PHI 376: Environmental Ethics Final

Pragmatism or Sustainability: John Cobb: "Toward a Just & Sustainable Economic Order" 359

*Cobb: "Toward a Just & Sustainable Economic Order"* *Argues* - the present global system aims at economic integration for the sake of maximizing "growth" as measured by GNP - this leads to sustained efforts to destroy all national barriers to trade & make people interdependent - results are widespread injustice & unsustainable pressures on the environment - Brundtland Commission's proposal of "sustainable development" (involving expanding entire economy) won't work - increasing GNP doesn't crrespond to improving economic welfare, much less to enhancing social well-being - realizing this noncorrespondence may make it possible to develop an economic order that's geared to meeting needs of people rather than increasing production - such an economy would be decentralized & organized from bottom up - Argues the principles governing the global economy inherently lead to injustice & unsustainability - policies based on these principles concentrate wealth in fewer hands & leave the poor more destitute - they transfer wealth from poorer to richer countries & accelerate the destruction of natural resources, especially in poorer countries - Suggests global system of relatively small, economically self-sufficient regions free for themselves - since much of the unsustainability of the present economy stems from appropriation of the resources of poor countries by the richer ones, the ending of the present global economic system would counter this MY NOTES - believes current principles governing global economy lead to injustice & unsustainablility (transfering wealth from poor to rich, destruct natural resources) - argues nees more than change, need to envision whole different system - offers alternative economic system with possibility of being just & sustainable - ideals society based on community & ecological balance - thinks environment is a problem -- economic decisions not guided by environmental concern, & competition creates a cycle -- exhaustion of resources problem -- deforestation) - Brundtland Report assumes the present global system will continue -- increase in total economy -- poor only benefit if rich grow richer -- could only avoid ecological destruction by using resources efficiently & avoiding destruction ------- Cobb says this is disastrous because of what consumption earth can afford & idea that rich grow richer at same percentage as poor , trickle-down effect threatens environment - his Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) --- created for US to promote demystification of "growth" --- assumes well-being of whole society is affected by the condition of the poorest --- believes concern should be the poor's access to means of production for necessities, and GNP not considered - *His alternate ideal* -- present global system not working because focused on global interdependence & declines necessities & livelihood because dependent on trade -- ALTERNATE IDEAL is relatively small regions economically self-sufficient (intentionally vague because of what's realistic) ---- market as free as possible & community sets terms, survival not threatened by trade decisions, goal to encourage other regions to organize similarly & social goals ---- no subordination & many problems dealt with on global level could get there some day ---- ending present global system would counter unsustainable economic habits like appropriation of resources ---- proposal could be just & sustainable -- first STEP to acknowledge that redirection of efforts is urgent! ---- next STEP to raise consciousness of injustice & unsustainability ---- says close connection between environmental decay & economic growth policies ---- we can form alliances ... development for the sake of the people begins Objections!! - can be said to be too different from what we're accustomed to - appeals to capitalist motives - implies transfer of power - requires painful changes - he RESPONDS that depends on degree of one's distress - avoid, adapt, acknowledge, take first step CLASS - The problem with growing economies -- current economic growth he sees right now isn't benefitting the people it should be benefitting -- it's not just that we're growing & it causes problems, we also shouldn't assume that growth is the only way to benefit --- he counters idea that in order to benefit the poor you have to make the rich richer & that that's not sustainable - Main argument: criticizes how reliant countries are on trade -- so change the idea that when you see rapidly growing see that as a bad thing & unsustainable and they end up using the poorer countries -- so how do we get poor countries wealthier without making the wealthy wealthier? -- 366 wants to go back to more regional economy (tarriffs, diversity of industry, ...) pull back from global economy, he's not specific about the region because he thinks some could be small and some country wide (but like focus on growing crops for california... unlikely to move to regional economies -- only when people really seem to suffer strongly -- does give some proposals to help us move to it - Environmental economists point out that Cost of environment is usually not counted - Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare -- to replace GDP/GNP - Begins with personal consumption but adjusts in relation to income distribution (the traditional way right now is to add up the entire income of the whole economy and it's not weighted who benefits from it -- we've had continued economic growth but top 20% have gotten much wealthier in last 8 years than people at the bottom who've hardly seen any wealth at all --- so gdp continues to go up but not distributed equally so the isew gives negatives - Also subtracts for "defensive costs" - costs that result from economic growth and the social changes (urbanization) that accompany it (if people have to move because there aren't any jobs, that's a cost to be imposed upon them that didn't need to be imposed - should be counted as economic negative - As the growth happens, it's regional, therefore other areas contract -- this index tries to count the negative aspects of it - Not sure if economically it makes a lot of sense, but he's not the first to develop an economic way of counting economic activity that counts costs

