Fall 08 Course Outline

Below is the course outline for PHIL 2380 in the fall term. The course is enhanced by WebCT, therefore announcements, info, and discussion will take place on our WebCT website.



PHIL 2380*
Introduction to Environmental Ethics


Academic term: Fall 2008
Class schedule: Wednesday evenings 6:05pm-8:55pm
Classroom: 3380 Mackenzie

Instructor: Michael Kocsis
Office: Room 329B, Floor 3A Paterson Hall
Email: mkocsis@connect.carleton.ca
Phone: 613-520-2600 (philosophy department office)
Office Hours: 4:30-5:30pm Wednesdays (also by appointment)
WebCT course website: http://lms.carleton.ca

Course Description

This course introduces students to the field of environmental ethics. We will discuss issues such as vegetarianism, animal rights, sustainability, stewardship, and eco-radicalism, mainly from the perspective of philosophy and ethics. We will explore philosophical ideas such as property rights, utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, feminism and Marxism. Discussions about environmental issues can sometimes leave us feeling frustrated, but as we will see, the field of environmental ethics offers some useful ways of making progress.

Evaluation

The course involves; i) two in-class tests, and ii) a final examination to be held in the December exam period. Details will be given in class. Review questions will be posted prior to each test on the course webpage.

· 30% - In-class test #1 (Wed. Oct. 1st - usual classroom - 3380 Mackenzie)
· 30% - In-class test #2 (Wed. Oct. 29th - usual classroom - 3380 Mackenzie)

Check WebCT one week before test for Test Review Questions

· 40% - Final exam (Scheduled by Carleton during exam period)

Check WebCT one week before exams begin for Final Exam Review Questions



Textbooks and Resources

The course has one required textbook, which is a “course reading pack” available for purchase at Haven Books on Seneca St. You will benefit from reading the assigned material before lectures.

Log onto our WebCT webpage (login: http://lms.carleton.ca/) for the reading schedule, course announcements, course outline, and other educational tools you may benefit from.


Services for Students with Disabilities

Carleton is committed to ensuring that information and resources are as accessible as possible. Special services for students with disabilities are provided by the Paul Menton Centre. Students should contact the centre (500 University Centre, telephone: 520-6608; email: pmc@carleton.ca; web: http://www.carleton.ca/pmc ) in order to receive appropriate assistance and accommodations.


Statement on Plagiarism

All course work deemed to be in violation of Carleton’s policies on academic honesty will be handled according to the procedures and penalties set out in the 2007-2008 Academic Calendar (“Academic Regulations”, sec. 14.0). It is the responsibility of each student to understand the meaning of “plagiarism” as defined in the Calendar, and to avoid both committing plagiarism and/or aiding plagiarism by others.


Writing Tutorial Service

Those who feel apprehensive about their writing skills might consider contacting the Academic Writing Centre. They provide tutorials and regular workshops throughout the academic year. (For appointments: 229 Paterson Hall; tel: 520-6632; web: http://www.carleton.ca/wts )




PHIL 2380 - Reading Schedule

1. Wed. September 10 Introduction

· VIDEO: “The Promise of the Land”

2. Wed. September 17 The Debate about Vegetarianism

· George Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”
· Michael Allen Fox, “Arguments for Vegetarianism”

3. Wed. September 24 Human-centred Ethics

· from the Book of Genesis
· St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica
· Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”

· VIDEO: “Net Loss: The Storm Over Salmon Fishing”

4. Wed. October 1 Property Rights

ü TEST #1 (first half)

· John Locke, “The Creation of Property”
· Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
· George Monbiot, “The Tragedy of Enclosure”

5. Wed. October 8 Utilitarianism

· Peter Singer, “All Animals are Equal”
· Joseph Desjardins, “Ethical Theory and the Environment”

6. Wed. October 15 Kantian Ethics

· Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”
· Kant, “Duties to Animals”


7. Wed. October 22 Bio-centrism & Virtue Ethics

· Paul Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
· Aristotle, from Physics, On the Soul and Politics

· VIDEO: “Learning from Ladakh”

8. Wed. October 29 Ecosystems & Ecocentrism

ü TEST #2 (first half)

· Aldo Leopold, “The Land Ethic: Conservation as a Moral Issue”
· Devall & Sessions, “Deep Ecology”

9. Wed. November 5 Political Ecology (Part 1)

· Wouter Achterberg, “Sustainability, Community and Democracy”
· Neil Carter, “Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

10. Wed. November 12 Political Ecology (Part 2)

· Karen J. Warren, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”
· Murray Bookchin, “What is Social Ecology?”

11. Wed. November 19 Problems with Holism

· Dave Foreman, “Strategic Monkeywrenching”
· Callicott & Nelson “An Ojibwa Worldview and Environmental Ethic”

12. Wed. November 26 Conclusions

· Andrew Light, “Taking Environmentalism Public”
· Final exam review


Carleton exam period — December 4-20th

PHIL 2380 Fall Term 08

The Fall 08 edition of PHIL 2380 Environmental Ethics is enhanced by WebCT in the Carleton WebCT learning environment. Hence, the majority of PHIL 2380 lecture notes, study questions, and so forth will be available primarily to those logged into WebCT.

Here's the front door to Carleton WebCT:
http://webct6.carleton.ca/webct/entryPageIns.dowebct

WebCT updates

Just a reminder - our WebCT webpage now contains updated lecture notes, final exam review questions, and provisional grades for both tests and going into the final exam.

Here is a direct link to our WebCT facilities:https://lms.carleton.ca/webct/logon/236834103001

Final exam review

The PHIL 2380 final exam will take place on Saturday, August 16th @ 2pm in 208 Tory Building (2nd and 3rd levels).

The exam will have three sections:

PART A (multiple choice)

PART B (short answers)

PART C (essay questions)

Material covered on the exam is drawn from readings and lectures. The following readings ARE covered:

• Fox, “Arguments for Vegetarianism”
• Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”
• St. Thomas Aquinas, from Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica
• Locke, “The Creation of Property”
• Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
• Desjardins, “Ethical Theory and the Environment”
• Singer, “All Animals are Equal”
• Kant, “Duties to Animals”
• Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”
• Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
• Leopold, “The Land Ethic: Conservation as a Moral Issue”
• Devall & Sessions, “Deep Ecology”
• Wouter Achterberg, “Sustainability, Community and Democracy”
• Neil Carter, “Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”
• Warren, “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”
• Bookchin, “What is Social Ecology?”

Your guide to exam preparation is below. The first part of the guide contains concepts, definitions, etc. drawn from lectures and readings. The second includes short-answer-type questions about: i) general course themes; ii) ethical theories, and; iii) specific readings. The third section includes a series of sample essay questions. As with previous tests, you may benefit by using these questions as practice for putting forward clear arguments while using language carefully and concisely.

**Be aware that questions below are not organized in a particular order, and some questions on the final exam may not be mentioned in the review suggestions below.

Concepts & definitions:

Sentience

Subject-of-a-life

Human health argument

Animal suffering argument

Environmental damage argument

Social injustice argument

Eco-sabotage

Ecofeminism

Extensionism

Logic of domination

Patriarchy

Hierarchy

Social ecology

Political ecology

Anthropocentrism/anthropocentric perspective

Bio-centric perspective

Eco-centric perspective

Moral claims

Factual claims

John Locke

Locke’s proviso

The Tragedy of the Commons argument

Immanuel Kant

Kant's maxims

Jeremy Bentham

John Stuart Mill

Paul Taylor

Peter Singer

Tom Regan

Bentham's dictum

The utilitarian principle

The categorical imperative

Hypothetical imperative

Ends and means

Aunt Bea

Moral agent

Moral standing

Sentience

Speciesism

Ethical theory

The story of Mathew Donnelly

J.S. Mill's basic utilitarian argument

Legal rights

Moral rights

Universal human rights

Deontological ethics

Justification

The social contract

Belief system

The bio-centric outlook on nature

Ultimate moral attitude

Respect for nature

Set of rules of duty

Non-malificience

Non-interference

Fidelity

Restitutive justice

Dominion

Stewardship

Atomism

Holism

Speciesism

Ecosophy

Firm obligations

Personal virtues

Intrinsic value

Instrumental value

Animal rights

The attributes of philosophy

The attributes of ethics

Environmental ethics

Balance of nature

Biotic pyramid

Self-realization

Bioregionalism

Biotic pyramid

Biocentric egalitarianism

Energy circuit

Equilibrium

The "dominant worldview"

Land preservation

Resource depletion

Waste disposal

Species extinction

Habitat destruction

Self-ownership

Labour-mixing

Value-adding

Consequences/consequentialism

Happiness/well-being

Moral equality

Short Answer Questions:

How do you define environmental ethics?

