Environmental Ethics Final

John Stuart Mill "Nature" --------------------------------- -Thinks it is not right to link morally right and good with natural. B/c if we copied nature as a guide to conduct, we would act in the most atrocious ways. -Instead of imitating nature, we should attempt to override it and correct it when we can.

-3 senses of nature: 1.) Nature as the sum total of all things in the universe.(unreasonable, law of gravity etc.) 2.) Nature as that which is not artificial. (makes the most sense. Do what is not artificial.) 3.) Nature as that which ought to be the case. (nonsensical, like saying you ought to do what you ought to do)

Thomas E. Hill "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments" --------------------------------- -We ought to care for nature regardless of its instrumental uses to us. -those who destroy nature must lack a proper appreciation of their place on the natural order. -The way you treat the environment shows what kind of person you are. -Those who value such traits as humility, gratitude, and sensitivity to others have reason to promote the love of nature.

-A persons attitude toward nature may be connected with virtues and human excellence. -Willingness to destroy the natural environment may reveal the absence of traits which are a natural basis of a human. -Ruining the natural environment effects both present and future generations. -Debates over the character of a person that would want to destroy nature. -Experiences in nature bring out humility and that is what makes us good people. -An awareness of nature ought to humble us.

Stephen M. Gardiner "Ethics and Global Climate Change" --------------------------------- -Philosophers should see this as a call to action and study more about climate change in order to clarify the issue for people. -Believes that the problem of climate change is theoretically challenging which is why more philosophers should be more concerned with it. -Brought up Jamieson and how he thinks that climate change will require a fundamental paradigm shift in ethics.

-Aims to encourage and facilitate wider engagement by ethicists with the issue of global climate change. -Wonders why more philosophers don't study climate change. -Climate change poses some difficult ethical and philosophical problems, which makes the public and political debate surrounding climate change is often simplistic, and misleading with conceptual confusion. Often bogged down by confusing terminology.

Mary Anne Warren "A Critique of Regan's Animal Rights Theory" --------------------------------- -Believes all sentient animals (capable of having experiences: pain, happiness etc.) should have rights. -Moral rights are not an all or nothing affair. The strength of the reasons required to override the rights of a non-human organism varies, depending upon the probability that it is sentient and its probable degree of mental sophistication. -Inherent value is too mysterious to explain how rights emerge from it.

-Believes some animals should have moral rights but never as much as a human being. -She calls this the "weak animal rights theory" 1.) Any creature whose natural mode of life includes the pursuit of certain satisfactions has the right not to be forced to exist w/o the opportunity to pursue those satisfactions. 2.) any creature which is capable of pain, suffering etc. has the right that such experiences not be deliberately inflicted upon it. 3.)no sentient being should be killed without good reason.

-Mylan Engel ( -"Hunger, Duty, and Ecology" --------------------------------- -On what we owe starving humans -Interprets the Kant saying " I have an imperfect duty to help others in need" by saying the duty is imperfect because 1.) there is no specific person to whom we owe it. 2.) since we can not possibly help every person in need we should fulfill our duties in various ways as they present themselves. And 3.) the duty is general and it is never completely satisfied. It is a duty that we should fulfill whenever we can. -Presents Singer's consequentialist pond example: If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. Since poverty is bad, we ought to prevent that as much as we can.

-CENTRAL MORAL QUESTION: Are moderately affluent people morally required to do something to prevent children from dying from starvation and poverty? -The things affluent and moderately affluent people currently believe already commit them to the obligatoriness of helping to reduce malnutrition and famine related diseases by sending a nominal percentage of their income to famine relief organizations (O1) and by not squandering food that could be fed to them. (O2) -Presents 19 beliefs that most if not all people believe that would make it obligatory for them to follow O1 and O2. -Basically all of the 19 presented beliefs state that the world would be better with less suffering and death than if there was more. Then some qualify on the type of person that you believe you are.

Pew Center "Understanding the Causes of Global Climate Change"

-Climate change is happening and it is caused largely by human activity. -

Harley Cahen "Against the Moral Considerability of Ecosystems" --------------------------------- -If ecosystems have any intrinsic value that we want to preserve, we should also able to prove how ecosystems resemble other things that we protect for their intrinsic value. -If we want to show that ecosystems are morally considerable, we will have to prove how they are similar to beings that have interests. -Goal-directedness is the key.

-Ecosystems can not be morally considerable because they have no interests. -Things can be morally considerable if they have interests. -Things can have interests if they have goals. -Ecosystems have no goals.-therefore, ecosystems are not morally considerable. -There is no group goal and the stability at group level is only an incidental result of individualistic actions.

