Utilitarian arguments for the development of environmental ethics make much of the statistics and about the state of the world, but they take the moral sphere and extend it beyond anthropocentrism to all sentient creatures. Very simply put, utilitarianism equates happiness with goodness, but since happiness is so subjective and difficult to measure their focus ends up falling on the alleviation of suffering. Peter Singer is a modern ethicist who has written extensively on the world-view. His ethic extends to all sentient creatures, anything that increases happiness or pleasure is ‘right’, anything that causes suffering is ‘wrong’. This is good so far as it goes. What sane person would actively desire another’s needless pain or suffering that is not for the greater good? Weaknesses in the utilitarian arguments become obvious when extended to the environment. Singer uses a wooded valley with hydropower potential as an example or case study of why ethics are important. Flooding the valley would cause the displacement and subsequent death, therefore suffering, of many sentient creatures. He does not address why the death and suffering imposed by a dam is worse than that imposed by mother nature as a rule of her regular workings. Also, using this logic, if over the long term it could be shown that a greater amount of ‘happiness’ would result from the construction than the ‘suffering’ it would cause, then there would be a moral imperative to build the dam.