environmental ethics
Teleology/Virtue Ethics
An approach to ethics based on the theory that people should be judged based on their character and values, rather than the results/consequences of their actions. According to this theory, one should "Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation" and "The right way to be is how an outstanding moral character would be" -does not provide specific guidance on how one should act and moral character is also out of ones control due to differences in education, society, culture, friends and family
Stewardship
An approach to ethics based on the theory that the natural world is valued for the resources that it can provide for human use. This theory also suggests that the world should be treated with respect because it is a gift from God. Argues agaisnt destruction or ruin of the earth and advices that humans care and look after the earth as a shepherd cares for sheep good for conservation of nat resources and sustainable economic development
consequentialism
An approach to ethics based on the theory that the results/consequences of an action determine whether or not is is morally good/bad. According to consequentialist theory, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. - utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism as it can disregard the development and importance of moral character.
explanation and justification
An explanation is a theory about why something happened or why we should do one thing rather than another. A justification is a story/ gives reasoning for why we are right, or probably right, to adopt one theory rather than another.
conservation and preservation
Conservation is more geared towards saving resources so that we can make use of them in the future. Involves using finite resources in moderation (reduce, reuse recycle, rethink). Takes into account our current obligation for future generations. preservation is about protecting the natural environment because of it's own spiritual and aesthetic value. Views nature and organisms as having intrinsic value and by minimizing out use of them (preserving them) we are reducing or ecological footprint for their own intrinsic value, and not for their use in the future.
cost-benefit analysis
Economics is involved in making most major public policy decisions concerning the environment and it makes these policies by analyzing social costs and benefits. CBA typically consists of adding up all of the benefits of a public policy and comparing them to the costs. Do whatever maximizes benefits and minimizes costs when taking everything into account. From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit of the action must exceed the cost; therefore in the case of pollution, the person/people polluting must be able to compensate at a higher rate for the person/people being deprived of nature due to pollution in the form or nature, or a different form (Econ standing) Example: Sierra Mountain Club development (DesJardins Chapter 3)
Environmental Econ
Environmental econ studies the relationship between the economy and the environment by focusing on environmental issues such as the extraction, use, and waste of natural resources. Environmental econ looks at the costs and benefits of different policies for issues such as market failure (failure to allocate resources efficiently) and externalities (when someones action negatively or positively effects other people) such as pollution, water quality, toxic substances, solid waste, and global warming. Many environmental problems are fundamentally caused by these economic problems (distribution of scarce resources, allocation of risks and benefits, competing interests, production of desired goods/services...) Solutions for externalities: environmental regulations quotas on pollution tradable emission permits taxes and tariffs on pollution Flaw in environmental econ: Intrinsic value is neglected because it cannot be quantified.
Sagoff: Animals Rights and Environmentalism (starts on page 59)
Environmentalists cannot be animal liberationists, and animal liberationists cannot be environmentalists Environmentalist → sacrifice the lives of an individual to preserve the ecological system (concerned with population) Liberationist → sacrifice system to preserve animals Preserving a community does not mean we have duties to any individual Sagoff believes environmental ethics should not be approached with the belief that humans have a moral obligation to individual species, rather with a scope on ecological systems as a whole.
Future generations
For: Our responsibility to people of the future is not to provide them with specific goods or resources but, rather, to provide them with equal and fair opportunities. -yes because with the population growing, will we soon run out of resources needed to sustain so many people -also with our dependency of fossil fuels contributing to global warming, we are compromising the earth for future generations because of our current wants and desires -we do have the ability to alter these trends so that they will not compromise the health and survival of future human beings However, in contrast it is difficult to have obligations to future generations as these people do not exist yet, and because of this we don't know what their wants and desires are
discount rate discount rate argument: preferences for benefits today over benefits in the future
If we want to compare benefits and costs occurring at different time scales, discounting is needed to express future costs or benefits at today's equivalent value. - the time lag between cause and effect is problematic because it compromises efforts to do something now about a problem (ex climate change) as people are not generally inclined to sacrifice now to gain benefits (or to avoid costs) down the road -discount rate can put a price on our current choices based on future damages "internalizing the externalities" - complicated because have to figure out cost of damages in the future using time preferences and opportunity costs -people may want to use a resource now, causing pollution or environmental degradation because of the futures uncertainty http://grist.org/article/discount-rates-a-boring-thing-you-should-know-about-with-otters/
Schmidtz: Are All Animals Equal?