What are factual claims?

What are moral claims?

What is intrinsic value? What has intrinsic value?

What is instrumental value? What has instrumental value?

How do these two terms come into play?

How has the green movement contributed to the field of environmental ethics?

What contribution has the science of ecology made to environmental ethics?

What do we mean when we say a theory is "anthropocentric", "biocentric", or "ecocentric"?

What values are at stake when we talk about animal rights?

Explain some of the problems associated with extensionism.

How do we define "moral agency" versus "moral standing"? How does this distinction allow us to understand concepts like anthropocentrism, biocentrism, utilitarianism?

Questions on ethical theories:

How do you define: a) utilitarianism; b) rights-based ethics; c) virtue ethics?

What are the key differences between these approaches?

What are their components and basic terms of each approach?

What is meant by "ends" and "means"?

What does Kant mean when he refers to "the moral law"?

How does ends/means thinking connect to arguments supporting rights?

What is the significance of Regan's "Aunt Bea" example?

What are rights? What is the relationship between rights and duties?

Select one of the modern examples of virtue ethics (care ethics, College of Physicians & Surgeons, student codes of ethics), and explain in your own words how this approach could conflict with utilitarian or deontological ethical approaches.

What are the three elements of utilitarian theory?

Which ethical theory do you consider the most persuasive: Rights-based ethics? Utilitarian ethics? Virtue ethics? Give one or more examples that explain your position.

What are the limitations of each of our three major ethical theories?

Are consequences all that matter? What about personal responsibility? What about rights and duties?

Is happiness all that matters?

Is moral equality too strict?

Questions on readings:

Describe and evaluate Fox's four arguments in support of vegetarianism.

Identify the factual claims that are part of Fox’s argument. How much of the pro-vegetarian stance depends on these claims?

Does Fox provide quality factual support?

What is Locke's argument about the legitimate acquisition of private property?

How does Locke's argument become relevant in the debate about environmental ethics

How does the concept of "teleological centre of life" play a part in Taylor's argument?

One way to look at Singer's argument is to say that Singer is attempting to "shift the burden of proof" in the debate about environmental ethics. What is meant by this statement? How does the notion of burden of proof enter the argument?

Re-state the basic points in Singer’s argument.

Briefly explain Tom Regan’s argument for animal rights.

What criterion does Regan use to decide which animals get rights and which don’t?

Compare the criterion of moral standing used by Regan to that used by Singer.

Is there a parallel between speciesism and sexism/racism?

In your own words, state whether or not Peter Singer's argument is anthropocentric.

What is labour-mixing?

Is Singer an advocate of animal rights?

What is the moral claim that underpins Hardin’s argument?

How do Locke's property rights argument and Hardin's tragedy of the commons argument relate to environmental issues?

Identify two moral claims associated with Locke's argument.

Re-state Locke's argument about the legitimate acquisition of private property.

What relevance does Locke's argument have for debates about environmental ethics?

In your own words, explain Hardin's tragedy of the commons story, and explain why you do or don’t think Hardin's conclusions are applicable to issues like resource depletion.

Identify the factual claims that are part of the force behind Hardin's argument.

What is wrong with the tragedy of the commons argument?

Using concepts we’ve looked at in class (e.g. anthropocentrism/biocentrism, extensionism, atomism/holism), how would you characterize Taylor’s position?

Explain Taylor’s theory of “Respect for Nature”Explain Taylor's three-step theory of environmental ethics.What duties are mandated by Taylor's theory?

Why does Singer think that speciesism is morally unacceptable?

Re-state the basic points in Singer's argument.

Briefly explain Regan's argument in favour of animal rights.What is the criterion Regan uses to decide which animals get rights and which don't?

Compare the criterion of moral standing used by Regan to that of Singer.

What are some of the arguments that can be put forward in favour of vegetarian dietary choices. How would you respond to these arguments?

How does eco-sabotage, as discussed by Foreman, enter into debates about environmental ethics?

Which of our environmental theories is it a significant problem for?

Explain and give examples of the dominant worldview described by deep ecology.

What role does the concept of "self-realization" play in the arguments of Taylor and/or other authors we have examined?

What are the differences between St. Thomas Aquinas's and Bookshin's use of the notion of hierarchy?

Outline the argument often made by ecofeminists about patriarchy in contemporary society. How does this relate to environmental issues.

What argument made by Bookshin in support of social ecology?

Do these arguments convince you that radical environmentalism is justifiable?

Explain why St. Thomas Aquinas, Locke, and Kant can be called "anthropocentrists".

Name and briefly explain (in a few paragraphs) Michael Fox’s four “mutually reinforcing” arguments for vegetarianism?

Does Fox’s argument lead to what we called in class a “firm obligation”, or merely a “personal virtue”?

What are some of the environmental issues that arise in the Genesis creation story?

What type of environmental perspective do you think Genesis ultimately rest on?

Can human beings be friends to non-human animals? Why does Aquinas think this question is important?

How does Aquinas go about arguing that humans should not be cruel to non-humans?

Is there a difference between dominion and stewardship? Which is related to the idea of natural hierarchy?

How is the notion of equilibrium integrated into the theory of Aldo Leopold?

How do deep ecologists make use of the idea of interconnectedness?

How does Murray Bookchin explain the roots/solutions of our ecological crisis?

Explain some problems/criticisms associated with Bookchin's social ecology.

What, according to Peter Singer, is the relationship between speciesism and sexism/racism?

Explain the major differences between deep and shallow ecologists.

What are the ultimate norms of deep ecology? How do these norms justify the deep ecology platform?

Explain the differences between the four major positions we have concentrated on; anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism and political ecology.

In your own words, state clearly whether you think Christianity makes a positive or a negative contribution to the relationship between humans and the natural world.

In your own words, explain which type of value you think Orwell primarily has in mind while he decides to shoot the elephant.

Sample Essay questions:

Outline Paul Taylor's biocentric theory and Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic. Identify some similarities, and outline some important differences.

Select one moral argument that supports anthropocentric ways of thinking and clearly explain its strengths and weaknesses. Explain why the moral argument you've selected is ultimately either convincing or unconvincing.

Clearly state the ultimate norms of deep ecology, and explain how these norms contribute to the deep ecology platform.

Explain Bookchin's argument for social ecology by looking at his notions of first and second nature, his idea of the "grow or die" economic paradigm, and his recommendations for an ecologically sustainable society.

How does Singer make use of utilitarianism in designing his moral argument?

Explain the idea of "logic of domination".

What does an author mean when he or she invokes the term "biocentric equality"? Give some examples and discuss some of the key implications and limitations.

Explain the major differences between deep ecology, ecofeminism and social ecology.

How does the Genesis story relate to issues in environmental ethics? In other words, what lessons does the Genesis story teach us, and what potential environmental concerns of an ethical nature does it raise?

Good Luck!

Lecture #12

Bookchin’s Social Ecology

“Society is a human creation, and some forms of society lead to an attitude that encourages humans to dominate and destroy the natural world”

“Unless North American Greens and the ecology movement shift their focus toward a social ecology and let deep ecology sink into the pit it has created for us, the ecology movement will become another ugly wart on the skin of society”

Social Ecology has two linked parts:

Bookchin’s critique of Deep Ecology

Bookchin’s positive argument for Social Ecology

Previously: arguments against Deep Ecology

Challenge #1: Overgeneralized responsibility

Who is responsible?

Who should pay the price?

Challenge #2: Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3: Problems with bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4: Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about ‘concrete’ legal, economic and political institutions

Bookchin’s critique of Deep Ecology

We should develop and nurture a new form of “ecological consciousness”

We need to critically examine the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” them to conform to an eco-centric perspective

Critique #1: A “misanthropic” philosophy

“Bio-centricity” is a concept that resonates deeply with environmentalists

But, as an environmental philosophy, it suggests that we should undertake policies of population control and coercion that disregard the rights and basic interests of human beings

Critique #2: Economic structures: grow or die

The capitalist production cycle

àààRaw materials/natural resources ààà

àààCommodities for the open market

The suggestion that we should simply create a new “philosophical worldview” that replaces “dominant worldview” is superficial

Not only cultural changes, but also structural changes are needed

Critique #3: Hierarchies of control

The nature of a “market society”

Domination is fundamental to market society

To overcome this form of domination, one must challenge and replace market society plank by plank

“Unless there is a resolute attempt to fully anchor ecological dislocations in social dislocations; to challenge the vested corporate and political interests we call capitalism; to analyze and attack hierarchy as a reality…”

Positive argument for Social Ecology

We need to identify and replace forms of social domination associated with our economic system

First and second nature…

First nature

“Primeval nature”

Evolutionary processes of which humanity is one minor element

Second nature

“Cultural nature”

The highly institutionalized and constantly evolving form of community we call society

Key point:

We need to achieve ‘complementarity’

Challenges to Bookchin’s Social Ecology

1. How strong are the supposedly causal connections between capitalism/hierarchy/domination and environmental degradation/unsustainable policies?

