This post is due by Tuesday, October 30 @ midnight. No credit given for late posts.
Read the assigned chapters above, and then:
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about Ethics and the Environment, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of ethics and the environment after completing our reading.
1. Provide 3 SPECIFIC observations about Ethics and the Environment, using 2-3 sentences combining the book and your own IYOW analysis.
2. Finally, ask ONE specific question you have of ethics and the environment after completing our reading.
Chapter 5.
ReplyDelete1. Most philosophers in the Western tradition believed that only humans have moral standing. No one ever considered other being on Earth having morals. From this, we can conclude that Western philosophers didn’t think much of the natural world and didn’t believe it to be our responsibility to care for it.
2. In early Western times, the idea that humans were superior to all was encouraged. This is probably why we still believe it today, because it’s been all we know for such a long time.
3. It’s hard to decide if we have a right to protect the environment because there’s no one in charge who can really dictate whether we have that right or not. We need to examine whose moral values matter and take that into consideration.
Chapter 6.
1. Ethical extensionism is the belief that other beings besides humans have morals too. This is a good thing, although it only really involves the animals that are most like humans. It is not biocentric ethics because it doesn’t involve all living things and therefore it leaves a lot to be desired.
2. Morality is generally defined as a way to understand the responsibilities of humans and their well-being. This is very limiting because it makes it seem like the environment is not a part of our responsibilities.
3. Ethics of virtue value moral character as opposed to rules. It basically defines you as a good person or not. We need to shift to this kind of value so that everyone is encouraged to do good deeds.
Question.
Who can decide what responsibilities we have to protect the environment? Is it the responsibility of the individual or the government or someone else entirely?
Chapter Five
ReplyDelete1. According to some historians there have been three agricultural revolutions. One is thought to be when people began to settled into their environment and began farming. During the second revolution, takers changed how they worked with food and land across the spectrum, from breeding to distribution. In the third revolution, the most prevalent of taker culture is when the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides began; this was a time when production methods and technology were allowing efficiency and higher yields.
2. Do we protect the world for our own interests? As people are becoming increasingly aware of the impacts our actions have on the environment, we can critically assess the life expectancy of a liveable Earth and the toll our behaviors take. We are working in more ways to change our actions and therefore our negative impacts, but we are ultimately making the change to benefit human life, not for the good of the natural world.
3. As per John Passmore, human contribution to ecological disasters is due to our greediness and lack of though about the consequences of our actions, appeasing our desire for instant gratification. Critical thought before action is necessary to transform the ethical dilemmas we face. I realize it is easier said than done, but the sooner we alert younger generations, allowing them the opportunity to consider how to approach their futures in an environmentally ethical way, it is most beneficial in regards to human life and environmental life. Furthermore, we learn through experience and the best way to make our children more considerate of the environment is to practice what we preach.
Chapter Six
1. Diversity of life is decreasing at a rate of one hundred species daily and nearly fifty thousand annually; it is considered the greatest extinction rate since that of the dinosaurs and it is due to human factors. Human technology is capable of creating new life forms via synthetic biology, which is said to positively contribute to the field of medicine. However, it creates ethical questioning and seems to be another way that takers feel as though they can take on the role of God.
2. Ethical extensionism encompasses moral standing to animals, but only one that closely resemble humans. We must acknowledge the facts of science and the various ways nature is interconnected. Since the focus of ethical extensionism is narrow, it often allows us to look at what is right or wrong and does not provide examples of alternatives to alleviate problems.
3. Traditional ethical theories lead way for us to question how we should go about life with concern for the environment. To counter the conflict between ethical values and self interest, we must challenge our perspectives of not only of the environment, but also of ourselves.
Why create life for the intention of taking it away?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. The first major point Desjardins brings up in this chapter is the idea of wants and rights. The first one is just as it sounds. He gives the analogy of someone wanting to dump toxic wastes on his property. This doesn’t sound like a problem because he is doing what he wants to his own property. However, this becomes a problem for his neighbor and infringes on his rights. Therefore, it makes it wrong for him to dump toxic wastes on his own property. The basic principle behind it is that “you don’t want to poison your neighbors”.
2. Everything that has “conative life” and “conscious wishes, desires, and hopes; or urges or impulses; or unconscious drives, aims or goals; or latent tendencies, direction of growth, and natural fulfillments” (Desjardins 107). This quote is fairly crucial in furthering Desjardins’s argument of moral standing. He brings up a man named Joel Feinberg whom he quoted above. The idea that he brings up is that we have a moral obligation to some object rather than an obligation regarding that object. This is where Desjardins starts to bring in animals into the talk, claiming that only some animals have rights (based off of what Feinberg has said).
