You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 6 (1506 words)
Name Course Title Name of Professor Date of Submission Environmental Ethics Question 1 The ideas of Freeman and Kelman about cost-benefit analysis are largely similar, except for a few differences that will be discussed next. In general, Freeman argues that the objectives of environmental policy can be founded on economic productivity or appropriate cost-benefit analysis, or on several other objectives, like attainment of technologically viable extent of emissions regulation, human health protection, and security.
Both authors have provided different categories of costs and benefits obtained from ecosystems, and more universal environmental principles. However, Steve Kelman does not agree with Freeman’s argument that cost-benefit analysis can be related to objectives mentioned above (e.g. human health protection, security, etc.). According to Kelman, regulatory judgments concerning the environment, security, and health are moral issues, and hence analysis of cost and benefit is improper since it necessitates the implementation of a poor moral mechanism. Kelman strengthens his position with several illustrations, majority of which concern individual or private judgments. He claims, in these circumstances, supporters of cost-benefit analysis, like Freeman, should abandon any moral doubts about human rights violation, deception, and corruption. These arguments about cost-benefit analysis can be used in addressing the poor food manufacturing process of fast-food companies, as discussed by Eric Schlosser. ...
Not exactly what you need?