Deep Ecology or Ecofeminism: Arne Naess: "Deep Ecological Movement: Philosophical Aspects" 262

*Naess: "Deep Ecological Movement: Philosophical Aspects"* - Norwegian famous for 60-70s Deep Ecology movement - coined because concern for industrial technology's effect on environment - calls out other ethicists to speak out, not worry about government, & effect change - uses 8 points to erase divide between humans & environment (won't need to reduce or alternatives if just live & use less) *THESIS* - Deep Ecology emphasizes the interconnectedness of people with the nonhuman environment, as well as the importance of addressing the underlying ideological and systemic cause of ecological degradation. - pragmatic overall long-term goal = to change entire power structure so people realize it for themselves - to get people to change the way they view their relationship with environment *Calls* - Argues deep ecologists are needed in environmental policy, needed by shallow environmentalists, will be welcomed, & best strategy to turn the tide - Affirms acceptance of pragmatic pluralism - using multiple theories if it solves the problem - you can still use anthropocentric arguments but there needs to be a foundation built on intrinsic values (human-centered with practical ethic based on fundamental perspective & intrinsic values) *PLATFORM* - 1: Well-being & flourishing of humans & non have value in themselves (independent of usefulness, referring to biosphere as a whole) - 2: Richness & diversity of life forms contribute to realizing values & are values in themselves (simple species are still important to value of the whole) - 3: Humans have no right to reduce the richness & diversity except to satisfy vital needs (intentionally vague because "vital" is different) - 4: Flourishing of human & cultures is compatible with a smaller population. Flourishing of nonhumans requires smaller human population. (increase in human pop = decrease in resources = decrease in life quality & decrease in flourishing nonhumans) (smaller pop won't stop flourishing & that's the goal, but richer countries will make it hard) - 5: Present human interference with nonhuman world is excessive & worsening. (it's the nature/extent of interference is the problem - keep living just differently - urgent need for population) - 6: Policies must be changed which affect basic econ, tech, & ideol structures. Resulting state is very different from present. (way of life will change, pursuing economic growth incompatible) - 7: Ideological change is mainly appreciating life quality rather than adhereing to increasing standard of life. Difference between bigness & greatness. (quality of life is not quantifiable, higher quality of life with less standard of living?) - 8: Those subscribe to the points have obligation to try to implement changes. (If agree with 1-7 we have obligation to implement change, different routes are okay as long as get there) *Shallow vs Deep* - Shallow: anthropocentric, shortsighted, doesn't solve the problem, stops before ultimate level of fundamental change, promotes tech fixes based on same consumption-oriented values & industrial economy - Deep: biospheric level, fight causes at fundamental level, change the game *Deep Ecology* - concerns willingness to question & appreciate importance of questioning, for every policy in public - Anthropocentric has practical effectiveness & gravitational pull BUT dangers & stalls effective action - Asking what we can do to live on earth without interfering so much, dont need develping tech - principles making up platform reached through philosophical basic premise *Self-Realization* - his personal philosophy - seeing yourself in other things and viceversa - works well as a framework for deep ecology - Not crazy - essentially leads to world government, very radical nature