3. The final topic of importance that he brings up is that some animals and humans are subjects-of-a-life. This idea by Tom Regan basically says that you have to be more than simply alive to have a life. Having a life means to have beliefs, desires, emotions, memory, and so on. This is an interesting stand point considering Regan believes that it is morally wrong to kill and consume animals (this probably means he was a vegetarian). This entire chapter seems to talk about the idea that humans and later on animals have rights and that it is imperative that we respect these rights.
Chapter 6
1. Desjardins starts off the chapter with a nice little talk about instrumental and intrinsic value. I believe this is fairly important to the overall goal of his book and I’m sure he will continue to use it in later chapters. The basic idea is that instrumental value is value given to an object by humans, whereas intrinsic value is the inherent value an object has. So for example, a forest can be seen as profit (instrumental value) whereas it can also be seen as beautiful (intrinsic value). This can be taken to the Taker mythology as well. Takers only bother with things of instrumental value and break the peace keeping law by always taking more of it than is needed.
2. Biocentric and the reverence for life. The second point Desjardins brings up is the idea of the biocentric view of life as well as a concept called the reverence of life. Biocentric, literally meaning life-centered, is where Desjardins points out that Regan wasn’t biocentric at all because he was picky about what has inherent value. This brings up Albert Schweitzer who came up with the concept of reverence of life. This is basically the same as being biocentric. This can be connected to the Leavers and their way of life. Leavers could see the intrinsic value of nature and often times would worship and help preserve it. Takers on the other hand disregard it and continue their instrumental value lifestyle.
3. The final point that I believe was important in this chapter was Paul Taylor’s Respect for Nature. This section references telos quite a bit and makes a distinction of what appears to be good (subjective) and what is really good (objective). This entire section brings back a lot of old topics covered such as subject-of-a-life and reverence for life but brings new life to it. Taylor’s argument was meant to persuade us of what he is saying and you can see this in the writing. I suppose what you can take from this is that he thinks in a very Leaver way.
Question: Taker lifestyle has clouded our minds and has restrained us from reaching our full potential of becoming part of nature again. With the work done here by all the people Desjardins mentioned, is it plausible that we can get closer to returning to natural order?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. Many influential early Western philosophers were heavily influenced by religion. Their beliefs usually revolved around one key point gained from religious teachings: man was created for the purpose of ruling over the world and all its other inhabitants. This basis is the foundation of Taker societies and, while it is not admitted much today, it still permeates them. The remnants of this are perhaps the core of the environmental issues faced today.
2. Do all humans have rights? This is a question that is evaluated in the chapter. Passmore and Blackstone both have arguments about the morals of human rights. For instance, what is and is not acceptable to do with one’s land if it negatively affects a neighbor. For instance, “What happens when someone’s wants conflict with another’s rights?” These morals which say what someone ought to do are a lot like what Ishmael considers to be the role of prophets.
3. Singer’s view on sentience is a rather unusual way of analyzing what rights animals have. This view considers that all sentient beings are those which can experience pain and are able to have interests. Under this belief, society would have a responsibility to cease killing animals for farming or for food and to stop animal experimentation. The view also holds that individual animals can suffer and feel pain, but a species cannot. The implications of this are somewhat crazy. First off, it means that humans would only be herbivores since it would inflict pain on animals if they were killed for meat. Secondly, it means that there would be no way of classifying a species as endangered because the species cannot suffer, only the individuals can and those would be what gets protected.
Chapter 6
1. There are two types of value that an object can have which determine its importance and role. The first of these is instrumental value. An object with instrumental value is valuable because it has some use, usually for humans. A forest is instrumentally valuable because the timber can be used to build wooden structures such as houses. A pencil is instrumentally valuable because one can write with it. Instrumental value remains for only for as long as the object is useful, after which it is discarded and replaced. The second type of value is inherent value. An object with inherent value has value in itself and not for its uses. A painting has inherent value if one values the painting for what it means rather than how it can be used.
2. Biocentric ethics view all life as possessing inherent value. This extends beyond just animals and includes plants since they are also living. Biocentrism can be described by the phrase “reverence for life,” a description coined by Albert Schweitzer. The modern scientific philosophy does not consider nature to be biocentric; it views nature as a machine that is governed by physical and mechanical laws. There is no reverence for life in this scientific view; it is not a good in itself, but rather something which humans seek to unravel for their benefit.
3. The biocentric view does not consider humans as beings superior to other forms of life. This, however, is not necessarily an accurate description and certainly isn’t an accepted belief for Taker culture. Given that humans have created artificial life forms, one could say that humans are at least superior to those which they have created, if not superior to other life which they could also create if so desired.