Don’t spiritual and ideological structures play a more of a role than Bookchin realizes?

2. Is this a compelling approach to human interaction with the natural world?

What role should humanity play as we respond to the environmental crisis? …

An involved role?

Should “noninterference” become our guiding principle?

---

Suggested exam prep:

Be prepared to define/discuss basic concepts and definitions

Be prepared to answer questions like those on the exam review. (Questions might appear on the exam that are not covered in the review)

Understand and be able to spell out the strengths and weaknesses of our three major ethical theories

Understand and be able to describe arguments from each of the major schools of thought in environmental ethics (anthropocentrism, extensionism, biocentrism, ecocentrism, political ecology)

Be prepared to develop your own argument supporting one or more of the theories we’ve studied

** See the sections on Final Exam Review posted on the webpage

Lecture #11

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Background to anti-domination theories

Environmental Racism

World Bank Memo

The Chipko movement

Eco-feminism

Ecofeminists have frequently pointed out linguistic connections between oppression of women and land. Consider common concepts like the following:

Mother Nature

Mother Earth

Taming nature

Reaping nature's bounty

Raping the land

Key concepts:

Patriarchy

Conceptual framework

Oppressive conceptual framework

The “logic of domination”

‘Patriarchy’…

“The concept of patriarchy refers to a general expectation that men have the primary legitimate power and responsibility for the community as a whole”

Conceptual Framework:

A set of basic beliefs, values attitudes and assumptions which shape and reflect how one views oneself and the world (age, class, nationality, religion)

Personal identity

Socially constructed identity (i.e., not determined strictly by nature & instinct alone)

Oppressive Conceptual Framework

Explains or justifies relationships of domination subordination

Dehumanization of slaves

Creation of ‘artificial’ racial caste groups (‘dalits’ in India, Roma (or ‘gypsies) in Europe)

Value dualisms

Disjunctive pairs: oppositional & exclusive

Examples:

Mind/body

Reason/emotion

Male/female

Value hierarchical thinking

Up-down ranking of similar phenomena

Places status and prestige on phenomena ranked at the top of the hierarchy

Logic of domination

Pattern of thinking in which two groups (men/women) are distinguished by some characteristics (rationality/emotion)

A value hierarchy is attributed to this attributed to these

One group is said to justly subordinated based on the hierarchy

Two arguments forms leading to domination

Argument A:

Humans do, and plants and rocks do not, have the capacity to consciously and radically change the community in which they live

Whatever has this capacity is morally superior to whatever lacks it

THEREFORE Humans are morally superior to plants and rocks

For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, X is justified in dominating or subordinating Y

THEREFORE humans are morally justified in dominating plants and rocks

Argument B:

Men are identified with the mental/human whereas women are identified with the physical/natural

Whatever is identified with mental/human is superior to its opposite

THEREFORE Women are inferior to men

For any X and Y, if X is superior to Y, X is justified in dominating or subordinating Y

THEREFORE Men are justified in dominating and subordinating women

Lecture #11

Convergence:

Sustainability

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Cormorants

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Anthropocentrism à à Bio-centrism à à

Eco-centrism à à Political ecology à à

Cormorants

Anthropocentrism à Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism à

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Anthropocentrism àà Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism ß ß àà

Norton's convergence hypothesis predicts that non-anthropocentric and human-based philosophical positions will actually converge on long-sighted, multi-value environmental policy.

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Central message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Lecture #10

Convergence:

Sustainability

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Cormorants

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Great Lakes sewage treatment

Anthropocentrism à à Bio-centrism à à

Eco-centrism à à Political ecology à à

Cormorants

Anthropocentrism à Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism à

Wolfe Island wind turbine project

Anthropocentrism àà Bio-centrism ß ß

Eco-centrism ß ß àà

Norton's convergence hypothesis predicts that non-anthropocentric and human-based philosophical positions will actually converge on long-sighted, multi-value environmental policy.

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Central message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

Communitarian Ecology

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Lockean ‘property rights’

The Tragedy of the Commons

Shallow ecology

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

“Values of community”

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Lecture #9

Deep Ecology

Sources

Leopold’s “Land Ethic” (holistic, non-anthropocentric),

Nature literature, art and poetry (Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost)

The Gaia hypothesis

Spiritualism from Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism

Environmental activism, both radical and moderate

Finding common cause

Coalition-building

Key message:

We need to build a new “ecological consciousness”

We need to look critically at the “ecological, philosophical and spiritual” structures of modern societies

We need to “radically transform” these structures to conform with an eco-centric perspective

‘Deep’ versus ‘Shallow’ Ecology:

Shallow ecology worldview	Deep ecology worldview
Dominance over nature	Harmony with nature
Environment as resource	Nature as our equal
Economic growth, population growth	Simple needs, stable population growth
Unlimited resources	Finite natural resources
Technological solutions	Non-dominating science
National/centralized community	Minority tradition, bioregion
Consumerism	Simple needs, recycling

Deep Ecology’s two ‘justifying norms’:

A. Self-realization

B. Bio-centric equality

The Deep Ecology Platform

The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life have intrinsic value

Richness and diversity of life forms are equally valuable

Humans have no right to reduce richness and diversity except to fulfill vital needs

The flourishing of non-human life requires a decrease in human population

Human interference in the natural world is currently extreme and rapidly worsening

Changes in policy are needed, including changes in ideological, economic and technological structures

Ideological change is essentially learning to appreciate “life quality” over accumulation and consumption

Those who agree have obligations work towards transformation

Challenge #1:

Overgeneralization in assigning responsibility

Who is responsible for current environmental problems?

Who should pay the price?

Sounds like the ‘Western environmentalist’ telling those in the developing world to “stop viewing nature as a resource!” (even while many continue to struggle at subsistence level)

Are Inuit in the Canadian Arctic, who rely for much of the year on Caribou hunting, “un-self-realized” people?

Challenge #2:

Eco-radicalism

Radical tendency? or “Fascistic” tendency?

A backlash by moderate environmentalists?

Challenge #3:

Questions about bioregionalism

Is this what we desire? Would it have to be enforced by law?

Would bioregionalism have an optimal outcome?

Challenge #4:

Deep Ecology versus Social Ecology

Deep Ecology pays attention primarily (exclusively?) to ‘philosophical worldviews’— cultural, spiritual underpinnings of society

What about more ‘concrete’ social structures?

Legal, economic and political institutions

This debate will be our focus in upcoming lectures

Political ecology (part 1):

“Communitarian Ecology”

Lockean property rights

Shallow ecology

“Liberal environmentalism”

Maintenance of existing institutions: the status quo

Rights and obligations

Values of personal freedom, autonomy, rule of law, and democracy

“Values of community”:

The tragedy of the commons

Deep ecology’s bio-regionalism / minority tradition

Communitarian ecology:

Reacting to “liberal environmentalism”:

“Liberal environmentalism is too willing to rely on government, typically federal governments, to protect the environment and natural resources”

“Whether the problem is global warming, toxic waste, or clean water, the majority of environmental groups can generally be counted on to argue that giving governments greater authority or more funding is the answer”

Two essays:

Achterberg ‘s

“Sustainability, Community and Democracy”

Carter’s

“Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory”

Sustainability, Community and Democracy

“Sustainability cannot be achieved without institutional changes in liberal democratic societies”

What’s needed is a shift towards “associative democracy”, which would “broaden and enhance the democratic character of society”

Associative democracy strengthens community ties and thereby makes it more probable that sustainability will be achieved

Two concepts of sustainability:

The sustainable society à

Sustainable development à

“Sustainability” ààà

ààà

“Establishing sustainable patterns of production and consumption”

Argument # 1

Sustainability presupposes “community”

However, liberal democratic societies erode community

Therefore: liberal democratic societies are oriented against sustainability

Argument # 2

Associative democracy nurtures values of community

Associative democracy:

Embraces the views and attitudes of “the grassroots”

Leads to consensus among “deliberators”

Therefore: sustainability is likely to be achieved under a system characterized by associative democracy

Worker Co-operatives and Green Political Theory

“The worker co-operative”

An organization which is owned and controlled by those working in/for it

Characteristics of the “green cooperative”:

Small(er) scale production

A strong preference for participatory, workplace democracy

Presumed benefits:

Greater commitment to equality contributes to reducing imbalances in the distribution of power, wealth and income throughout society

Greater commitment to a higher quality of life

Greater commitment to local communities

Lecture # 8

Eco-centrism #1 –

Aldo Leopold and “The Land Ethic”

Aldo Leopold was a pioneer in field ecology and environmental ethics

He was one of the earliest to attempt to bridge these two fields

Land community

Not just the living creatures; flora, fauna

Also the soils, watersheds, plants, animals

—“the land”

The balance of nature

Biotic pyramid

Food chains (carry nutrients from low to high)

Energy circuit (energy flows through the food chains)

Pyramid exists in a self-sustaining balance

“Equilibrium”

Land Ethic’s primary principle:

“A thing is right when it preserves the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

“Think like a mountain”

The attitude Leopold advocates toward the natural world

What’s unique about this eco-centrist approach?