Peter S. Wenz "Just Garbage" --------------------------------- -Presents a solution to the current problem that assigns points to "Locally Undesirable Land Uses" or "LULUs" (dumps, prisons, power plants etc.) and requires that all communities earn "LULU points". Wealthy communities would be required to earn more LULU points. -This proposal would benefit life on Earth by reducing the generation of toxic hazards b/c when the rich are exposed to environmental hazards, culture will quickly evolve ways to eliminate their production. Should also be applied internationally bc some wealthy countries ship their waste to other countries. -Presents that the consumption of goods is the principal benefit associated with the generation of toxic waste. Consumption of goods is often correlated with income and wealth. So justice requires that a persons proximity to toxic waste should be correlated positively to their income and wealth. Doing otherwise is not just.

-Environmental racism is evident in practices that expose racial minorities in the U.S., and people of color around the world. -Rejects the defense of current distribution of environmental hazards to racial minorities and how they say it is economic, not racial discrimination. This defense relies on the Doctrine of double effect: racial effects of toxic waste sitings are blameless bc they are unintended side effects. Says it is still unjust to place disproportionate environmental hazards on the poor and argues that people are responsible for the known effects of their actions. -Presents the idea that those who get the benefits from harmful activities should be the ones who get the burden it causes.

Paul Taylor "Biocentric Egalitarianism" --------------------------------- -1.) Humans are non privileged members of earth's community of life. -2.) The natural world is interdependent and interconnected. -3.) All organisms are goal directed centers of life that have goods of their own which we can consider for their own sake. -4.) Human superiority is an unjustified bias. -individualistic not holistic.

-Equal respect for every living organism -He has four components that play into his biocentric outlook on nature:

Henry Shue "Global Environment and International Inequality" --------------------------------- -Thinks that whatever needs to be done about global environmental problems should initially be borne by the wealthy industrialized states. - Forcing LDC's to alter their development in order to avoid adopting the same form of industrialization by which DC's themselves became rich is unfair. -DC's are responsible for altering their own practices and cleaning up the environment.

-Establishes 3 commonsense principles fairness that give rise to the same conclusion about the allocation of the costs of protecting the environment. --Principle 1: Using others for your benefit is not justified. Doing so harms those who are being exploited. -Principle 2: Those who are better off should pay more because they are able. Flat rates are not fair bc they don't take into account the final outcome. Progressive rates are fair and should be enforced. -Principle 3: Radical inequalities are unjust. no one should have to pay if doing so will reduce their quality of life below the minimum standard UNLESS aid is guaranteed.

Richard Watson "A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics" (anthropocentric) --------------------------------- -Offers an ecologically based anthropocentric alternative to anti-anthropocentric biocentrism. -The fact that only human behavior is subject to moral evaluation sets us apart from nature. -The "reality" is that most environmental ethical systems are anthropocentric at their foundation. Even those who explicitly claim to be anti-anthropocentric will usually make some reference to the human good of actions taken to preserve nature. And usually, that reference will end up being the grounding reason for restricting human behavior.

-Generally conceives everything in the universe in terms of human values. -If we view the state of nature as being natural only when it is untouched by humans, then we are assuming that humans are separate or above nature. -It is in our best interest to halt our destructive tendencies towards nature. -If we accept biocentric egalitarianism , then humans should be treated in no special way. BUT, by arguing that natural states occur only when an ecosystem is left untouched by humans, Naess and others are implicitly separating humans from nature. There is an internal inconsistency.

Arne Naess "The Shallow and the Deep Ecology" --------------------------------- -Shallow ecology = the effort to reduce pollution and resource depletion.

-His deep ecology platform consists of 8 points: -1.) All life has value in itself, independent of its usefulness to humans. -2.) Richness and diversity contribute to life's well-being and have value in themselves. -3.) Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs in a responsible way. -4.) The impact of humans in the world is excessive and rapidly getting worse. -5.)Human lifestyles and population are key elements of this impact. -6.) The diversity of life, including cultures, can flourish only with reduced human impact. -7.) Basic ideological, political, economic, and technological structures must therefore change. -8.) Those who accept these points are obligated to participate in implementing the necessary changes and to do so peacefully.

Lily Marlene Russow "Why Do Species Matter?" --------------------------------- -We might have obligations to individual animals, but not to the entire species. -We are stewards, and what has value is what the steward is steward of. -A species extrinsic good is a link in evolutionary chain: the preservation of species is important in maintaining links in evolutionary chain. -We have moral obligations to protect things of aesthetic value, and ensure their continued existence. -Thus, we have a duty to protect individual animals depending on the value of that individual.