Response to Taylor's take on respect for nature takes an anthropocentric approach to ethics; believes our morality makes us superior to other species Argues that having respect for nature and being a species egalitarian (all living things have equal moral standing) are two different things
Singer: Famine, Affluence, Morality
Singer argues we must reinvent our idea of "charity" drowning child example: If we see a child drowning and we are able to help him, then any rational person would help We know people are starving in Africa, and we have the technology to be able to help them... What's the difference? Suggests that every human should give to the point of marginal utility - the point at which the positive effects gained by the beneficiary are equal to the negative effects by the donor.
Singer: Animal Liberation
Singer draws a comparison between human rights movements and animal rights. argues the same logic used to extend rights from one group of humans perceived to be superior to others can be used to extend rights to animals. for example, just as a human of high iq isn't more important than a human with a lower iq, denying animals rights based on intelligence or ability is wrong. Related to moral extensionism Argues that our exclusion of animals from moral consideration is the same as the earlier exclusions of blacks and women Speciesism: Allows the interest of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species (pg. 53); humans are speciesists Singer focuses on the concept of interests Sentience is the capacity to suffer and or experience enjoyment; Singer argues this is all that is needed to establish moral standing so, according to singer, plants do not have moral standing Making comparisons of suffering can be difficult, especially when these are between species Utilitarian approach
Arguments for and against Obligations to Future Generations Argument from Ignorance (of Future Generations) Disappearing Beneficiaries/Non-Identity
The argument from ignorance stresses that we know little about people of the future. Who they will be, that they will exist, or what they will be like, what their needs, wants, or interests, will be. Because we know so little about them, it makes little sense to try and specify any obligations to them that we might have. Counterargument/flaw: we have a fairly good idea about what people of the future will need and what their interests will be. We know they will at least need adequate supply of clean air and water, etc. In civil law, we hold people responsible for actions that result in unintended but foreseeable harms to others (negligence) Argues that we not only have no responsibility to bring future generations into existence but also that it is meaningless even to talk about ethical obligations to future generations. We have no obligation (based on either the utilitarian "maximum happiness" principle or deontological duties to respect the rights of future people) to bring a generation into existence because there are no particular people to whom that responsibility is directed. different policy decisions will result in chain reaction where a different set of people being born in the future Therefore, the future people aren't better or worse off, different people are born -hence the disappearing counterargument: our current way of life will make the future generation worse off as it will compromise their health and life quality. This is creating future human suffering and our obligations should be to contribute less to future suffering and create better conditions for whoever the future population is, not a specific group of people.
Temporal Location
The argument that we have more obligation to those closer to us, in location or time because there is more of a relationship. This is specific in arguing against obligations to future generations because it argues that we have less responsibility for the future generation that may exist someday. because less of a distinct relationship Counterargument: the train ride example (DJ p77) -We are creating and storing nuclear wastes and sending them on a "train ride" into the world's future populations. We are guilty of a great injustice by placing people of the future at grave risk, all because we wish to avoid making changes in our comfortable consumer lifestyle.
Whyte: Elephant Management
The dilemma: Elephant populations don't have many 'natural checks' (meaning that they can exploit larger range of food sources). Given enough time, they can begin to impact the biodiversity within the "islands"(wildlife reserves). This means wildlife managers have to choose between sacrificing biodiversity and culling elephants. Conclusion: Management faces a difficult dilemma in deciding how to approach the management of elephants. Limiting their populations or not both results in outcomes that aren't favorable.
