This post is due by Tuesday, October 16 @ 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 One
ReplyDelete1. The language to explain the Earths deterioration has changed from “global warming” to “global climate change” in hopes of citizens gaining a better understanding that not only is Earth warming, but such warming is also causing damage. Some of the consequences from human activities have been seen and more are to follow for as long as the problem is ignored or not addressed by majority. Science is fact and even though that should be enough to create policies to better the environment and in turn, all those living on Earth, politics play a role in the prohibition of making necessary changes at a macro level.
2. Regardless of the problems that both science and technology have caused on the environment, they can be equally important in helping to resolve the problem. Despite the importance of scientific inquiry and discoveries pertaining to environmental dilemmas, it is necessary to not solely rely on the profession to determine policies. We must step back and critically consider how things should be done in correlation to living with our natural surroundings.
3. We DO have a responsibility to the environment, morally and respectfully, despite what some philosophers believe. Humans would not be here had we not evolved from species and ecosystems.
Chapter Two
1. It seems shameful that businesses would complain about the regulations in place to conserve the land; the use of pollution controlled technology may be expensive but it is for the greater good. What good will truly come from more developmental building and then at what cost does the environment and therefore, Earth's inhabitants, pay as a result of such expansion? Home owners and developers need not be compensated for the “loss” of building; the regulations are in place for a reason and it is my opinion that there are not enough regulations pertaining to the environment's well-being.
2. Utilitarianism seems to consider peoples desires, but runs into trouble when measuring research findings. Qualitative studies allow researchers to get a better feel for a person as an individuals rather than that of quantitative, which provides easier terms of measurement, but less insight into how/why a person may think, feel, and behave as they do. Without truly understanding how people feel about numerous things, it seems to be as though it would be hard to provide “. . . the greatest good for the greatest number.”
3. “Pro-life” has taken on a whole new meaning and now involves the consideration of all living forms and their well-being. You need not be religious to agree with such a notion. All forms of life contain value and I cannot fathom why there are not enough people that have such beliefs.
Why is it often more important to people, their standards of living rather than considering how we came about in relation to the manners in which we should base our living standards?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. Modern day politics are rather devoid of ethical influence, particularly in the United States. Rather than attempting to lead by making decisions influenced by ethics, politics has become a game in which one side attempts to subvert the other’s efforts. This makes it extremely difficult for anything productive to get done and larger, more controversial issues, such as limiting the environmental damage done by humans, will get shoved under the bus in favor of more temporary “solutions” or none at all.
2. There are two slightly different environmental ethic levels of thought. The first of these is “the practical level of deciding what we should do and how we should live.” The second methodology is a bit more abstract and involves “stepping back to think about how we decide what to do and what to value.” The two of these may seem rather similar at a glance, but fundamentally they have a couple major differences. The first relies on the deciding of what humans should do and how they should live, a rather simple and straightforward concept that, however, lacks a greater level of insight. The second level of thought involves reflecting the past to determine how humans should live and what they should value. Determining the values is an enormous difference that makes the second level of thought much more ethical that the first.
3. Science and technology are both blessings and curses to taker society. Our current mindset is that science is the ultimate answer to everything and we can use it to solve all of our problems, no matter how large or how small. This belief is what has led humanity into its current state of continuous development of new technology that can speed up expansion of humanity. The facts gathered by science can account for pieces of the larger puzzle, but they cannot factor in every single detail required for fixing the Earth’s environmental problems because the problems encompass more fields than just science – it is just as much of an economic problem as it is a scientific one. While science has brought about many of the environmental problems which need to be handled, it is still going to be vital in reversing and/or limiting human damage of the environment.
Chapter 2
1. Teleological tradition says that everything must have four causes: the material, formal, efficient, and final. These causes explain the purpose for everything by explaining why things are. Those things which perform their functions are considered to be good, a classification that is subjective. Teleology is a belief which serves as a means to an end; if something has these characteristics then its purpose is what it does.