People vs Nature: Holmes Rolston: "Feeding People vs Saving Nature?" 451

*Rolston: "Feeding People vs Saving Nature?"* - controversial because saying we let humans die all the time so it's not different - Should we let people go hungry in order to protect the environment? (let people starve or protect environment?) - Argues this is a false dichotomy fallacy (2 options when more than that) - He shows why people don't think humans are that important rather than showing why environment is - *Argues* we can let humans starve to protect the environment & it's not shocking because we let humans die all the time, often purposefully & we choose to do it - this is to the people saying "we can't protect the environment until we protect people first" -- He's saying "I'd believe you more if you also said stop paying for war and feed people or provide healthcare or make cars safer, etc" - it's essentially a long list of how we can improve people's lives - Makes the point that idea right now that we'd all work to help the hungry ignores the fact that it's probably not even pragmatically possible -- we probably could help them, but not suddenly devote everything to them because we'd all be in poverty & civilization would stop -- if we argue to get people out of poverty before protecting the environment, we'll never protect the environment -- what we can do is make society better and that might mean there will still be people in poverty

Justice & Democracy: Troy Hartley: "Environmental Justice: Environmental Civil Rights Value Acceptable to All World Views" 478

*Troy Hartley: "Environmental Justice: Environmental Civil Rights Value Acceptable to All World Views"* - goes over ethical models & how they fit in with environmental ethics / justice -- these types of views have an affect on the environment - started around 1980s when minorities being treated unfairly (ex contaminants) - his concern is minorities, disadvantaged people - *Argues* - Utilitarian Doctrine problematic: --- moral utility based on principles of greatest happiness (morally right if promote happiness/pleasure) --- causes conflict between utility & justice when discriminatory society produces higher level of net happiness than nondiscriminatory society --- view doesn't allow things like compensation - can't balance things out to benefit both --- this conflict prouced the environmental justice movement within the civil rights minority low income - *Argues* - Kantian Rights & Obligations is Favorable, tends to work better - action has moral worth if performed as a duty even to the detriment of one's inclinations -- cant be aimed at any specific ends, only based on principle or moral rule (categorial imperative) - Categorical Imperative is foundation --- 1: for a rule to be a moral law, it must be a universal law, legislatively valid for everyone --- 2: rule must treat all human beings as an ends and never merely as a means to an end --- 3: a person must recognize the rule binding upon them and the person must act as if they are a member of an organized society - Environmental Justice movement would view a safe environment for all, as a moral law, satisfying 3 formulations of categorical imperative - Kantian views allow environmental justice to challenge utilitarian approach to decision-making without embracing nonanthropocentric principles - *Argues* - Rawls Veil of Ignorance problematic --- when set up principles in society, we won't know whether we benefit from them (most would want balance so if not knowing where you're going to be, not going to be too bad off either way) (women voting) --- inequalities allowed (okay if someone has more status but want that status to benefit people without the status) (doctors / lawyers) --- gambling is a criticism: ------- problematic because people would be willing to let people suffer and take their chances if benefit is possible, so wouldn't be as fair as Rawls thinks (garbage) ----- Hartley just acknowledging that veil of ignorance doesn't mean we'll protect all because people might say otherwise - people apply these concepts to their world views which in turn affect environmental issues --- world views not complete philosophical belief, but association of fundamental assumptions to comprehend & act in the world --- troublesome because if world view is too general, makes things complicated - *Concludes 1* - his concern is minorities and the disadvantaged - in an area where no one is, if you have the world view that Hartley favors, even if see profit you would still think of it as affecting the environment and shouldnt want to do that - Kantian ethics is anthropocentric -- but he's using issues more broad and not individual actions - Hartley means being fair between people within CURRENT social economic system --- others like ecofeminism & deep ecology wanna change social eocnomic system - Hartley favors Kantian perspective as most liekly being fair between people - saying environmental ethics can't ignore just for people & environmental justice, they can go together -- not in conflict, land ethics must address people ethics, maybe environmental justice answer to enviro ethics issue) - *Concludes 2* - environmental justice axiom exists in all world views, but gets complicated -- works favorably in Kantian "An effective environmental justice movement forces enviro inequities into policy agenda & enviro ethics must discuss enviro justice" - In accordance with environmental injustice (environmental racism), minority communities are disproportionately subjected to a higher level of environmental risk than other segments of society - Growing concern over unequal environmental risk and mounting evidence of both racial and economic injustices have led to a grass-roots civil rights campaign called environmental justice movement - environmental ethics aspects of environmental injustice challenge narrow utilitarian views and promote Kantian rights and obligations - Nevertheless, environmental justice value exists in all ethical world views, although it involves a concept of equitable distribution of environmental protection that has been lacking in environmental ethics discussion