Question: What type of value does Taker society place on the environment? Can it be classified as either instrumental value, inherent value, or something entirely different?
Chapter 5:
ReplyDelete1. From the earliest days in which human domesticated animals, some were used as food and some as companions. Humans have developed some deep emotional ties with some domesticated animals, not with others. Culture comes into play a lot when thinking about what is acceptable to eat and what is a pet.
2. The process of domesticating an animal species, or breed, has involved humans manipulating unintentionally perhaps, animal genetics. Genetic science allows breeders to not only choose desired traits, but also create new traits that were not otherwise, “naturally occurring”.
3. For most philosophers in the western tradition, only human beings have moral standings. Few philosophers considered the question of whether other beings have moral standing, and those who did denied any moral status to natural objects.
Chapter 6:
1. Morality, has always taken human well-being and the relationship between humans as its focus. It seeks to understand the rights and responsibilities of humans, human well-being, and the good life for human beings.
2. Uncounted species of insects are becoming extinct as a result of destruction of the rain forest. Many people find the wanton destruction of diverse life-forms offensive.
3. An object has inherent or intrinsic value when it is valuable in itself and is not valued simply for its uses. The value of such objects is intrinsic to them.
Question: Is there an ethical difference between how we should treat domesticated animals compared to wild animals?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. We see again that creation stories may be a reason for taker culture. Since God created man in his image, he placed a moral hierarchy that man is superior to nature and that we have been commanded by God to rule it. People justify what they do to nature because of religious views.
2. There are differences in duties we have to the environment and regarding the environment. Not wanting to pollute the environment are duties regarding the environment, not to the environment, as an example.
3. The reading brought up a point that I thought was interesting to think about. It said that individually we have an ethical responsibility to be vegetarians. Further is said we should outlaw commercial farming because it is wrong to do. Just something to think about in regards food consumption.
Chapter 6
1. Environmental concerns are basically ethical concerns because they raise issues of how we should live.
2. Instrumental value is in its function of usefulness – what does X do for me? Intrinsic value is when something is valuable in itself like a national park. These two definitions of value relate to environmental ethics when debating why we place value on certain things and for what reason.
3. “Modern industrial society has moved away from a worldview that connected the goodness of life with the goodness of nature” (page 133). This is so true. People, including myself, generally value the goodness in their life with the things they have such as an iPhone, laptop, Comcast On Demand, etc. instead of focusing on the environment. I suppose the only time I really think about nature and the goodness of my life in the same thought it when I can go snowboarding in the mountains or go to the beach on a beautiful sunny day.
What would our world look like if we moved back into the worldview that connected the goodness of life with the goodness of nature?
Joshua Popielarczyk
ReplyDeleteChapter 5 observation 1:
I think that it’s interesting how the author describes wants and desires of humans. More so, how they justify the means to achieve them. The author uses an example of dumping waste into his property, therefore its okay. However this conflicts with his neighbors property and thus is now affecting others. I think the author is explaining a correlation between helping yourself and hurting others.
Observation 2:
On page 116 when discussing Regans feelings about right-based ethics, he says Regan believed this is an individualistic right. Rather environmentalists believe right is holistic, and focus on the well being of the community rather than a certain individual. I think this is a key difference when defining a leaver from a taker.
Observation 3:
I think its important books like this mention so many different viewpoints on the importance of all life. For example, on page 118 the author mentions a “case of invertebrates” in which he says many environmentalists believe invertebrates should be an “ethical concern”. He sheds light on there necessity which I think is often overlooked by their (sometimes) menacing appearance. I think more light should be shed on the importance of all species rather than humans always trying to make themselves V.I.P.
Chapter 6 Observation 1:
On page 131 the book says “if you value a friend only for her usefulness, you have seriously misunderstood the friendship”. This seems to be the exact problem for taker culture. We rely on nature to provide use food, shelter, money, medicine, and well…..everything. We don’t care about the destruction we cause her, and when her resources are used up and she’s no longer “useful” we’ll toss her aside and look for another foolish host to destroy.
Observation 2:
When the book describes how Schweitzer denies that we can escape responsibility for decisions such as killing a virus, or slaughtering a pig for food, or cutting down a tree for a house. He maintains that although those decisions must be made, they should be made consciously. I believe that this point is so essential to creating a better society. Today there is too much disassociation with actions such as the punishment to the environment. The CEO aren’t watching the jungles get burned away, killing millions of wildlife and depleting resources, there are sitting in the million dollar mansion this havoc gives them. If all decisions were made consciously (myself included) there would certainly be more accountability and solutions to our problems.