Always differs from anthropocentric theories

Always differs from atomistic/individualistic theories

The locus of moral concern is: the ecosystem

Self-sustaining natural ecosystem

Diversity and complexity within ecosystems

Therefore: it is sometimes acceptable to mistreat and kill nonhuman animals (whenever the land community benefits)

Arguments for The Land Ethic

Metaphysical arguments

Epistemological arguments

Practical arguments

Challenges to The Land Ethic

Facts and Values à

What is the basis of Leopold’s environmental ethic?

What is the underlying principle?

Natural equilibrium

How strong is this moral claim?

Problems with holism à

Eco-centric theories hold that “ecosystems” are the focus of moral concern

Leopold argues that we should always promote the stability, beauty and integrity of biotic communities

What constitutes illegitimate interference?

How far should we go in promoting this?

Are biotic communities ever superior to human lives?

Could this be a form of “eco-fascism”

Review for test #2

Details about the test:

Location: regular classroom (518 Southam Hall)

Day & time: regular class time (Wednesday August 6th, 6:05pm)

Please remember to arrive a few minutes early so you can drop your bags and books at the front and take your seat

The test will finish at 7:15 – you’ll have over 60 minutes writing time. The second half lecture begins at 7:30pm.

The following ARE covered on this test:

• Locke, “The Creation of Property”
• Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
• Singer, “All Animals are Equal”
• Desjardins, “Ethical Theory and the Environment”
• Kant, “Duties to Animals”
• Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights”
• Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”
• VIDEO: “Learning from Ladakh

Below are some suggestions for preparation. The first section contains concepts, definitions, etc. from lectures and readings. The second includes short-answer questions where you can practice choosing your language carefully and developing clear arguments. Concept/definition questions and short answer questions are both found on the test. All material on the test is not necessarily covered below.

Concepts & definitions:

• John Locke
• Self-ownership
• Labour-mixing
• Value-adding
• Locke’s proviso
• The Tragedy of the Commons argument
• Immanuel Kant
• Kant's maxims
• Jeremy Bentham
• John Stuart Mill
• Paul Taylor
• Peter Singer
• Tom Regan
• Bentham's dictum
• The utilitarian principle
• Extensionism
• Subject-of-a-life
• The categorical imperative
• Hypothetical imperitives
• Ends and means
• Aunt Bea
• Moral agent
• Moral standing
• Sentience
• Speciesism
• Ethical theory
• The story of Mathew Donnelly
• J.S. Mill's basic utilitarian argument
• Consequences
• Happiness / Well-being
• Moral equality
• Legal rights
• Moral rights
• Universal human rights
• Deontological ethics
• Justification
• The social contract
• Human dignity
• Belief system
• The biocentric outlook on nature
• Ultimate moral attitude
• Respect for nature
• Set of rules of duty
• Non-malificience
• Non-interference
• Fidelity
• Restitutive justice

Questions on readings:

Why does Singer think that “speciesism” is a moral wrong?

Re-state the basic points in Singer’s argument.

Briefly explain Tom Regan’s argument for animal rights.

What criterion does Regan use to decide which animals get rights and which don’t?

Compare the criterion of moral standing used by Regan to that used by Singer.

How do you define “sentience”?

How do you define “subject-of-a-life”?

Is there a parallel between speciesism and sexism/racism?

What is at stake when we talk about animal “rights”?

How do you define "utilitarianism", "deontological ethics" and "virtue ethics"?

What are some basic differences between these approaches to morality?

What are the elements and basic terms of each theory?

What is the difference between “ends” and “means”?

How does Peter Singer make use of utilitarianism in designing his moral argument?

In your own words, state whether or not Peter Singer's argument is anthropocentric

Which theory is more convincing—deontological or utilitarian ethics?

What are the limitations of each theory?

What is labour-mixing?

Are consequences all that matter? What about personal responsibility? What about rights and duties?

Is happiness all that matters?

Is moral equality too strict?

Is Singer an advocate of animal rights?

What is the moral claim underlying Hardin’s tragedy of the commons argument?

How do Locke's property rights argument and Hardin's tragedy of the commons argument relate to environmental issues?

Identify two or more moral claims associated with Locke's argument.

What is Locke's argument about the legitimate acquisition of private property?

What is the relevance of Locke's argument in debates about environmental ethics?

In your own words, explain Hardin's tragedy of the commons story, and state whether you think Hardin's strong conclusions are applicable to an issue like resource depletion.

Identify the factual claims that a part of the motivation for Hardin's argument.

What is wrong with the tragedy of the commons argument?

Using concepts we’ve looked at in class (e.g. anthropocentrism/biocentrism, extensionism, atomism/holism), how would you characterize the Paul Taylor’s position?

Select one of the modern examples of virtue ethics (care ethics, student codes of ethics), and explain in your own words how this approach would likely come into conflict with utilitarian or deontological approaches.

Final exam day/time released

Our final exam is scheduled to be held on:

Saturday August 16th @ 2pm

Reminder about WebCT

Just a reminder that we are operating effectively with two course web pages; (1) this web page; and (2) the WebCT web page which includes 'learning modules', a discussion board, and other useful tools. It's getting a little bit lonely over there on WebCT, perhaps because people don't have a direct link to our web pages.

Here is a direct link to our WebCT facilities:
https://lms.carleton.ca/webct/logon/236834103001

Don't forget there are bonus grades to be earned by posting 15-minute essays on the WebCT discussion board.

Test #2 postponed one week

Test #2 is postponed until August 6th @ 6:05pm (the first half of class). The details are the same as for test #1. Check the course web page(s) after July 31st for test review suggestions and sample questions.

Lecture 7

Extensionism & Bio-centrism:

Taylor, “Respect for Nature”

1. Taylor's "Respect for Nature"
2. The basic concepts and approach
3. Taylor's three-step argument

Concepts and approach of Respect for Nature

• Interconnectedness
• The science of ecology
• Buddhism
• Biocentrism
• Teleology / teleological centre of a life

Teleology holds there is a final cause, a design, or central purpose inherent in all beings

• Biocentric egalitarianism

Taylor’s approach

The underlying ethical theory of Respect for Nature is virtue-ethics

Not only an application of ethical views to environment (so, not strictly an extension)

An attempt to develop a full-scale environmental philosophy

Argument structure:

The three-step argument

1. Belief system:

(The bio-centric outlook on nature)

A belief system that supports adopting ultimate moral attitude

A series of factual propositions (about the natural world)

2. Ultimate moral attitude:

(Respect for Nature)

Anyone who accepts the belief system will see that the only fitting attitude to take is this one

3. Rules of duty:

For those who accept Respect for Nature, certain rights and duties are binding

1. Belief system: ‘The bio-centric outlook on nature’

Humans are members of a larger natural community

Biosphere is a diverse and interconnected web of relationships

Each organism is conceived as a ‘teleological centre of life’, with a good all its own

Denial of human superiority (‘bio-centric egalitarianism’)

The assertion of human superiority is a groundless form of discrimination

The crucial step is iv.