1: Is it necessary to firmly establish intrinsic value before we act to protect the environment? Can we justify our actions with only a partial or incomplete justification? --- Consider the at least 2 arguments for the value of beings. --- Consider the monist, pluralist, or pragmatic approaches

- No, it's not necessary to firmly establish intrinsic value before we act to protect the environment. --- make sure to go into intrinsic, instrumental, anthropocentric, nonanthropocentric --- take too long, stall solutions, environment would never get protected --- we can still protect it for other reasons (anthropocentrism, humans realizing they're apart of environment / nature) --- intrinsic value is kind of a vague concept & not great for decisionmaking --- can we really derive value merely from some natural facts? - Yes, we can justify our actions with only a partial or incomplete justification. --- take too long, stall solutions, environment would never get protected --- partial justifications still help the environment --- follows that pluralistic approaches acceptable because same conclusion about helping the environment ----- Pluralism from Christopher STONE ----------- moral theory that can incorporate multiple central arguments/principles - morals consist in several different frameworks each governed by its own appropriate principles ------------ thinks pluralism works because it's okay to agree for different reasons, agree to disagree because come to the same conclusion (ie being against eating animals for different reasons) - It would take too long, and would stall any solutions, if we had to wait to firmly establish intrinsic value. The environment would never get protected. - Same for if we needed to have a complete justification. - We know the things that matter now and imminently without considering intrinsic value, like global warming and clean water. Even if those are for anthropocentric reasons, which is a partial justification, it's still helping the environment. - Also, we can protect the environment for anthropocentric reasons without needing to consider intrinsic value. - So, the reasons that we protect the environment - partial or complete, with or without intrinsic value established - are perfectly fine because in the end, we're protecting the environment. - From there, it logically follows that pragmatic approaches are acceptable as environmental ethics because the reasoning may not matter as long as we're coming to the same conclusion about how to protect the environment. - This can be problematic though because it leaves open room for bad ideas to have partial justification. - Problematic because pragmatism could turn into relativism? - Some claim that only by appealing to the instrumental value of nature will motivate environmental action... anthropocentric - It's not necessary to firmly establish intrinsic value before we act to protect the environment --- because we can do actions that protect the environment, specific actions, for anthropocentric reasons without considering intrinsic value. And this partial justification is acceptable. However, to protect every aspect of the environment, from destroying natural habitats to expand human development to polluting more than necessary, intrinsic value would need to be firmly established. This is because to recognize intrinsic value is moral maturity, and from there comes moral responsibility, and we must hold ourselves accountable for the acknowledge and protect everything we deem has intrinsic value. This is the only way we could protect everything we deem as intrinsically valuable. I don't think this would ever happen either, because even one who believes everything in the environment has intrinsic value, they may still not respect it because they assume not enough people share that belief. - Furthermore, we can protect the environment without needing to establish intrinsic value because if humans as a species come to view ourselves as part of the environment, not separate from it, then we'll understand that environmental well-being leads to human well-being. It requires a shift in paradigms, yes, but it's possible without needing to firmly establish intrinsic value. The concept of shared well-being uniting humans and nature with a common future is all we'd need -- and it would lead to a decision-making framework that explicitly consideres ecocentric and anthropocentric approaches - Intrinsic value is kind of a vaguely formulated concept and not amenable to the sort of comparative expression needed for conservation decisionmaking, and (2) instrumental value is a much richer concept than generally appreciated, permitting a full range of values of biota to be considered in conservation decisions. - ... actions are better served by building their decisions on a strong foundation of instrumental value rather than on the weak concept of intrinsic value - Also, can we derive value merely from some natural fact (eg that pollution is destroying some ecological system?)