Observation 3:
There are unlimited ways to talk about the problem of ethics and environment, but what really matters is the solutions that result from discussion. Goals are mentioned on page 144 in the context that if they’re made in a “nonconscious and nonintentional” way they aren’t necessarily good. I like the idea of this and it ties into other point about making decisions consciously. I think a way to create solution is to shed light on the harm we create and create a society that breads conscious decision-making.
What is one way Mother Culture could advocate conscious decision making?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. Many Western philosophical ideas are anthropocentric, failing to see the moral relationship that exists between humans and the natural environment. Due to these types of theories within Western philosophy, environmental decisions are commonly based off of the specific impact on humans – indeed this is seen as the ethical way to make a decision concerning the environment. Essentially, the theories within this tradition teach us to protect the environment for our own interests only.
2. Due to rapidly changing environmental conditions, traditional rights and freedoms such as property rights are being restricted. William Blackstone points out how in the past, these freedoms and rights had been plausible with the seemingly unlimited natural resources and without serious pollution problems. When applied to ethical and political considerations in today’s environmental reality, some of these traditional rights need to be modified.
3. Before we can even fathom the idea of preserving biotic communities with a laissez-faire approach, we need to reverse the destruction of habitat loss. Only then is complete noninterference with the environment a possibility. Considering that such an impediment exists to humans not impacting the environment, it makes sense not to question whether we should actively influence the wilderness, but how we should do so.
Question: If it is unlikely humans will ever be able to stop altering the environment in negative ways, does it make sense for us to continue to try and bring positive alterations, such as hunting deer to keep them from overpopulating and destroying their habitat? Or is it best to keep from impacting the environment wherever we can, including trying to impact it in a positive way.
Chapter 6:
1. Economic proposals concerning the environment are often based on the value we place on nature, which can prove to be an unstable technique. Human needs and interests inevitably change, leading to the change in our uses for the environment. By highlighting the instrumental value of nature, humans bring forth the competition between our various needs, thereby ignoring the actual effects we are having on the environment.
2. The rise of science and technology in an industrialized society has broken the connection between ethics and nature, making our environment something that contains no good in intrinsic value. Modern science pegs nature as a machine operated by mechanical laws, allowing for ethical value to become no more than personal opinion. As a result of this separation, our modern society has seen the development of wars, meaningless work and cultural decay.
3. In order to truly comply with the concept of noninterference, humans need to keep from manipulating, controlling, or managing natural ecosystems. Only when our actions are the cause of harm do we have the obligation to help or intervene. Otherwise, noninterference requires humans to keep from intervening with the normal functioning of ecosystems.
Question:
If humans have lost sight of the environment’s intrinsic value – seeing it instead for the usefulness of fulfilling our own needs – does it make more sense to try and change the way we actually value nature, instead of trying to force on rules that keep us from exploiting an environment we do not actually respect?
Chapter 5:
ReplyDelete1. The main question that guided philosophers study in the relationship between various ethical traditions and environmental issues was, what is the proper ethical relationship between humans and the natural environment? When going about studying the answer to this question, they found that it was unclear to study standard ethical theories.
2. According to western philosophy there is no direct moral relationship between humans and the natural environment. That only human beings have moral standing, meaning that when humans make decisions they only think about how it will effect themselves not the environment.
3. Western religious and philosophical views show the they believe that humans are superior to nature and that is the reason that they should be allowed to dominate it.
Chapter 6:
1.To understand the philosophical shift among environmental philosophers, you need to look at the questions of morality and the general value of morality. For the longest time, the idea of morality has had to do with the the relationship of what's right in human relationships. Lately, environmental philosophers have been applying it too looking at environmental issues as well. They have found that environmental concerns do not fit within the traditional idea of morals.
2. The are many uncounted species of insects that are becoming extinct in the rainforest due to deforestation in the rain forest. Some people do not see what is wrong with that because insects do not feel pain and are not aware of the things around them. But the question is, just because one does not know what is going on around them, does that mean that we should still destroy their homes, and in the process destroy them?
3. Biocentric Ethics is about ethics that are centered around life. biocentric ethics, is also about the "reverence of life". They are more focused on the medical and health ethical decisions that affect everyday life.
Question: Is there anyway that "western views" can be changed to think about the environment first before the decision is executed?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1 When reading the discussion questions I came across one that stated “Is it reasonable to use the words such as “humane”, “inhumane”… when discussing animals” (97). This question sent my mind off on a bit of a tangent towards something that I’ve thought a lot about in the past. As pressures for the mass production of food increases we have become more and more desperate and industrialized to provide. This has resulted in inhumane actions that have been practiced for so long it is considered human.