2. The utilitarian belief supports the notation of “the greatest good for the greatest number.” It is entirely subjective since nobody knows what “the greatest good” really is or can determine what value something has. The taker view of the greatest good is, perhaps, the best way of expanding civilization. Under utilitarianism, one might argue that if a few hundred or thousand species must be wiped out in order to make room for seven billion humans than it is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. For government officials this would be the right thing to do because it is their responsibility to serve the public interest. This view is altogether short sighted since things which may not have much value to us may have value to another.
3. The ethical belief of deontology revolves around duties and rights. These ethics support that “we can only be held responsible for those things that we can control” and that people must be treated “as ends and never simply as means or subjects.” This makes deontology very centered on humans and not on the environment or other species. It very succinctly says that humans are the end, meaning that nothing will come after us.
Question: Which of the approaches to ethics is commonly followed today? Is it teleology, utilitarianism, deontology, or a combination of all of them?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. This first part of this chapter tries to make the connection between environmental ethics and philosophy. Desjardins also tries to explain early on that philosophy will be a large part of this book. He goes on to define ethics as “…the branch of philosophy that addresses questions on fundamental values…” (Desjardins 8). By making this connection between philosophy and ethics, he can use a more rational approach when he explores the content later in the book.
2. A scientist’s role in the process. Early on Desjardins criticizes the scientist’s role in the current system we have. He isn’t saying that scientists are rubbish and should be removed, but is more or less trying to say that they shouldn’t be blindly followed by everyone like a cult. He says that the problem with scientists is that they aren’t necessarily “asking the right questions” and that they need to be told what questions to ask. For example he used an example with an engineer and a road through a marsh. The engineer said it should be built, but he never gave thought to the environmental impact because there was no way to effectively measure it scientifically.
3. The third part of this chapter that the author wanted to try emphasize was the idea of Justice and the morals behind the ethics he is trying to promote. On one side is the idea of “Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” which is followed by Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. On the other side there is the idea of ethical relativism and Socrates’s model of justice, which is using logic and reason to determine right from wrong. The other strongly leans towards Socrates’s side and you can tell that he is using the opposite argument as a way to augment this own.
Chapter 2
1. Desjardins argues several points in this chapter and one of the most prevalent ones the idea of teleology. Teleology is the idea that something has a purpose. For example a chair’s purpose is to sit on it. This is a similar idea that Taker culture seems to have towards anything in our environment. We don’t view most plants and animals as worth protecting if they have no telos. This can be seen in Oregon with the spotted owl and the logging industry.
2. The second idea he brings up is utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number. This is a similar view used by just about any democracy today because it is impossible to please everyone and decisions made in a government need to please as many people as possible otherwise the people making the decisions might lose their job. This idea can also be seen in Taker culture with the idea of farmers feeding the world. Instead of only trying to keep their country or even state fed, they instead strive to feed the world.
3. The third idea is deontological ethics. This is the idea of having a means and an end. Something like a robot that screws on a lid for a bottle can be seen as a means and the finished bottle can be seen as an ends, making the robot a means to an end. If you apply this same concept to people and nature, you have the same idea that Desjardins is trying to show. However he is also attempting to point out that seeing things only as a means or an ends can be morally wrong.
Question: How have the ideas of teleology, utilitarianism and deontology affected Taker civilization and culture?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. The 21st century saw the Taker culture expand, and develop new technologies a t a rapid rate. The new problems of the world were solved linearly, not enough food to feed the world? Kill the pest that eat the food. Electricity is getting to expensive? Make more power plants. One of the May results of this period of growth is Global Warming, which has been rebranded as Global Climate Change, is the result of our still growing population.
2. Politics is not the way to solve the problem of Global Climate Change, because politicians don’t have expertise in Global Climate Change. Since many of the causes of climate change are an unforeseen result of science, it is tempting to throw the whole problem in their lap and say “fix this”, but solving problems with scientific mindset can result in unplanned circumstances. Social dialogue can lead to positive, rational plans but not everyone has the expertise to fix the problem. The best way to fix the environmental problems is through a combination of Science and Ethical reasoning.
