The current discourse is to avoid harming the environment that ensures equal opportunities for our future generations. Prevent climate change and global warming, not reverse it, that's the idea that falls entirely within the oppositional utilitarianism. As previously mentioned, we must make the natural resources and the world as we know it possible for those who come after us even when they know how to be and what are their priorities. This theory involves the ethics of care, which tells us that our actions should focus on helping those most in need, taking the risk of acting out of compassion rather than justice. Fairness that we have with respect to future generations, is property of another theory of justice, described by John Rawls, which tells us that an action will be considered fair as long as they do from an original position and with a veil ignorance. This means that our actions must be performed without providing the recipient who will be the consequences. This ideology is based on an unbiased, which means that for making judgments need not have too many details about our situation or the people affected, and we would be the risk with prejudice and then indirectly benefit some and harm others . As we can see, we're mixing two concepts that are in principle opposed to each other.
One part tells us that we should assess the negative consequences of our actions and think about who will be affected, but the theory of John Rawls tells us that we should not carry prejudices and act ciegamentea a to ensure fairness of the consequences. On the one hand, Rawls rejects utilitarianism as in the original position no one knows what is going to have special interests, everyone will want to ensure maximum freedom to pursue interests acquired when joining the society. At the same time, utilitarianism claims that the ideology of Rawls, by not considering the impact of actions can not be applied because it goes against basic human policies. If the two theories presented are contradictory, ycomo we can establish a framework that promotes environmental equity? I believe that no theory of justice can be taken as absolute standard, each has its pros and cons. In this specific case, we do an exercise that integrates theories of utilitarian but also part of the theory of justice of John Rawls. A basic idea would be aware of the consequences of our actions and assess what is the least possible damage that we can do, ie being aware of our situation (need for extensive knowledge of our ecological situation and needs others) and allow it to be improved or maintained for future generations in an equitable manner for all.
This will only be possible if we act without prejudices. Only in this way we could say that we live with our responsibility to society and to allow our natural resources are conserved and thrive for future generations. These problems facing humanity today, but they are problems that will get bigger for future generations, making it difficult their harmonious development and will result in quality of life. It is our responsibility to provide an equitable world conducive to its development, although it consists merely in stopping environmental degradation. In this way we could avoid favoring certain sectors of society and to make a distribution of property (or in this case to prevent damage to all equally) more equitable. '.