2 Two fundamental questions guiding philosophers in applying ethical traditions to environmental issues. Those questions being: “What is the proper ethical relationship between humans and the natural environment?” (97) and “What is the philosophical basis for this relationship?” (97-98). However they found that many traditions and values that we hold with the environment seemed in many cases to have “contributed to environmental destruction and degradation” (98).
3 In a radical way of stating it, we are committing genocide on the animal species. We only care for our kind; we slaughter animals for food only after providing them with horrible living conditions. Apart from that we experiment on animals and abuse them for sport. However what makes this different from genocide is the mass production of cattle to continue the horrible process.
Chapter 6
1 Problems that revolve around ethical extensionism are principles and concepts being too narrowly focused, they remain individualistic, and they are not environmental ethics. We must survey more systematic environmental ethics.
2 “Life has intrinsic value” (136). Life is much more then instrumentally valuable. This means that something has value within itself. We must treat both our lives, and every other living being with respect.
3In Taylor’s biocentric ethics he explains the distinction between real and apparent good, and objective and subjective value concepts. Subjectively, what appears to be good to a person may not, objectively, be good for them. Taylor focuses on these with “the beliefs, interests, or desires presupposed in any account of subjective good” (140).
Question: After reading these chapters I’ve realized how utterly irresponsible people are towards the environment and the species living in it. In a broad question, how can we get them to give a crap?
ReplyDeleteChapter 5
1. There has been 3 different Agricultural Revolutions and throughout those revolutions the morals on farms have seemed to be decreasing. A great example being, the treatment of animals that we use for food. We are continuing to buy meat that has been tortured and possibly been bred to be the most productive. This has happened due to the resources society has today along with the consistent demand for continuous cheap food.
2. The discussion about if animals have moral standings makes me think that people should think they do in order to start actively treating animals better. The problem is that I don’t think that it will happen anytime soon. In history whenever a race or even a person was dehumanized they were turned into animals in order for us to morally stop seeing them as people and turn them into an enemy or weak. For that mental state I think the moral attachment to animals, especially those we use for food, will be difficult to achieve on a large scale.
3. Another point that is brought up in this chapter is the idea that the world was meant for man to rule. This reminds me of when Ishmael has to remind the narrator that evolution didn’t stop with man. While Desjardins speaks about how religion has given humans a reason to believe this to be true. Which also relates back to Ishmael and the discussion on the The Tree of Knowledge and the idea that humans get to decide what lives and dies.
Chapter 6
1. Recently it has been decided that the environment need to be apart of our moral values. This will be a difficult shift due to the fact that for hundreds of years it wasn’t, even 50 years ago the environmental policies were so different.
2. For the longest time the land has also been looked at as something to conquer or even a tool to use. Since we now have the technology to destroy the whole planet in order to provide for the people on it, the moral values have to change. The only problem is that the majority of the destruction isn’t in our own backyard, and if it is, it’s not something the media or the public wants everyone to know about.
3. This chapter sheds light on the idea that people in our society consciously make decisions that are bad for the environment. I believe the way it will change is with the education about the harm of it. To relate back to Ishmael, Ishmael discusses how education is the easy part, it’s making sure someone does something with what they learned.
Question?
Is the concern about the environment just temporary in philosophy?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. “When thinking about these agricultural revolutions, we should recognize that they involved animals as well as plants. The shift from a hunter and gatherer culture included domesticating animals and plants” (95). This is one point that I definitely think is forgotten, or not thought about. By increasing the amount of agriculture and farming being done, takers disrupted and took advantage of both wild plants and animals, because they had the ability and could use them all to their advantage. They did not think about the consequences this may have to the environment as a whole.
2. “Being created in the “image and likeness of God,” they have a moral and metaphysical uniqueness. Humans are separate from and transcend nature” (101). This quote really fits my outlook on how people live their lives today. I feel as thought takers think they own the Earth and nature because we have the ability to create weapons and overpower other species. This is also true for the environment, which has a harder time fighting back.
3. “Having a life, as opposed to merely being alive, involves a fairly complex set of characteristics” (114). I really like the fact that Regan says this, then says that animals can be subjects-of-a-life, which is what the quote is defining. Many people may not agree, but the fact of the matter is animals were put on the earth for a reason and we do not own them. It is hard to believe that people have the viewpoint that animals are merely just alive and serve no purpose, but to provide food.