3. While people often say that environmental problems have to be solved ethically. Ethical Relativists say that ethics are societally created, so there is no one ethical code all people can agree on. The best we can do is to approach environmental problems is as a whole, to try and keep the whole healthy rather than to focus on specifics. The idea of holistic ethics is very similar to Ishmael’s Peace Keeping Law.
Chapter 2
1. Environmental protection in United States was enacted in the 1970’s for the first and final time. The Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Protection Act and the Clean Air Act are the basis for all environmental protection. The laws resulted in feelings of resentment by those who feel that they should be able to do whatever they want with their property. Many businesses and private individuals still feel that protecting the environment at the expense of Taker expansion is ridiculous.
2. Utilitarianism is the view that any act can be deemed good or bad based on the consequences of the act. If the majority of the consequences are good, the act is good, if the majority are bad, the act is bad. The hope of utilitarianism is to maximize good consequences. This causes a dilemma, good for who? Who should be on the receiving end of the good consequences? The bad consequences? Utilitarianism can only really be applied by an individual to their individual choices.
3. Religious Orders often have their own rules and system of ethics. Despite many of the rules are similar. The problem is that religious orders describe these rules as part of their mythology, making it hard for them to communicate their ideas across religious boundaries. The common themes in most religions are, the world is a creation of god(s), nature is divine, and stewardship of the world.
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. Global Warming has always been a theory that people choose to believe in or choose not too based on facts, but in the United States that isn’t necessarily true. Global Warming has turned into another political fight among the political parties. Such a debate has limited the possibilities on being able to monitor and change the way industries function to benefit the environment.
2. While technology provides hope that one day our society will be able to be sustainable, right now it is what is causing the majority of our environmental issues. Technology has been able to provide humans with the ability to supply a surplus of food for the exponentially growing population by making pesticides and fertilizers that are polluting our water supplies along with depleting the natural resources. Technology and science could potentially be what saves the world, but at the moment is what is debilitating us.
3. In the next few thousand years, the human population and environment will be dealing with the consequences of our current lifestyles. The most predominant example being the disposal of nuclear waste. Our current society is only thinking about the near future instead of what will the world be like in 100,000 years.
Chapter 2
1. Protecting the environment with laws only started in 1970 with the Clean Air Act. Up until then the environment had almost no regulations. Humans today are already suffering from extensive pollution that happened from previous generations. Imagine the damage that will have to be fixed from the current lack of environmental regulations now due to political parties disagreeing.
2. A concept presented in this chapter is Utilitarianism. This is the idea that one’s personal action or moral decision should only benefit the community as a whole, or “the greatest good for the greatest number”. The idea of being selfish is not an option. In order to survive a community has to work and function as a team instead of having everyone fend for themselves.
3. Deontology is another concept discussed in this chapter. Deontology is the idea that an individual sets the moral standards for themselves and those morals are never to be broken, even if it hurts the greater good of the community. The idea that “we can only be held responsible for those things that we can control”, and the things that we can control are our personal actions.
Question:
Will the severe divide in the government regarding environmental policies be the downfall of our society?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1. The earth’s atmosphere is composed of mainly nitrogen and oxygen. But many of the remaining trace elements, especially carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, and ozone, have molecular structures that absorb the radiated heat and reflect it back into the atmosphere and back onto the Earth.
2. Science can trace trends in global temperatures, relative size of glaciers, ocean levels and temperatures, and habitat change, especially in northern climates. We could resolve the debates about global warming by determining what the facts actually are.
3. Some estimates suggest that more than 100 species are becoming extinct every day and this rate can double or even triple within the next few decades.
Chapter 2:
1. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right and wrong in terms of the overall consequences of our actions. An example of this would be preserving species because they provide beneficial consequences.
2. Ethics consists of the general beliefs, attitudes, or standards that guide customary behavior. It is derived from the Greek word Ethos meaning something like “habitual”.