Moral Extensionism
The idea that humans should extend their moral concern outside of the human realm and give more things ie soils, water, plants, and animals, etc moral standing
Parfit: Non-Identity Problem
The non-identity problem arises from the fact that in some situations, our choices determine not only the quality of life that people will enjoy in the future, but the identity of the people who will be able to exist to enjoy it. If the existence is worth having even though compromised because of our actions , then we have no moral duty to change our action In such cases, the application of moral principles that seem relatively uncontroversial in more familiar contexts can yield results that most people find unacceptable in future circumstances. Overall, by understanding that our current actions create future consequences and not acting to reduce these consequences for the sake of future generations, it is unethical.
White: Historical Roots of Crisis
White describes the unnatural treatment of nature that has arisen from scientific knowledge and technological power, leading to environmental degradation. Western tradition and religion has also contributed to this environmental degradation as it justifies the exploitation of elements from the natural world (plants and animals) for the overall benefit of humankind. White states that since no new set of values has been accepted in our society to replace the Christian Values that have become the norm for economic growth and allocation of resources, we will have a worsening ecological crisis until we reject the Christian values and norms that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man.
normative and descriptive claims
a normative claim is a subjective claim about the way the world should or ought to be with justifications attached. Difficult to test a descriptive claim describes how things are. ex: observing someone behavior to understand values. Can be tested
environmental ethics
a systematic account of the moral relations between human beings and their natural environment. Environmental ethics assumes that moral norms based on different theories is what governs human behavior towards the natural world. Ethics provides a general framework of guidelines and principles that can be applied to scientific/environmental cases in order to reach practical conclusions
anthropocentric (human centered ethics)
an approach to ethics based on the theory that only human beings have a moral status and therefore have a value higher than that of all other organisms. It regards human beings as separate and superior to nature and animals and justifies the exploitation of elements from the natural world (plants and animals) for the overall benefit of humankind - it is a belief that is a part of many western religions and philosophies -indicates humanity is superiority over nature -considers future generations of human beings as objects of our moral responsibilities, while the natural world is not -while elements from the natural world may be instrumentally valuable to humans, none have intrinsic value -air and water pollution, toxic wastes and abuse of pesticides are negative effects the arose from anthropocentric ethics. They posed as direct threats to human well-being -non-anthropocentric ethics grants moral standing to natural objects (plants and animals) --based on certain issues such as the ethical treatment of animals and threatened extinction Economics is involved in making most major public policy decisions concerning the environment and it makes these policies by analyzing social costs ad benefits. CBA typically consists of adding up all of the benefits of a public policy and comparing them to the costs. Do whatever maximizes benefits and minimizes costs when taking everything into account. From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit of the action must exceed the cost; therefore in the case of pollution, the person/people polluting must be able to compensate at a higher rate for the person/people being deprived in some way due to pollution (Econ standing) I think we should give trees some form of standing because they are incapable of speaking and defending themselves. I believe a public entity should speak for nature with the help of the public who has rights to it as well.
Deontology
an approach to ethics based on the theory that the morality of an action should be based on the action's rightness/wrongness or adherence to a rule or rules, as opposed to the rightness/wrongness of the consequences of the actions. Deontology prioritizes duties, obligations and rules because rules "bind you to your duty".
