Pros And Cons Of Tailing Dams Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism ethics mainly decides if a decision is ethical based on if it helps the majority over the individual. It is essentially “the greatest good for the greatest number”. It also states that an action is decidedly right or wrong depending on its consequences. The people who oppose the building of tailing dams argue that the building of these dams is unethical based on the idea that it will not benefit the greatest number of people. They believe that it has a higher likelihood of negatively effecting the majority rather than benefiting from it. An example would be if a tailing dam were to fail and pollute a large river in Alaska that many communities relied on. It is argued that more people potentially lost their homes, incomes, source

If the intended outcome brings about good, then the action is ethical. Individuals that do not want tailing dams to be built, argue that tailing dams are not ethical in this sense, because any intended “good” outcomes would still have the risk involved that would be detrimental to these people. The intended outcomes of the building of the tailing dams also do not take into account what this group of people consider important to them. This include their access to clean water, sustainable fisheries, and a steady income. These individuals could only stand to not benefit from the outcomes, so in that sense, the outcomes are not inherently good and thus it is not ethical. The other side of this debate is the groups and individuals that believe that the building of a mine/tailing dam is an ethical decision. Their main foundation is that mines will generate income that will help stimulate the economy which would be beneficial to everyone. These groups tend to believe that the benefits will always outweigh any risks involved with the building of the dams. Groups that believe that the building of mines/tailing dams is ethical tend to be related to the mining industry or the federal government in some

In regard to impartiality, it is almost impossible to be impartial and still take a side on this issue. The arguments of both sides are built upon the wants and needs of the people involved. A heated topic like this one that involves money and the environment, will almost always pull a person to one side or the other. No matter what people say, they will almost always be inherently bias toward one side or the other. When it comes to coolness, it is possible in this debate, yet is most often not implemented. When it comes to protests, those tend to get very heated and do not contribute in a positive way towards the argument, but when an individual can stay calm in an otherwise vexing situation, then their argument carries more