Chapter 6
1. “Ecology emphasizes such wholes as species, biotic diversity, ecological communities, ecosystems, and biological, chemical, and geological cycles…Unfortunately standard ethical theories have little room for such concerns” (128). The fact that there is so much the world does not take into account when discussing ethics is frightening. Ethics are such a controversial topic that it doesn’t surprise me that there are so many conflicts with what should be outlines and what shouldn’t. It is also frightening that what one person may deem as unethical another may see it as perfectly ethical.
2. “Thus when an environmental philosophy requires that we change our fundamental attitude toward nature, it is requiring quite literally that we change ourselves” (136). This quote really struck me when I read it. I have always been one to hate society for all the damage we do to the environment, but I never really thought about how difficult of a process this would actually be and how many people’s lifestyles would have to change. That is definitely not what most people are willing to do.
3. “Thus the claim is that environmental change – or even environmental destruction – is allowable (good?), if it results from natural process” (143). It is hard to imagine that this claim is actually being used as n argument, but in really that is the truth. People will use any excuse they can think of to back up any sort of negative action they make against the environment. People think that we act the way we do because it is how we are supposed to act and if it damages nature, it is not really our fault because it is just part of the cycle. There is so much controversy with the environment to really know what the truth of the matter is.
Question: Will ethics continue to expand and become more and more undefined, or will there soon be a true definition to ethics and what they are in the situations of the world?
Chapter 5:
ReplyDelete1.) The way society and humans have developed, they have successfully separated from and transcended nature. They believe that God has created this moral hierarchy in which humans are superior to nature but here is where it gets weird, they believe they have been commanded by God to subdue and dominate it.
2.) Law professor Christopher Stone created a guiding principle, we could adopt a common legal standard and aim to make the environment whole. "Environmental health" is the state of which the environment existed before the human destruction, and he pointed out that it is possible to go back.
3.) Humans are very different from animals in the sense that we have extremely different mental capacities, since animals know the wild and we know civilization. Certain human mental capacities might cause humans to suffer more from certain actions and in different ways than other animals.
Chapter 6:
1.) An object with a functional value possesses that value because it can be used to attain something else of value, especially if you can create something with it. But the functional value of an object isn't represented by the object itself but rather the uses of the object and what it can help you achieve.
2.) All forms of natural life was created and has evolved over millennia, and anything at any time could of changed the course of history. But life has managed to overcome everything and continue evolving.
3.) It isn't fair how humans have been able to become so powerful and do whatever they want with nature, since it can barely fight back. But we have been getting better with it. If we destroy an animal's habitat, justice is demanded to restore it. If we capture or trap and animal or plant, justice is demanded to return it.
EATE Question:
Did a meteor really kill the dinosaurs?
Chapter 5:
ReplyDelete1. Philosophers believed that only humans had a moral standing. Which would in turn, place all the blame on the human kind for any environmental issues that we have faced. They never thought of any other ‘beings’ to be in any way responsible for the natural world, it was solely humans.
2. The takers verse leavers philosophy: even though we understand the detrimental impact we are having on the natural world, are we willing to sacrifice what we are used to/have in order to benefit the environment? We only look to benefit ourselves.
3. Animal rights: Animals do feel pain and suffer. Humans are not the only beings that can experience emotion. Are we the only ones with empathy? If you feel pain, Singer suggests that you can also have interests. So it is not until we acknowledge the fact that animals experience pain, and that it is from our doing domestically, that we can acknowledge that they too are apart of our natural world.
Chapter 6:
1. The ideals behind human-well being, human responsibility and a full life for humans. What is a good life for a human between birth and death, and how does that relate back to the environment. What is our social responsibility as active parts of the natural world?
2. The ideas of environmental concerns and ethical concerns are co-dependent on one another. We cannot have one without the other because of the way we should, and have to, act in the future. If we cannot live ethically, we can not live fully.
3. We have to focus on future goals of what we want for the coming generations. We cannot dwell on the mistakes of our ancestors, we can only move forward and hope to not fix, but create a sustainable environment.
Question:
We have to reach the masses in order to make change, so how can Mother Culture help us reach these goals?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. At the core of the western world’s environmental problems is the core philosophy that the world exist to suit man’s needs, and that man is elevated above other creatures. This comes from the way Monotheistic religions interpret their creation stories. The stories can be interpreted in a way that views nature as more than the human life support system, but only a small fraction of people embrace this interpretation. Polluting ground water can be seen a haring your neighbor, something Christianity frowns upon.
2. According to Regan there are three types of things on this planet, Moral participants who are rational and capable of making choices, Moral patients who cannot make rational decisions and objects. Objects have no environmental say, but moral patients rely on moral participants to make environmental decisions for them. One of the most important thing I take away from this theory is that our environmental decisions should be based on more than ourselves.