2: What should be the goal of environmental protection? Are there some goals that should not be pursued? --- Environmental change can have different focuses. Animal rights advocates argue for different treatment of individual animals in the immediate future. Deep Ecology advocates an extended program of societal change based on rethinking our relationship to goods and the natural world. --- Consider at least 2 approaches and argue for the benefits and problems with each.

- Sustainability should be the goal (reducing carbon footprint, population, ecological footprint) - achieve sustainability through... - Deep Ecology -an ecological & environmental philosophy promoting the inherent worth of living beings regardless of their instrumental utility to human needs -belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent of its utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use - Problems: very radical, completely changing the power structure, changing the world order, changing the game, scary - Benefits: solving issues at the foundational fundamental level and that would definitely promote sustainablity (reduce carbon footprint, population, ecological footprint) - Should NOT pursue.... - Cobb's alternate global system of relatively small, economically self-sufficient regions free for themselves -- wouldn't work - Yes much of the present unsustainability comes from appropriation of the resources of poor countries by the richer ones - However, altering that doesn't necessarily mean it will be sustainable. - With relatively small, economically self-sufficient regions, how would any of that work? How would regions be organized? How would uneducated people be taught to cultivate and what not? It wouldn't necessarily stop production... He's envisioning a whole different system like Naess but that doesn't mean it'll work, his steps are way too vague, essentially just cutting off regions from one another - can be said to be too different from what we're accustomed to - appeals to capitalist motives - implies transfer of power - requires painful changes

Short Essay

4 short essays -- pick 1 of 3 for each

Deep Ecology or Ecofeminism: Warwick Fox: "Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?" 252

Fox: "Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?"

Justice & Democracy: Brian Barry: "Sustainability & Intergenerational Justice" 487

JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY AS A WHOLE --- DID NOT DO THIS ARTICLE Justice & Democracy: - making point that environmental decision making needs to consider democratic norms -- it's one thing to say we should do this to protect the environment but we also need to consider there is more than one way to protect the environment and we need to go through democratic ideals so we don't sort of have ecofascism

Justice & Democracy: Norton & Hannon: "Democracy & Sense of Place Values in Environmental Policy" 516

Norton & Hannon: focus on very local decision making as opposed to a broad national decision making, trying to make argument that there's a value in this other than just ---- ex in order to combat global warming .... -- sacrificing some people isn't so democratic ----- ex island nation gonna be underwater in a couple decades, so it's a tragedy and wanna help but if think about it democratically we need to sort of respect their decisions about what they're gonna do like find a place to live together? Or give them $ and they move anywhere? And they're the ones that need to make that decision

Deep Ecology or Ecofeminism: Warren & Cheney: "Ecological Feminism & Ecosystem Ecology" 294

Warren & Cheney: "Ecological Feminism & Ecosystem Ecology" Warren & Cheney: overview/intro to Naess -- ecofeminism -- similar but focus on institution & systematic treatment of women/poor/minorities -- some ways too narrow a term -- more just how to treat people justly -- intersectionality - emphasize relationship between environmental impact and how it impacts especially poor / minority / most vulnerable in society generally more impacted -- idea that we should protect the whales, we should also focus on fact that when we do harm the environment some are harmed more than others and it's a human rights issue - feminist & povert issue, not just humans vs environment issue -- much more broad than feminism ---- ecosystems ecology is a holistic view towards environmentalism, so trying to make point that ecofeminism has holistic view not just of environment or ecosystem but also of people within ----- in efforts to reduce coal emissions are we actually displacing people from homes?