3. To make ethical judgments, give advice, and offer evaluations of what should be is engaging in normative ethics. Normative judgments prescribe behavior, and explicitly appeal to some norm or standard of ethical behavior.
4.
Question:
How can governments create incentive programs to reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, and would it really be effective?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. The main thing I picked up on in the first chapter was the connection between philosophy and environmental ethics. I feel as if philosophers were perhaps the earliest taker environmentalists, if there can be such a thing, and the connection is an interesting one to make.
2. I thought it interesting that although the earths atmosphere is almost entirely composed of nitrogen and oxygen, the smallest change in the levels of other materials, carbon dioxide, methane and the like, can have detrimental effects on the planet.
3. The problem with every taker individually is that we only think about ourselves, we say, albeit quietly, once I die who cares? Years of this type of thinking has been harmful, but the storm is only brewing and soon there will be no more takers left to think this. We need to start not only worrying about our own future or our children s, but the future of man kind and earth as a whole for milenia to come.
Chapter 2
1.Utilitarianism is an interesting environmental concept. It can also lead to sickening results though, whats best for most may still lead to the suffering of many.
2.Businesses wanting deregulation is certainly as old as business itself. They never have been satisfied and never will be. It is time we over regulate for once with the hopes that we can solve the environmental crisis that corporations are responsible for a large percentage of.
3. When a whole slew of environmental laws were passed in the early 1970s, including the clean air act, clean water act, endangered species act and several other, businesses did as they always do and complained. However, this chapter makes me believe that, if anything, these laws were not strict enough. We need to pass more environmental protection laws in this country, especially since we are a world leader. If we set the bar high, hopefully other countries would follow suit.
question: What law would be most helpful to amend with the hopes of remedying the environmental catastrophe we are currently adrift in?
Josh Popielarczyk
ReplyDeleteChapter 1 Observation 1:
Page 7 “In many ways, philosophical ethics is just this process of stepping back to reflect on our decision making”. When considering what was said in the previous paragraph, I believe the way “reflect” is to look for a balance. In today’s society, with mother culture runny array, and takers being more taker like than ever we have to look for the small victories. An example of a small step could be creating a hospital in a town, promoting a healthier happier life, but disallow any non-public transportation. This play into the takers world, promoting self health, as well as a leavers world (more like compromise) where car gases aren’t polluting the air.
Observation 2:
On page 10, the book describe how we (takers) consider all environmental problems to be a technical problem “awaiting solution from some specialized discipline”. This immediately made me think of the taker culture. We literally created the destruction of the environment through technological feats and then imposing them on the world, yet we look to more technological advances to solve the problem. This plays into takers thinking they know everything there is to know, and feeling some sort of magical entitlement to enforce it.
Observation 3:
On page 15 the book delves into the political side of environmental polices, says “political decision making is nothing other than power politics—competing interest groups asserting their own preferences and the winners defining what is right and wrong”. I find this so unbelievably true it actually depresses me. I feel that we have created a system built for takers to thrive, and leavers to be outcast. What’s the drive behind it? Ego? Greed? Unfortunately I don’t know but I sure hope to learn some insight from this book.
Chapter 2 Observation 1:
On page 24 I think the story of Odysseus’s return from the Trojan War offers great insight into our problem as a culture. The story consists of Odysseus hanging a dozen women slaves after he suspected misbehavior. Since Greeks saw slaves as property, they didn’t see anything wrong with killing them. This is exactly the society takers have created. We consider the world to be ours, and therefore feel we have to right to destroy it.
Observation 2:
Undisturbed nature is a good thing, yet humans thrive off the manipulation of nature. As a species it seems inevitable that we will eventually be the cause for the destruction of the planet (to the point where life cannot exist). We value the profits of manipulation more than the sustainability of our own planet. The one place we know suitable for human life. What can we do to change this mindset?