-Humans have an obligation not to kill living things. -We have a duty not to cause a species to go extinct and a duty to preserve species bc we are caretakers and species have extrinsic/intrinsic value. -Thinks one needs some way of valuing the ecosystem and species that does not assume that "natural" or "usual" are what grounds values and valuing. -Even if we can determine what has intrinsic value, we cannot determine how much, nor does it allow us to make the sorts of judgements that are often called in considering the fate of an endangered species.

Chris Stone "Should Trees have Legal Standing?" --------------------------------- -3 premises that should apply to nature: 1.) legal action can be pursued at a persons orders. 2.) Injury to said tree can be taken into account. 3.) relief must run to the benefit of the tree. - No individual would get the money from the lawsuit, but it would go into a trust fund to help it recover or be replaced.

-If we give nature the ability to have legal standing, public opinion will follow. -If we don't give standing to nature, we'll develop a prejudice. -Groups are often frustrated when trying to protect the environment bc the courts only think abut damage to people. -If something has legal standing it "counts" jurally and can be made a real entity in court.

Peter Singer "A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation" (anti-anthropocentric) --------------------------------- -We should extend the basic principle of equality to other species. -Consistent application of the basic moral principle of equality must include some animals. Due to tim having interests.

-Moral equality means to give each thing with interests equal consideration: only beings with a capacity for suffering and enjoying things. -Most human beings are speciesists: we eat other species to please our palates although unnecessary. We test products on other species to see if they're safe.

Dale Jamieson "Against Zoos" --------------------------------- -The only thing zoos teach us is that it's okay for us to dominate animals. -Zoos teach us a false sense of place in the natural order. The means of confinement mark a difference between humans and animals. They are there at our pleasure, tone used for our purposes. -Zoos are species last stop on the way to extinction. -If we are to keep them in captivity we owe them the best treatment and respect.

-Morality and perhaps our very survival require that we learn to live as one species among many rather than one species over many. -Both humans and animals will be better off when zoos are abolished. -Keeping animals captive is even more tragic as never experiencing freedom. -We must preserve the land, not bring nature indoors. -Only individual sentient animals have moral standing.

J. Baird Callicott "The Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic" --------------------------------- -While many living things do not have human rights b/c they are not human, we should treat these organisms with moral respect since they are important, if not essential to the biotic community of which we are a part. -Agrees w leopold that we need to find the line where human population is too much for the land.

-Objectively good anthropogenic (human)change benefits people and land, and vice versa. -Human economic activities should be constrained by considerations of land health. -Our environmental insensitivity equates to that of a malicious doctor. -Populated land has the potential to be healthy. Instead of wilderness regions there is also a need to improve areas where humans have destroyed already.

Devall and Sessions "Deep Ecology" --------------------------------- -Helped Naess w/ his 8 points of Deep Ecology. -"No one is saved until we are all saved" where the phrase "one" includes not only me, an individual human but all humans, animals, ecosystems etc.

-Philosophy of deep ecology focuses on human intuition and emotion. -They strive for a philosophical and religious world filled with meditative deep questioning, artistic expression, and more. -Society must undergo change in how we treat the natural world.

Tom Regan "The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights" (anti-anthropocentric) (non-holistic) --------------------------------- -It is morally wrong treat animals as our resources. -Any adequate moral theory must recognize some direct duties to animals.

-Regan's correct moral theory: "the rights theory"- each of us has inherent value, and has it equally. Things w inherent value have a right to be treated w respect. -Things possess value if they are experiencing subjects of life or being a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to that thing.

Michael Allen Fox "Vegetarianism and Treading Lightly on the Earth" --------------------------------- -Claims that vegetarianism is the best way to minimize harm. Thinks humans are responsible for a lot of destruction and extinction of species -Makes biocentric arguments as well as anthropocentric arguments. -MBD's enable our gross ability to view the natural world as means to achieve our ends. -The MBD has changed our ability to think about nature and perhaps ourselves and others.

-Thinks a meat based diet (MBD) in industrialized countries is "bad" for: a.) the environment, b.) biodiversity, and c.)for us in our relationship to nature. Takes on an almost Kantian point. -Challenges the assumption that a vegetarian diet is bad for you. -Points out that a MBD has negative effects for human welfare. Does not argue for the moral obligation of animals but rather appeals to humans self interest. -Ecologically informed environmental thinking: We have an obligation to minimize the harmful effects of our existence on the environment. -Claims a diet that relies heavily of meat appears affordable and environmentally sustainable only to those who a) are anaware of the larger ecological costs of meat production; b) assume that these costs do not have to be factored into our choices and a calculation of their consequences; or c) believe that the costs can be passed on to others - people in developing nations, our children, and other future persons.