3. Regan and Singer both endorse the idea that individual animals have rights, weather as moral patients or moral participants. And it is each individual’s right to live and have basic interests fulfilled. This idea excludes the ideas of endangered species, making all equal things equal.
Chapter 6
1. There are two methods of determining value, intrinsic and instrumental value. Intrinsic value fits in very well with the preservationist theory, that all nature has value of its own. Instrumental value is conservationist, were that value of an object is determined by it use. The idea of biocentric ethics rely heavily on intrinsic value.
2. Switcher idea for the reverence for life idea formed that basis for future theories of biocentricsm. His believed that everyone should hold a reverence for life, and personally avoided killing mosquitos. “A morally good person stands in awe of the inherent worth of human life.” This doesn’t mean that the don’t cut a tree, or kill meat for food, but that if and when they do the do so deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions.
3. Biocentric Ethics is the idea that all animals, if the follow their instincts, are intrinsically good, and that if humans interrupt that good they must repair the damage. One could argue that humans, as part of an ecosystem are intrinsically good. Taylor’s theory is based on humans existing outside of nature, which is one of the reasons it can’t be taken seriously.
Has Taker culture removed itself from nature to the point that it must make its considerations as an outsider?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. Christopher Stone wanted to focus on the natural environment as a whole. The question that comes up is do trees have standing? Stone uses the deep-water oil-drilling platform as an example. When it exploded during the summer of 2010 caused damage to fisheries, wetlands, beaches and wildlife. Humans that were affected by this are able to file for the damage that was done but the argument is that animals cannot. Some people say that the Gulf of Mexico should be replenished with fish and others say it should be allowed to stock itself.
2. Tom Regan believes that there are rights for animals. Tom Regan talks about how humans violate these rights of animals by using animals for research, food, sport hunting, zoos and pets.
3. The two points above move right in on animal welfare. Using animals for food, research, sport hunting and zoos is very unjust and unethical. Some individuals believe that animals should have rights and some people believe that animals should be protected from harm.
Chapter 6
1. Paul Taylor wrote a book called Respect for Nature in 1986. Taylor’s theory has several different steps involved. The first one he says that “it is meaningful to say that all living things have a good of their own,” and “that it possesses inherent worth when we come to understand and accept what Taylor calls “the biocentric outlook on nature.””
2. Taylor came up with four rules about nature. They are nonmaleficence, noninterference, fidelity, and restitutive justice. Nonmaleficence means that we can’t harm any animals. Noninterference means that we as humans aren’t allowed to interfere with the animal’s freedom. Fidelity only pertains to wild animals, which means that hunting should not be allowed. Resitutive justice is if humans harm another living organisms that they make restitution on that organism.
3. “Biocentrists are surely right to focus attention on the value of all living things. But the question is whether the value of life is moral value in the sense of full moral standing or is a different, perhaps still anthropocentric value.”
Go EATE'rs, go!
ReplyDeleteGet on the blog,
W
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. Western tradition is a factor of our destruction of the environment. The religious belief that man is made in the likeness of God encourages people to believe that humans are not part of nature, but are above it.
2. Anthropocentric extensionism is the ethics of environment in regards to other humans. Nonanthropocentric extensionism includes ethics of also plants and animals. Many people fight about the environment with thoughts of future generations, but we must also think about what we are doing to the plants and species that aren’t human.
3. If nonanthropocentric extensionism is applied to policies incidents such as the BP spill will have been paid back in full including the damage done to the shoreline and fish habitat. However, applying this practice is difficult as people have different views of what should be done in order to fix the damage made to the environment.
Chapter 6
1. Humans are so concerned with themselves that it’s difficult having moral considerations applied to the environment. Even thinking of its ethics we think of the value of the environment.
2. Seeing the instrumental value and the intrinsic value of objects are what conservationists and preservationists do when they make their argument for environmental policies. Trying to get other people to see it as well is what causes the policies to be passed.
3. Schweitzer had a reverence for life which today translates to biocentric ethics. If more people had the revelation he did while in Africa more people would care and be more aware of our impact upon the environment.
Question: If more people were into biocentric ethics would more environmental policies be enforced?
chapter 5
ReplyDelete1.In the past there have been seemingly endless resources for things such as the right to individually own property. Before it was never a problem to own property but now due to the changing environment , a problem that's beginning to come into play is pollution. people don't really want to own a house on a landfill so not only is the environment effected our basic rights are too.
2. the next big thing is the details of rights. it goes over how if i own my own land I technically have the right to do whatever i want with it. however if i decide to turn my backyard into a dump my rights start to become a problem because it no longer just effects me. it will effect my neighbors and the land around my new dump. there are tons of scenarios similar to this as well nature is a much bigger aspect of rights than people would ordinarily assume.