Taylor: Respect for Nature
based on the ideas of biocentrism, which humans as not superior and equal in value to all other species of life. According to Taylor, life on earth is all interconnected between, objects, organisms and events and an entity is considered morally good if it enhances or preserves life/wellbeing. Taylor believes that all living things have an inherent worth and are deserving of moral consideration. And that we should show respect for all living things. Contrasts with Baxter, Singer, Ragan
Regan: Animal Rights (can be found is DesJardins Chapter 5)
believed in right-based defense of animals -Rights = strong moral obligation on our part believes animals have inherent value, so we must therefore treat them with respect Regan's view can be compared with Singer Singer and Regan would both agree that: 1) We have a responsibility as a society to end most commercial animal farming 2) Sport hunt and trapping are unjust 3) Use of animals in science and research is wrong
Preference Utilitarianism
claims that the right thing to do is that which produces the best consequences and fulfills the preferences of those involved
Conservation vs. Preservation
conservation argument: Utilitarian approach (Pinchot) The natural environment is valuable as it is a means for serving human interests. Thus natural resources have instrumental(extrinsic) value and should be managed in whatever way best serves the greater overall good. Conservationists seek to protect the natural environment from exploitation so that humans would receive greater long-term benefits from it. preservation argument: (Muir) Preserve in order to defend the spiritual and aesthetic value of wilderness, as well as the inherent worth of other living things Reason 1: The instrumental value of wilderness as a source of religious inspiration, refuge from modern life, location of aesthetic experience, as so on Reason 2: We have a duty to preserve the wilderness not only for its human uses, but also for its own sake (intrinsic value) Appeals to utilitarian and deontological considerations Preservationists seek to protect the environment from any human activity that would disrupt or degrade it because it has intrinsic value.
Ethical Theory*
ethical theory involves rationalizing actions as morally right or wrong using different ethical theories to provide general frameworks of practical guidelines and principles that can be applied to scientific/environmental cases in order to reach practical conclusions (environmental ethics).
anthropogenic
human caused/ something that results from human activity ex: carbon emissions from a car
Moral Standing and moral considerability
if something has moral standing, than it has an inherent worth and it's welling being is taken into account by others. Moral standing includes the people or things that are able to reason and make decisions... ie humans Indicates whether or not one is worthy of moral consideration. Moral consideration takes into account things that might not be able to speak on their own behalf.. ex. we can grant animals moral consideration.
Hardin: Lifeboat Ethics
the earth (as a lifeboat) has a carrying capacity Let too many people on the boat, the boat will sink Hardin argues that we shouldn't save everybody If we jump off, another person will climb on Therefore, we must not feel guilty about our position
willingness to pay
the maximum amount that someone is willing to sacrifice to produce a good or avoid something undesirable
cultural relativism
the observation/descriptive claim that different cultures have different moral values based on cultural norms that determine good/bad. Idea that one's ethics and moral values is based on cultural upbringing, and thus people of different cultures often disagree about moral issues. https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/normative-descriptive-ethics/
instrumental value
the value something has for/to someone. -good is derived from its use -dependent on a valuer/people
Pollution and economics
water and air pollution are major environmental issues because they compromise our health and survival. Water and air need to be clean in order to be safe, which is determines by a set "optimal level of pollution" (Baxter). According to an economics perceptive, pollution, which is a negative externality, needs to be approached by comparing costs and benefits and making a policy based on whatever maximizes benefits and minimizes costs. In this way, the cost of reducing air and water pollution should be understood in terms of what other goods and services need to be given up in order to accomplish this goal. Because we rely on pollution producing industries in order to survive the optimal level of pollution is the point of equilibrium at which the next tradeoff made to reduce pollution results in a decrease in overall satisfaction. An example of pollution tradeoff is not having enough energy(made from burning fossil fuels) to power homes, hospitals, schools, planes, etc Baxter's solution rests in the working of the free market- A society that structures its economy to follow the principles of the free market will successfully meet all its environmental challenges From a cost/benefit analysis, the benefit of the action must exceed the cost; therefore in the case of pollution, the person/people polluting must be able to compensate at a higher rate for the person/people being deprived of nature due to pollution in the form or nature, or a different form (Econ standing)
extrinsic value
when something has value because of what it provides. It can be turned into something value/price can be put on it -dependent on there being a valuer/people
intrinsic value
when something has value/good in of itself (has an inherit worth) -not dependent on a valuer/people