2. Ultimate moral attitude: ‘Respect for Nature’

It’s an ultimate commitment

(not derived from some “higher” philosophy such as Christianity or utilitarianism)

It’s a moral commitment

(not a personal feeling toward nature; the attitude is “universalizable”)

3. Rules of duty

Nonmaleficence

(do no harm to any living organism)

Non-interference

(do not interfere with an organism’s freedom)

Fidelity

(do not deceive or betray wild animals)

Restitutive justice

(make restitution for the harms we commit)

• The fundamental duty is malificence : Do No Harm

Virtue ethics

Some examples:

• Aristotelian virtues
• Christian virtues
• Care ethics
• Professional ethics

Aristotelian virtues:

DEFICIT	MEAN	EXCESS
Cowardice	Courage	Foolhardiness
Laziness	Proper pride	Ambitiousness
Selfishness	Friendliness	Flattery
Inhibition	Temperance	Overindulgence

Christian virtues & vices:

Virtues	Vices
Faith Hope Charity Courage Justice Temperance	Pride Lust Avarice

“Care ethics”:

• Perceptiveness
• Imagination
• Love
• Creativity
• Sensitivity
• Commitment

Professional ethics

• Upper Canada Law Society
• Certified Accountancy
• Engineering Certification
• Student codes of ethics

Problems with Taylor’s argument:

Taylor’s bio-centrism is:

• Non-anthropocentric
• Biocentric
• Atomistic (deals with individual organisms)

Not necessarily ecosystems

Not necessarily species

Problem #1. The limitations of “atomism”

Effectively preserving ecosystems and species begins with preservation of individuals

What about ‘ecological wholes’:

Species (e.g. endangered species)

Ecosystems (Ottawa river valley, Great Lakes St-Laurence lowlands)

The thriving of a species or ecosystem is only partly connected to the thriving of all individual organisms

Problem #2. Is “biocentric egalitarianism” too strong?

What about insignificant creatures? Nuisance species?

lower organisms

“weeds”?

“Non-interference” might be unrealistic as a guiding philosophy

Lower organisms might not be our moral equals

Fifteen-minute essay

Take out a piece of lined paper

Write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form

Begin with one clear proposition

Add two or three clear propositions to explain and/or support it

Question:

1. Explain in your own words Taylor’s idea of duties to the natural world, and state whether or not you consider it anthropocentric.

Lecture 6

The utilitarian argument

We need to two steps:

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory

Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism, as he applies it to animal liberation

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory

Founders:

Jeremy Bentham (1832)

John Stuart Mill (1873)

The basic argument:

J.S. Mill's basic argument for utilitarianism

The story of Mathew Donnelly

Examples:

Canadian Blood Services

Harry Truman and the atom bomb

Three moral building blocks of utilitarianism:

Consequences

Happiness

Moral equality

Basic principles of utilitarianism:

Bentham's dictum:

“Seek the greatest good for the greatest number”

The ‘standard’ utilitarian principle:

“Act so as to bring about greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering possible”

Weaknesses of Utilitarianism:

Are consequences all that matter?

What about personal responsibility?

What about rights and duties?

Is happiness all that matters?

Narrow pursuit of happiness is called “hedonism”

Some values and some human emotions can’t always be “cashed out” or translated into happiness

Is moral equality too strict?

What about relationships of family, friendship, and patriotism?

Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism:

Three building blocks:

Consequences [unchanged]

Happiness [needs to be modified]

Moral equality [needs to be modified]

Happiness

A shift away from prototypical utilitarianism

Not maximizing happiness per se

Rather, Singer is concerned about preventing suffering

Any animal capable of experiencing pain and suffering deserves “moral standing”

Moral equality

A shift away from typical utilitarianism

Equal concern for every animals with moral standing

Our duty is to show equal concern for suffering, whether it occurs in a human being or a non-human animal

There are many differences between our species and others

But there are also similarities:

What’s important is the capacity for suffering

Those animals that can experience pain have interests that should be taken into account

Singer thinks there is not a significant difference between the interests of humans and the interests of animals—at least when we are talking about pain and deprivation

Singer’s position:

“All sentient animals have moral standing”

We have (direct) duties to at least some non-human animals

We have no justification to make these animals suffer as we currently do in settings of factory farming, animal experimentation, rodeos, bullfights, circuses, and so forth

Questioning Singer’s philosophy

1. This philosophy of “animal liberation” is not very radical

Moral standing is still an “exclusive” club (this time it’s a club for “sentients”)

Why not all animals? Why not all living things?

“Humane hunting”?

“Friendly” rearing and slaughtering methods?

2. Singer’s analogy is bi-directional

Hydrocephalic newborns might sometimes be considered “less sentient” than dogs and livestock

Should they be treated less humanely?

3. Utilitarian measurement problems

Singer’s theory appears efficient and straightforward

But, can we actually compare suffering and pleasure between people, or between species?

4. The criticisms of utilitarianism work directly against Singer

Singer’s argument is tied into the utilitarian theory…

Are consequences all that matter?

Is happiness all that matters?

Is moral equality too strict?

Regan, Kant and Animal Rights

Three points to remember:

What is Regan’s argument for animal rights?

What is ‘Kantian’or ‘rights-based’ ethics?

Does Regan’s use of Kantian ethics successfully justify animal rights?

Regan’s argument for animal rights

Radical objectives:

• Elimination of scientific experimentation
• Elimination of animal agriculture
• Elimination of sport hunting

The philosophical dilemma:

Find an alternative to Singer’s utilitarianism

To find a theory of ethics that makes better sense of ‘rights’

Different species of rights:

Legal rights:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Rights found in the Criminal Code of Canada

Moral rights

“Values that give appropriate respect to the dignity and equal worth of each person”

The right of self-determination

It’s not right to deceive your friends

Universal human rights

Special rights found in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Rights that protect against genocide, slavery, torture, ethnic cleansing

The basic thrust is virtually the same:

Certain human interests are so important that they should be respected for everyone no matter what it costs

Rights should trump the overall social good

Justification

Utilitarianism is justified by the three building blocks

How are rights justified?

“Justification” means “showing adequate grounds for reasonable people to believe your assertion and guide their actions accordingly”

Common justifications of ‘rights’:

Kant and the “categorical imperative” (1797)

Legal positivism (19th – 20th centuries)

The social contract (18th century – present)

Human dignity (present)

The strategy is to modify Kant’s ethics, which are rooted in ideas of “human rights”, “respect”, and “human dignity” (instead of maximizing social utility)

Kantian ethics

a.k.a…

deontological ethics

duty-based ethics

rights-based ethics

Examples:

Your friend is telling hurtful stories about you behind your back

Harry Truman and the atom bomb

Kant’s argument:

“We are ethical beings because we are rational beings who can freely form intentions and deliberately choose to act on them”

Rationality

Freedom

Intention

Deliberation -> action

Ethics is exclusively about human reason and the capacity for free choice

The “will” that controls all human action

Obviously, this capacity is uniquely human

Human beings are “moral legislators”

Only moral legislators can understand and act freely on rules of morality

Only moral legislators have rights and duties

Animals are not moral legislators

Therefore, there are no duties directly to them

Kant and the categorical imperative:

Kant argues:

“We are ethical beings because we are rational beings who can freely form intentions and deliberately choose to act on them”

Hypothetical imperatives:

“If you want to want to become a skilled guitar player, you should: _____________”

“If you want to get good grades in school, you should: __________________ ”

Categorical imperatives:

“You should always act according to a maxim that you can view as a universal law"

“You should always act in a way that treats human beings as ends in themselves, not merely as a means”

Ends and means:

An “end-in-itself” – is a thing worthy of special respect and treatment—not to be used as merely someone’s object

A “means to an end” – is a thing that can legitimately be used to fulfill another’s purposes

Regan puts forth two arguments:

The first attacks Singer’s utilitarian position

The second is Regan’s own “Kantian” argument

However, he encounters difficulties right away…

Kant’s ethical theory is complex and controversial

Kant is against direct obligations to non-human animals

“Our duties towards animals are indirect duties towards mankind”

“Animals are not self-conscious and [they] are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.”

This mirrors the type of “indirect duty” we’ve seen before:

Orwell: Only if the animal is someone’s property, being cruel violates property rights

Aquinas: Cruelty to non-human animals disrespects the spirit of God

Aquinas/Kant: Cruelty damages in a person the feelings of fellowship and humanity which it is our duty to extend to the rest of humankind

Kant adds that human appreciation for the ‘sociability’ of non-human animals also increases feelings of humanity

Why should non-human animals be given rights when even the philosopher Regan most relies on (Kant) rejects the idea?

Part 1. The criticism of Singer

The story of Aunt Bea

Respect for the rights of individuals

Part 2. Regan’s Kantian animal rights argument

Two concepts:

“Subject-of-a-life”:

To be the subject of a life involves more than merely being alive and more than merely feeling pleasure and pain…. It involves having beliefs and desires, perception, memory, a sense of the future, an emotional life and emotional ties to other creatures, a sense of the creature’s well-being and how to promote it, an psychological (psychophysical) identity over time

“Inherent value”:

The equal right of every subject-of-a-life to be treated with respect, and to be treated in ways that do not reduce it to the status of a thing

The argument:

According to Regan, every animal that counts as a subject-of-a-life should be regarded as having inherent value

Things with inherent value should be equally entitled to moral standing

As moral agents, humans have a direct obligation to not:

i) intentionally harm a subject-of-a-life

ii) intentionally use them as resources

Therefore, use of non-human animals in science, agriculture, cuisine, sport hunting, rodeos, zoos, and so on, is deeply wrong and should be eliminated

Three problems with Regan’s argument

Is this position so radical that it’s impossible to live up to? Is it, as Regan suggests, always wrong to use animals as resources?