3.something that was brought up in this chapter is a subject we have been going over throughout the entire semester. basically the taker idea that the world was made for man and everything that is in it was created for mans use. what was interesting about Dejardin's description of this is that a major reason we came to think this way is due to religion, religion gave us a reason to think it was all made for us.
chapter 6
1. a really sad thing about this chapter was the part when the truth of how bad the earths situation is getting was put into perspective for me. he talked about how the species of life on the planet is decreasing at the largest rate ever since the dinosaurs roamed the earth. and the rate of species dying out is due to human destruction
2.the natural world is an ever changing world and always has been that way but no matter the changes nature has always been able to overcome the challenges. however well the world has evolved and adjusted will it be able to evolve to the world humans have created?
3.we have to focus on future goals. like was said in class on Monday there is nothing we can do to change what is already happening so instead we must find a way to adjust ourselves to fit the world that is changing.
The world has always been able to adjust to the challenges brought upon it, is human destruction the one thing the world wont be able to evolve around?
Chapter 5:
ReplyDelete1. Early philosophers believed that humans had responsibilities to nature. Early philosophers say that humans protect the environment in order to preserves our interests
2. Western philosophy and religion suggests that humans are superior to nature and the environment around them. This view gives humans the belief that dominating nature is acceptable.
3. Animal rights are a hot topic that receives both negative and positive support. I agree with Tom Regan’s view on the issue, all with the exception of the use of animals as food. Despite that one point out of his argument, I agree with everything he is saying specifically his point on using animals for research.
Chapter 6:
1. There are two types of values discussed in this chapter. The first is instrumental value which suggests that objects have worth when it is useful in some way. The second is inherent values which suggest an object has value on its own.
2. Biocentric ethics suggest that all life has inherent value. Desjardins points out that Regan’s view on Animal rights would not be biocentric because it only values the life of animals and not all living things.
3. Unlike Regan, Schweitzer suggests that in his “reverence for life” that all living things have inherent value. Schweitzer is a prime example of biocentric ethics, because he didn’t only write about his beliefs, but he devoted his time helping others and acted out his beliefs.
Question: If humans could see the Earth as having a more inherent/intrinsic value, would that change the way the Earth is treated?
Chapter 5
ReplyDelete1. The level of cognitive function in humans makes us able to understand the world around us, and the intangible- things such as moral and efficacious thoughts and actions with such connotations. It took us a while to get to this point (still working), and until not too long ago, nonhuman plants and animals were seen as objects and resources for the benefit and advancement of the human race (manifest destiny). Though, you cannot teach someone to BE ethical, or to have a conscious. You can teach someone about ethics, not to value or empathize with those ethical and moral ideals.
2. At some point, western philosophies evolved to value the natural world, "but the basis of these responsibilities lies in human interests" (102). The conservationist philosophy developed to benefit humanity. This anthropocentric thinking put humanity above the rest of the natural world in importance.
3. "Individually, we have an ethical responsibility to be vegetarians" (114). While this is a noble and ethical standpoint, in practice it is more difficult. We've been omnivores, before we could understand concepts such as the ethical treatment of the natural world. It is only recently in our species cognitive development that we've been able to rationalize that farming and eating animals is wrong. Mind over matter?
Q: If you cannot teach people empathy or to be efficacious in their actions, but rather simply what empathy or efficacious actions are defined as, how can we cultivated environments which instill these values at an early age, rather than teaching individuals about the subjects later in life, when it is more difficult for them to change and adapt their systems of thinking.
Chapter 6
1. Instrumental vs. Intrinsic value--conservationist ideology vs. preservationist ideology--anthropocentric ideology which views the natural world through the lens of utility and resources vs. ecocentric ideology which views the natural world through the lens of connectivity, relevance, and the innate value of living things.
2. Human society adapts and evolves at a pace that is disproportionately quicker than the rate at which the natural world evolves. Our higher cognitive functions and the creation of the secular, humanized society means that we've removed our development from being directly related to the natural world, and rather in a separate vacuum of the societal world. "As human interests and needs change, so too will human uses for the environment" (131). Our consumption and resources requirements outweigh our natural worlds ability to yield these resources, and we must find ways to affect our rate of consumption.
3. Societal living and well-being is so far removed from living naturally, that being successful and living well has been put in context to the health of society rather than nature. We are so disconnected that we cannot understand how our actions and consumption affect the natural world we live in.
Q: In this increasingly industrialized and societal world, how can we reconnect people with the natural world they inhabit?