Robert D. Bullard "Overcoming Racism in Environmental Decision Making" --------------------------------- -Governments should adopt five principles of environmental justice which are: -1.) The right to protection - Every individual has a right to be protected from environmental degradation. -2.) Prevention of Harm - Eliminate threats before they happen. Instead of treating lead poisoning, prevent it before it happens in poor minority areas. -3.) Shift the Burden of Proof - Right now, patients have to prove the damage that has happened to them from pollution. It should be the job of the polluter to prove ahead of time that it will not harm anybody. -4.) Obviate Proof of Intent - Instead of looking at intent, bc no one would admit to harming someone w pollutants, look at direct impact and statistical weight. -5.) Redress Inequalities - We need to spend more money in places where environmental and health problems are the worst.

-Unequal environmental protection undermines three basic types of equity: procedural (refers to fairness by the government), geographic (location), and social (race, class, culture etc.). -Adresses the problem by presenting evidence that the racial and economic minorities are forced to bear greater economic burdens. -Claims that racial environmental discrimination violates, procedural, geographic, and social equality. -As a result of our current environmental protection paradigm, low income and minority communities continue to bear greater health and environmental burdens, while the more affluent and white communities receive the bulk of the benefits. -Thinks we need a national environmental justice framework that embraces the 5 principles. He wants us to redefine protection as a right and not a privilege

Holmes Rolston III "Naturalizing Values: Organisms and Species" --------------------------------- -Nature is only valuable when it pleases us. Without us there is no such pleasure taken in anything. -What is value-able, is people; nature is able to be valued only if there are such able people there to do such valuing. Nature is not valuable on its own. -There is something hazardous about the way we view ourselves in the world. About how we think that we live in a reference frame where one species (us) takes itself as absolute and values every thing else in nature relative to its potential value for itself. -Animals can value instrumentally as a means for survival and inherently value their own lives. -Nature has a self maintaining system that can be benefitted and harmed.

-Values exist in the world objectively apart from human choice or human or animal consciousness. -Nature values the preservation and whatever traits serve the needs of the biological organism. Philosophers traditionally value things of human origin, significance or creation. -A naturalized value theory must talk about the good of a thing being valued. To objectively determine the good of a thing, one must determine what matters for that kind of thing. What matters for the thing is determined by its traits (encoded in the genome) The genome of biological things is determined by the observer independent of natural selection. THEREFORE, natural selection is the basis for value. -Presses for a naturalization of values. values are pervasively embodied in the nonhuman evolutionary world. -Animals are able to value on their own if they have preferences that can be satisfied or frustrated.

Paul Pojman "The Challenge of the Future: Private Property, the City, the Globe, and a Sustainable Society" --------------------------------- -We can strive to make our cities more environmentally wholesome and, at the same time, promote organic farming and local gardens. -We can increase our appreciation of the natural world by spending more time camping and hiking outdoors. -We can join and support an environmental organization that best identifies our values and concerns. -We can support political leaders that support environmental integrity -Our hope is in the young, if we can instill environmental consciousness in the in the children, we may be able to save our planet.

-We can and ought to live more simply -We must lower our consumption levels and reduce the pollution we cause, at the same time encouraging people everywhere deal with exponential population growth and resource consumption. -We can use less and more efficient electricity, recycle paper, plastics, glass and metal, use fluorescent lights, incline toward a vegetarian diet, walk and cycle for short distances and use public transport whenever possible. -Instead of turning up the thermostat, just put on another sweater. -Install solar panels in our buildings -Live simply so that others may simply live.

Immanuel Kant "Rational Beings Alone have Moral Worth" (anthropocentric) --------------------------------- -Humans are the only beings who are ends in themselves and therefore the only rational beings. -Introduces the Categorical Imperative: Humanity as an end in itself. Also, why other beings aren't rational moral agents deserving of being treated as such. -Act as to treat humanity, whether it be you or something else, as an end withal, never as a means only.

-We have no direct duties (an end in itself) towards animals b/c: 1.) animals are not self conscious 2.) they exist as a means to the end of man. and 3.) Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties (not an end in itself) towards humans. -Animals can neither formulate duties nor be motivated by them, no direct duties are owed to them. -Cruelty to animals is opposite of man's duty to himself, b/c it removes the feeling of sympathy for their sufferings, and thus a tendency that is very useful for morality in relation to other humans is weakened.