In reality, could “animal rights” be enforced in the natural world? What about predator/prey relationships? Should we take steps to protect the rights of subjects-of-a-life throughout nature the same way we do in our ‘human society’?

More generally, what about holistic entities like a species or ecosystem? Do they also have rights? When the interests of holistic entities conflict with rights of individuals, whose interests should prevail?

Fifteen-minute essay

Take out a piece of lined paper

Write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form

Begin with one clear proposition

Add two or three clear propositions to explain and/or support it

Question:

Select either Singer’s or Regan’s argument, and explain in your own words whether or not it is anthropocentric.

TRUMAN'S HIROSHIMA SPEECH

August 6, 1945

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. We have won the war of discovery against the Germans. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.

Four propositions

1. The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base.

factual claim.

2. We have won the war of discovery against the Germans.

discovery?

3. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

the agony of war: a utilitarian argument

4. We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan’s power to make war.

demand for unconditional surrender

Lecture 5

1. Early anthropocentrism:
• Genesis
• St Thomas Aquinas

2. Anthropocentrism as property rights:
• John Locke
• Garrett Hardin

3. Extensionism:

Singer, “All Animals are Equal” (tonight)
Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights” (Oct. 17)
Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature” (Oct. 24)


This lecture:

• Singer’s Philosophy of Animal Liberation

1. Background and context
2. Utilitarianism as our first “ethical theory”
3. Singer’s utilitarian argument

Sentience:
“The condition of being conscious, self-aware, or able to experience pleasure and pain”
• The condition of being self-aware
• The condition of being “conscious”
• The ability to experience pleasure and pain

Ethical theory:
• “A framework that helps to clarify, systematize, or unify similar types of moral claims”

Ethical theories occupy the deepest level:

• Judgment
• Rule
• Principle
• Ethical theory

Singer’s argument(s)

• The general approach: extensionism
• The “underlying” ethical theory: utilitarianism

• Singer's position is built on 2 arguments:

1. The intuitive argument (…against speciesism)
2. The utilitarian argument


1. The intuitive argument

A. The concept of speciesism
Our society-wide approach to the ethical treatment of animals involves a deep and harmful prejudice, based on a anthropocentric ways of thinking

Speciesism = “A prejudice benefiting of the interests of one’s own species, at the expense of others”
Think about livestock rearing, rodeos, circus animals

B. Analogy with racism & sexism
• Racists and sexists give greater weight to the interests of their own race/sex, over those of others
• We agree, as a society, that such ways of thinking are wrong and should be eliminated

• Most people living in our society have adopted anti-racist/anti-sexist attitudes
• Most accept that human beings have the universal right to be treated as equals
• We put our faith in government to reduce inequality (for instance, inequalities in getting a job due to unfair prejudice or bias)


2. The utilitarian argument

We need to take two steps:
A. Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
B. Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism, as he applies it to animal liberation

A. Utilitarianism as an ethical theory


Founders:

• Jeremy Bentham (1832)
• John Stuart Mill (1873)


The basic argument:

• J.S. Mill's basic argument for utilitarianism
• The story of Mathew Donnelly


Three moral building blocks of utilitarianism:

1. Consequences
2. Happiness
3. Moral equality


Basic principles of utilitarianism:

Bentham's dictum:
“Seek the greatest good for the greatest number”

The “standard” utilitarian principle:
“Act so as to bring about greatest amount of happiness and least amount of suffering possible”


Weaknesses of Utilitarianism:

Are consequences all that matter?
What about personal responsibility?
What about rights and duties?

Is happiness all that matters?
Narrow pursuit of happiness is called “hedonism”
Some values and some human emotions can’t always be “cashed out” or translated into happiness

Is moral equality too strict?
What about relationships of family, friendship, and patriotism?


1. Singer’s distinctive form of utilitarianism:

Three building blocks:
1. Consequences [largely unchanged]
2. Happiness [needs to be modified]
3. Moral equality [needs to be modified]

Happiness
A shift away from typical utilitarianism
Not maximizing happiness
Rather, preventing suffering
Any animal capable of experiencing pain and suffering deserves “moral standing”

Moral equality
A shift away from typical utilitarianism
Equal concern for every animals with moral standing
Our duty is to show equal concern for suffering, whether it occurs in a human being or a non-human animal

In a way, Singer simply shifts the burden of proof
Instead of asking why animals deserve better treatment, Singer asks how do we justify the harms and suffering we cause

There are many differences between our species and others
But there are also similarities that are relevant from a moral point of view
What’s important is the capacity for suffering
Those animals that can experience pain have interests that should be taken into account

Singer thinks there is not a significant difference between the interests of humans and the interests of animals—at least when we are talking about pain and deprivation

Singer’s position:
“All sentient animals have moral standing”
We have (direct) duties to at least some non-human animals
We have no justification to make these animals suffer as we currently do in settings of factory farming, animal experimentation, rodeos, bullfights, circuses, and so forth
Questioning Singer’s philosophy

1. This philosophy of “animal liberation” is not very radical
Moral standing is still an “exclusive” club (this time it’s a club for “sentients”)
Why not all animals? Why not all living things?
“Humane hunting”?
“Friendly” rearing and slaughtering methods?

2. Singer’s analogy is bi-directional
Hydrocephalic newborns might sometimes be considered “less sentient” than dogs and livestock
Should they be treated less humanely?

3. Utilitarian measurement problems
Singer’s theory appears efficient and straightforward
But, can we actually compare suffering and pleasure between people, or between species?


4. The criticisms of utilitarianism work directly against Singer
Singer’s argument is tied into the utilitarian theory…
Are consequences all that matter?
Is happiness all that matters?
Is moral equality too strict?

Lecture 4

Early (Christian) anthropocentrism:
Genesis
St Thomas Aquinas

Anthropocentrism and “property rights”:
John Locke (1690)
Garrett Hardin

1. What is a property right?
An individual right
An exclusionary right

2. Why are property rights important for environmental ethics?

3. How do we “justify” property rights?

Locke's 5-step argument:
1. The state of nature
2. Self-ownership
3. Labour-mixing
4. Value-adding
5. The Lockean proviso

1. The state of nature
The pre-social world; no politics or authority
The natural right to self-preservation
That is, we have a natural right to make use of what “nature affords for our subsistence”

The philosophical challenge:
Locke says; “God gave the world to humankind in common; but since it was given to them for their benefit, it cannot be supposed that he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated”

In the pre-social state, all natural resources seem to be given to humanity “in common”
How can individuals appropriate what is “owned” in common with the rest of humanity?
“It seems to some very great difficulty how any one should come to have property in any thing”

2. Self-ownership
 Locke’s argument starts with the proposition that each person is a legitimate owner of him- / herself
 “Every man has a property in his own person. This no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, are properly his”

3. Labour-mixing
We gain property rights over previously un-owned resources when we mix our labour with them
The analogy: gathering acorns or apples from an un-owned tree on common or un-owned land
“This labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to… (at least where there is enough, and as good, left for others)”
“The labour was mine; removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them”

4. Value-adding
 Additionally, property rights are realized when resources are employed for the benefit humankind
In particular, un-owned land according to Locke is value-less and has no positive human benefit
But, once land is brought under productive use, its value increases many times over, for both the owner and anyone else who might receive the benefit of increased production
Hence, property rights are once again justified so long as there is “enough, and as good” of essential resources left for other people

5. The Lockean “proviso”
Each argument above gives a glimpse of the “moral logic” of Lockean property rights…
This logic is found explicitly in several passages:
“No man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to (at least where there is enough, and as good, left for others)” (added)
o “For he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as much as take nothing at all”

The key to the 5-step argument is the “Lockean proviso” — restraints on legitimate property acquisition

In acquiring property rights, it’s essential that the situation of others isn’t made worse
One can acquire a property right over a common resource only if that appropriation doesn’t “harm” other people
The “moral logic” of Lockean property rights:
Natural resources can be legitimately owned, so long as their appropriation doesn’t worsen the situation of others

Improvement of “open” resources
Not worsening the situation of others

The strengths of Locke’s 5-step argument:

1. It surpasses the early anthropocentric approach toward natural hierarchy and dominion by putting them into a precise non-religious argument
2. It puts a high value on increasing humankind’s productive use of natural resources (social benefits)
3. It establishes “constraints” on property rights by appealing not to theology, but “universal” ideas about the equality of persons (equal consideration)

The weaknesses of Locke’s argument:

1. Are we supposed to accept the story as historically valid?
2. Locke obviously had a misleading idea of resource sustainability
3. The labour-mixing metaphor is vague about how and why property rights “emerge”
4. The Lockean approach is a culturally chauvinistic idea of ownership (it seems “natural” only to those who live in a society like our own)

5. Property rights under this approach are:
Individualistic
Exclusionary
o Some say it’s more accurate to approach property rights according to what’s called the “bundle view”


Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
Step 1:
Picture a common grazing pasture open to the shepherds in a community. We expect each shepherd to maintain as large a flock as possible. Each wants to maximize his/her number of sheep, thereby increasing personal wealth, status, etc.
Basically, each shepherd asks; “what is gained by adding another animal to my herd?” And the rational choice is always to add another animal, and another, and another... The benefit of adding one sheep goes straight to the individual; yet all costs, in terms of grazing space needed, is shared by everyone.

