive abatement action.  Utilitarianism values actions that lead to the most good; hence, every individual has a moral obligation to engage in actions that will feasibly prevent or not contribute to climate change. A utilitarian action will maximize the most good and minimize adverse effects on all people. Furthermore, a utilitarian act is morally right, and through it, the government can undertake stringent measures to reduce global warming. To this end, what mainly matters is whether the actions taken to control climate change determines the moral status as required, right, impermissible or permissible. Indeed, an action is right when it generates the most good.

Work Cited

Williams, Bernard. A Critique of Utilitarianism: In Introducing Philosophy through Film: Key Texts, Discussion, and Film Selections. Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.