Gregory S. Kavka "The Paradox of Future Individuals" --------------------------------- -Any large scale change in human behavior will literally change the human race: b/c such a change alters the conditions under which individuals are conceived, our grandchildren in one scenario will be different people from those in another. This is particularly true in sweeping policy matters such as the environment, global warming etc. We needn't feel guilty about our poor stewardship. The people who would benefit by our reform are different from those who will suffer at our neglect. -The case of the slave child: Would it be better to be alive and a slave than to not be alive at all? In this scenario everyone benefits so the deal would be permissible. -These principles cannot be relied on to yield correct results when applied to cases involving the creation of persons. -A restricted life is a life that is significantly deficient in one or more of the major respects that make human lives valuable and worth living. We are able to determine whether 'A' or 'B' would be morally wrong on the grounds that it foreseeable leads to restricted lives. -Kant's categorical imperative directly condemns the couples actions in the case of the slave child solely as a means to their ends. -If parents, use their child that they do not originally want in order to give the father a kidney, they are still using the child as a means for their ends but it is permissible.

-Which particular people exist is highly dependent on the conditions under which we procreate, w/ the slightest difference in the conditions of conception being sufficient. In a particular case, to insure the creation of a different future person. -This fact forms the basis of an argument, to the effect that we have no moral obligation to future generations, to promote their well being. This argument creates a paradox. -The Obligation Principle: One can have an obligation to choose act or policy 'A' rather than alternative 'B' only if it is the case that if one chose 'B', some particular person would exist and be worse off that if one had chosen 'A'. Utilitarians rally around this. -EX:) Taking a pill before sex will result in a mildly handicapped child. As not taking it will result in a healthy child, and as existence w/ a mild handicap is not bad on the whole. no one would be worse off if a parent were to take the pill before conception. -The Extended Obligation Principle: One can have an obligation to choose act or policy 'A' rather than alternative 'B' only if it is the case that either: 1.) if one chose 'B', some particular person would exist and be worse off than if one had chosen 'A', or 2.) if one chose 'A', some particular person would exist and be better off than if one had chosen 'B'. We may be obligated to control growth in order to provide benefits for the future people who would exist if we controlled growth. -EX:) One may be obligated to refrain from the pill in order to benefit the healthy child, but it equally allows that one may be obligated to take the pill in order to benefit the handicapped child giving it the gift of life.

Albert Schweitzer "The Ethics of Reverence for Life" --------------------------------- -We are not only concerned for our own lives but also for the lives of other living beings and the environments in which we live. -His philosophy values nature not just as a necessary resource for human flourishing, but as the very ground of our being and source of motivation.

-respect for life is the basic ethical principle and the highest moral value. -it is good to maintain and encourage life, bad to do the opposite. -all life is sacred, and that sacredness less to a sense of responsibility. -the reverence for life is an attitude of responsiveness to other living things and values.

Aldo Leopold "Ecocentric Ethics: The Land Ethic" (anti-anthropocentric) --------------------------------- -A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. -Argued there was an intrinsic worth in natural systems that we should love: "think like a mountain" -Never abandon a belief that natural objects can and should be used as a resource managed for human benefit. We are all citizens of the biotic community.

-respect our resources especially land -consider land a living being with rights."The land ethic" -The land ethic grows strongest when we have experienced the land and grown to love it and respect it. -our economic well being could not be separated from the well being of our environment. -a land ethic changes the role of humans from conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it. -Advocated for preservation of life forms in all of their diversity. Advocates for humble and constrained human interference into the ecosystem.

Ned Hettinger "Comments on Holmes Rolston" --------------------------------- -Agrees w/ Rolston in the thought that there are instrumental goods for all living beings, including insentient ones. -Just because something is good for a being, does not mean that the being values it. -A wolf feeding her cubs has intrinsic value in the sense of the wolf enjoying pleasurable experiences. -Agrees that there is no reason to think that there can be no instrumental goods in non-human nature.

-thinks natural value is objective, but it doesn't matter if we view natures value as objective or as a result of our human intrinsic valuing. -Objective value is the strongest defender of nature. -It is dangerous to limit our defense of nature to arguments based on usefulness to us. -machines have instrumental goods like oil to a car, but we would not give a car value. -wolf feeding her cub example. Pleasurable experience but not intrinsic value. -A machine also has instrumental goods, like the fact that it is not good for a car to run without oil.

Intrinsic

belonging naturally, essential

anthropocentric

humans are at the top

Extrinsic

not part of the essential nature

utilitarianism

the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. (the well being of sentient beings)

Sentient

the capacity to feel, perceive, experience