Step 2:
When other shepherds reach the same conclusion, we see the tragedy unfold. Eventually too many sheep will be added, and the essential grazing area will be overgrazed and barren.

…Therefore, when essential resources are left under a commons, people are compelled to increase their resource use, even when those resources are being completely exhausted.

Hardin’s method/style:
• Argument by analogy
• Under this strategy, our moral judgments about one type of situation are attacked -
• Moral judgments should apply consistently in parallel situations
• Example:
o Terrorism is always wrong (judgment 1)
vs.
o Bombing of civilians by Britain during WWII was not wrong (judgment 2)

• To evaluate analogical arguments:
Find the judgment(s) under attack
Decide whether the analogy successfully attacks this judgment

Is there a difference between the two situations?
Should we adjust judgment # 1 or judgment #2 ?
The strengths of Hardin’s argument:

1. It provides some insight into problems like resource depletion and waste disposal

2. Suggests strategies for protecting natural resources that are currently held in a commons situation


Place resources under a private ownership scheme
or
Create governmental regulations over private use

The weak points in Hardin’s argument:

1. Is Hardin’s assumption about human nature believable?
2. Can’t essential resources be protected under some “collective ownership” regime?


Ten minute essay on property rights
Take out a piece of lined paper
Plan to write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form
Begin with one clear proposition
Give 2-3 clear propositions to explain/support it

Answer these questions:
1. Identify a “common resource” in your local environment. What would either Locke or Hardin suggest as a way of dealing with this resource. Which moral claims are behind their position(s)?
________________________________________

Lecture 3

Definitions:

Moral agent:

“One faced with making a moral choice”

Moral standing:

“Those things whose needs and interests need to be taken into account in moral decision making”

Topics:

Selections from Genesis

• The ‘metaphysical’ story of creation
• The origin of ethics
• The origin of hierarchy

St. Thomas Aquinas –

• Refining the “natural hierarchy”
• Modernizing the Biblical argument

Lynn White – Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis

• Diagnosis of Christianity’s view of nature
• Technology as the culprit

Christianity’s creation story: Genesis

How do we approach this reading?

• A body of writings that give us insight into modern (Western) society and its view of animals and the natural world
• A series of arguments that raise questions for environmental ethics
• What questions are raised for environmental ethics?
• What things in the natural world have “value” according to this creation myth?
• What kind of value do things have?
• What differentiates humans from other living things

Creation of the Universe: the metaphysical story

• Life begins in the Garden of Eden
• Creation is an act by God, designed for human purposes, to fulfill humanity’s needs
• It is presented as the true ‘historical’ story

The origin of ethics: moral choice

• Moral choice (moral agency) is put in front of humanity by God
• Humans only are presented with this choice
• Humans only are members of the “moral universe”

Beginnings of the natural hierarchy…

• This story is subject to constant re-interpretation
• A prevailing message is that humans are placed by God in a position of pre-eminence
• Humanity is given a “special status”
• The operative concept used to express this relationship is “dominion”
• This concept expresses “power over…”, or “a controlling interest in…”
• Other possible concepts can be extracted
• Many believe that “stewardship” is also present here

Which concept (dominion vs. stewardship) best expresses what you see as the primary message of the book of Genesis?

St. Thomas Aquinas (1260)

The task:

• To spell out the biblical creation story in rational terms, while also preserving the central tenets of Christianity:
• The natural hierarchy
• A special status for humanity amid all of creation

Two key arguments:

• The natural hierarchy
• When we observe the natural world, we find an established order of beings…
• This established order, Aquinas contends, reflects a “natural law” that gives humans dominion over all of the non-human animals

But why?

• The intelligent should rule the brutes
• This is the essence of the natural hierarchy

Animals should be the slaves of human beings

Cruelty to animals:

But is it acceptable, within the logic of Christianity, to subject non-human animals to cruelty and abuse

(Consider the metaphor we’re working with à slavery)

• Should we give “charity” to animals?
• Should we treat animals with the same degree of respect that we should give to our fellow humans

Aquinas’s answer -- No:

Charity requires a special relationship with God – a form of friendship

• We do not have such relationships with non-human animals
• Friendship = love for friend, plus love for the good of the friend (happiness, success, love, freedom)
• Animals don’t possess the necessary characteristics to allow a relationship of this kind
• Animals don’t possess mental capacities such as language, abstract thinking, social awareness, and so forth
• Hence, we can’t be ‘friends’ with animals
• But, Aquinas provides two arguments to the effect that we should not be cruel toward animals:
• Living things are created by, hence ultimately belong to, God
• Cruelty to animals is tantamount to an insult to God
• Additionally, cruelty to animals “hardens the heart”, likely leading to cruelty toward fellow human beings
• Cruelty toward other people violates the social nature of humankind, which is deeply ingrained in the natural law
• So once again, Aquinas argues that cruelty to non-human animals is wrong, even though non-human animals occupy an inferior place in the natural hierarchy
• Note that Aquinas’s arguments against cruelty are rooted in indirect duties
• We have an obligation not to be cruel, but this is not an obligation to non-human animals
• …Non-human animals are not granted intrinsic value

“The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis”

• The diagnosis of Christianity’s view of nature
• The assertion of technology as the culprit
• White’s assertions of Christianity’s view of nature:
• Christianity is the “world’s most anthropocentric religion”
• The world is created for humanity’s benefit and rule
• Humanity is created “in God’s image”, thus deserves a status above other living things

White’s argument:

• When the ideas above increased in importance and joined with the “matrix” of Western ideals of science/technology, the predictable result was exploitation of the natural world
• We need an “alternative Christian view”:
• St. Francis advocated a “democracy of the world’s creatures”
• On this view, all living things are granted moral standing
• Therefore, the natural hierarchy partially disintegrates

Argument #1:

St. Francis held that all living things are kin to mankind, and are therefore deserving of charity

Living things are children of God in the same way as human beings

This is why they should be granted moral standing

Argument #2:

Because living things are children of God, they offer insights into the image and attributes of the divine…

To truly understand the divine, we must first learn to love our fellow creatures

Fifteen minute essay

• Take out a piece of lined paper
• Plan to write roughly ¾ of a page in essay form
• Begin with one clear proposition
• Add two or three clear propositions to explain and/or support it

Answer the following question:

1. Which concept (dominion vs. stewardship) best expresses what you see as the primary ‘environmental message’ in the book of Genesis?

Review for test #1

Details about the test:

• Location: 518 Southam Hall
• Day & time: Wednesday July 16, 6:05—7:15pm
• Remember to arrive a few minutes early to drop your bags/books near the front
• Test will finish at 7:15 – so you’ll have over 60 min. writing time. We’ll begin our second-half lecture on ‘utilitarianism’ @ 7:30pm.

The following readings ARE covered on this test:

• Fox, “Arguments for Vegetarianism”
• Orwell, “Shooting an Elephant”
• Book of Genesis
• Aquinas, from Summa Contra Gentiles and Summa Theologica

Below are some suggestions for preparation. The first section of the review contains concepts, definitions, etc. from lectures and readings. The second includes short-answer questions where you can practice choosing your language carefully and developing clear arguments. The test has two sections: Part 1 includes multiple choice questions; Part 2 contains short answer questions.

Questions appearing on the test are not necessarily covered below.

Concepts & definitions:

• Human health argument
• Animal suffering argument
• Environmental damage argument
• Global injustice argument
• Anthropocentric perspective
• Bio-centric perspective
• Eco-centric perspective
• Political ecology
• Moral claims
• Factual claims
• Firm obligations
• Personal virtues
• Intrinsic value
• Instrumental value
• Holistic perspective
• Atomistic perspective
• Moral agent
• Moral standing
• Animal rights
• Attributes of philosophy
• Attributes of ethics

Questions on readings:

(you might approach these as “15-minute essays”)

How do you define “environmental ethics”?

What are factual claims? What’s the easiest way to identify a factual claim?

What are moral claims? How would you go about identifying a moral claim?

How do we define moral agency?

How do we define moral standing?

Why is it important to distinguish moral from factual claims?

What is ‘intrinsic value’? What has intrinsic value?

What is ‘instrumental value’? What has instrumental value?

How does the instrumental/intrinsic distinction relate to concepts like anthropocentrism, biocentrism, ecocentrism?

Identify the factual claims that are part of Fox’s point of view. How much of his pro-vegetarian stance depends on these claims? Does Fox provide quality factual support?

What do we mean when we say a theory is “anthropocentric”, “biocentric”, or “ecocentric”?

Name and briefly explain (in a few paragraphs) Michael Fox’s four “mutually reinforcing” arguments for vegetarianism?

At the end of the day, does Fox’s pro-vegetarian standpoint achieve what we called in class a “firm obligation”, or merely a “personal virtue”? (it may be useful to answer this question by selecting one argument out of the four that best clarifies your point)

What are some of the environmental issues that arise in the Genesis creation story?

What type of environmental perspective do you think Genesis ultimately rests on?

Does the Genesis myth have genuine modern relevance? That is, does this ancient myth have any connection to today’s views on environmental ethics?

Can human beings be ‘friends’ to non-human animals? Why would Aquinas think this question is significant? (in answering this question you may want to be explicit about the idea of friendship you’re working with)

How does Aquinas go about arguing that humans have a duty not to be cruel to animals?

Is there a difference between ‘dominion’ and ‘stewardship’? Which is more closely relation to notion of “natural hierarchy”?

In your own words, state clearly whether you think Christianity makes a positive or a negative contribution to the relationship between humans and the natural world.

In your own words, explain which type of value you think Orwell primarily has in mind as he decides whether to shoot the elephant.

Lecture 2

George Orwell’s Shooting an Elephant

1. The essential point of the essay:

To offer the audience a glimpse of the intrinsic brutality of colonialism

• Colonialism involves harsh domination and coercive control of the ‘native’ society
• Colonialism involves extensive violence
• Policing the British colonies was difficult and harsh for both natives and colonial police

Orwell’s sub-texts:

• Colonization brutally and completely destroys the native society
• The elephant is Orwell’s literary image:
• The elephant, much like the native society, suffers a painful death after a life of brutal domination

‘A mysterious, terrible change had come over the elephant…’

‘He looked suddenly stricken, shrunken, immensely old, as though the frightful impact of the bullet had paralyzed him without knocking him down’

‘In the end I could not stand it any longer and went away.’

• Colonization also transforms the colonizer

The literary image:

Orwell’s personal transformation

The colonizer ‘wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it’

‘As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him’

‘I did not want to shoot the elephant’

‘It was perfectly clear to me what I ought to do’

‘Suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all’

‘I had got to shoot the elephant. I had committed myself to doing it when I sent for the rifle’

‘The crowd would laugh at me’

Looking deeper:

For what reason was Orwell “perfectly certain” that it was wrong, at that moment, to shoot rampaging elephant?

Orwell offers two types of answer:

• The monetary value to the elephant’s handler/owner (the ‘mahout’)

‘Comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery’

• Duty to protect human life (minimizing the risk of injury/death)

‘I decided that I should watch him for a little while to make sure he didn’t turn savage again…’

Two types of answer not considered by Orwell:

• The ‘duty’ to prevent unnecessary death to another living creature

(call this the sanctity of life view)

• Duty to alleviate pain and suffering

(call this the anti-suffering view)

Key concepts and distinctions:

• Moral claim vs. factual claim
• Instrumental value vs. intrinsic value
• Holistic perspective vs. atomistic perspective
• Personal virtues vs. firm obligations

Moral claims vs. factual claims

Factual claims are always true and/or false based exclusively on evidence

Moral claims involve concepts that fall within the ‘universal language of morality’

(Examples; should, shouldn’t, ought, right, wrong, fair, decent, legitimate …)

Factual claim or moral claim?

• Harvesting tress for lumber is completely wrong
• There are more than two hundred million trees on Canadian soil that could easily be harvested for lumber
• Harvesting tress for lumber should be curtailed, unless doing so is 100% certain to be ecologically sound
• The number of stars in the sky is infinite
• Eating a vegetarian diet makes people healthy and happy
• Eating a vegetarian diet is simply the right thing to do, whether it increases your health or not
• Animals are conscious in exactly the same way humans are
• If animals are conscious in the way humans are, then we should treat them in exactly the same way we treat our fellow human beings

Instrumental value vs. intrinsic value

Something has instrumental value when it has value to something else
Something has intrinsic value when it has valuable in itself, regardless of its value to anything else

--

The money in your pocket has instrumental value

We say that human beings are intrinsically valuable, meaning that they are deserving of a special status regardless of ‘usefulness’ to others

Some people say higher education has intrinsic value

Some philosophers make the argument that human happiness/well-being is all that truly has intrinsic value

Holistic perspective vs. atomistic perspective

Trying to understand a given entity, we must choose between one of the two major vantage points

The atomistic perspective gives priority to the basic parts and how they are connected

• How does the follow sentence get its meaning?
• The cat is on the mat.
• Atomism: ‹The› ‹cat› ‹is› ‹on› ‹the› ‹mat›.
• The atomistic perspective prioritizes individuals, and makes the “whole” secondary

The holistic perspective gives priority to the whole

• The cat is on the mat.
• Holism: ‹ The cat is on the mat ›.
• The holistic perspective begins with the whole, and ‘arrives at’ the smaller atoms

Personal virtues versus firm obligations

Look at this descending schema of ‘duties’:

• Non-obligations
• Personal virtues -->
• Firm obligation -->
• Legal obligation

Fox’s Arguments for Vegetarianism

Fox’s purposes in the article:

• To convince the audience to adopt a vegetarian diet/lifestyle
• Fox thinks you should make different dietary choices.
• You should not eat meat.

The article’s method / style:

• Fox works with clear, analytic arguments
• No metaphors and literary devices
• Carefully building a ‘platform’ of arguments that has various components

According to Fox’s method, arguments are judged good or bad on the basis of the reasons they give..

• What reasons is Fox giving?
• Are they good reasons?

Types of support given:

• Factual evidence
• Moral arguments

The four arguments:

1. The human health argument

2. The animal suffering argument

3. The environmental damage argument

4. The global injustice argument

Each argument corresponds to one major philosophical perspective:

Human health anthropocentrism

Animal suffering bio-centrism

Environmental damage eco-centrism

Global injustice political ecology

Anthropocentrism

• Human beings are the centre of moral concern
• Human beings are "the measure of all things"

Bio-centrism

• Living things other than humans are deserving of moral concern. We have duties to preserve life, alleviate suffering, etc.
• “Reverence for all life”

Eco-centrism

• Ecosystems and land communities are the centre of moral concern
• “It is wrong to interfere with the stability, integrity and beauty of the land community”

Political ecology

• The origin of the environmental crisis is social and political
• To understand this crisis, or seek to find its solutions, we must focus on social/political factors

Fifteen minute essay

• Take out a piece of lined paper
• Plan to write roughly ¾ of a page in paragraph/essay form
• Begin with one clear proposition
• Add two or three clear propositions to explain and/or support it

Answer two questions:

1. Which one of Fox's four arguments do you find the most convincing?

2. Why did you choose this argument?

Lecture 1

Some of our main issues:

Conflicts arising from interaction between human societies, and non-human animals, and the natural world

What are some examples?

Sustainability
Animal rights
Land preservation
Resource depletion
Waste disposal
Species extinction
Habitat destruction

Definition of "environmental ethics":

“The field of study concerned with the values and principles that should guide human interaction with the natural world.

• Values
• Principles

The field that examines debates about environmental issues (like the examples above) with a special focus on the “universal language of ethics”

Debates where we find concepts like:

Right Obligation Virtue Good character

The common good Beauty Economic efficiency

Why philosophy?

The field of philosophy represents a specific approach, with a major focus on ideas, concepts, arguments, values, and principles

• Attributes of a valid argument
• Watching for all the “pitfalls”
• Clear writing & distinctions
• A tradition of debate and discussion
• Aristotle, Locke, Bentham, Kant, Marx, Mill,
• Singer, Regan, Taylor, Leopold, Warren, Bookchin

Why ethics?

Ethics is a sub-field of philosophy concerned primarily with values and principles

• Values & principles worked out clearly and methodically
• Systematic theories of ethics
• Standardized arguments

Philosophy and ethics are indispensable for understanding and resolving environmental issues