Observation 3:
I think is essential to understand both types of utilitarianism since I believe almost every human bases their life off it somehow. However I think the book offers a genius why to blend the line between helping ourselves, and helping everyone. If we could unite people under a common goal, say to clean up the worlds water supply and stop destruction like construction, we can satisfy the “preference utilitarianism” as well as helping sustain the world and our species. I think the overall way to save the environment is to somehow manipulate mother culture into associating the same feeling of personal gain, with the feeling of universal gain.
Question: How can we change mother culture to create a new guideline in which individual happiness is revolved around universal happiness?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1. Previous generations inadvertently began the Earth’s environmental problems years ago, not knowing what would come. As time went on and populations became bigger, so did the effects on the Earth’s Future.
2. Science and technology, although a good thing, are one of the main reasons the Earth is as bad as it is. Science and Technology lead to advanced machinery which led to the gathering of more raw materials which lead to negative effects on the Earth.
3. When it comes to making the big decisions, it comes down to politics. However everyone has a different view on what they want to see done, so instead of doing what’s right, people go with what’s popular/ wouldn’t hurt the majority.
Chapter 2:
1. Religion plays a role in the environment, because every religion has their own creation story and believes in different ways in which the world was created. Having these different views on the environment leaves people with different respects and certain traditions.
2. There are many different ways ethics can be looked at Deontology, utilitarian and teleology. Although all are different, it shows how diverse our population can be and how there are multiple ways at looking at something
3. It is hard to step back and analyze certain situations from a completely ethical standpoint. No matter what the outcome is, being biased toward one side or another will always be hard to get over .
Question: How can we set emotions aside and make ethical decisions that are unbiased?
Chapter 1.
ReplyDelete1. There are ways for us to slow down global warming and the environmentalists are trying to spread these ways. It is recommended that countries slow their use of fossil fuels and governments try incentive programs to reduce the use of carbon fuels.
2. Although now a lot of us mostly rely on science, that’s not a smart thing to do. We have to also consider the ethics of what we are doing and if we had started doing that a long time ago, the world would be a very different place. We often think of science as exact and always the truth, however it rarely tells the whole story and when we examine the ethics, we are able to see that other side.
3. We can’t only think about what we can do to stop our failing environment; we also have to think about why we have to do that and why we want to. We have to examine the philosophy behind our ethics to reflect on how we should act and why we think that way so that we can make rational decisions on how to live.
Chapter 2.
1. There are many different ways that we can reason our way through ethical issues. We sometimes consider benefits versus consequences, sometimes we think about the issue in terms of rights and principals, and sometimes we take sides with the law and believe that that’s how it should be.
2. Virtue ethics have a lot to do with your morals. There are a few main themes that we should think about in regards to this and they include care for future generations, respect for living things, and love for nature.
3. Utilitarianism was created to encourage doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It encourages us to look at the consequences of our actions which is something that not enough people do.
Question.
How do we get people to actually listen when we talk about global warming and realize that it is a serious problem?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1. World population reached 7 billion people, which is only 12 years after reaching 6 billion. It only took 12 years to reach another billion when it took from the beginning of humans to 1804 to reach one billion. So its interesting to think about philosophical ethics and the impact humans have had on our world, not only since our existence, but just the past 12 years and how we could let our population grow so rapidly.
2. Another ethical question is how we have ignored global warming and the effect it has on our environment for so long. Silent Spring by Carson was published in 1962. That’s about 50 years ago, and still, nothing has changed. We are waiting to be disciplined, but what people aren’t realizing is that once we realize what our discipline is, it will be too late to turn it around.
3. To question energy as a question of demand is an interesting theory. What do we really need it for, do we really need it at all. What are the other opinions? The problem is that people want what they want, not want what they need.
Chapter 2:
1. The creation myth verse evolution. Religion plays an incredibly important part in our ethical decision. Those who believe that the environment was created for them and those that believe we are just the next step. There were beings before us and there will be beings after us.
2. Humans take ownership of everything. The land is ours, the water is ours, and even the air is ours. We manipulate nature and leave nothing undisturbed. Nothing is natural in our eyes, it has a purpose somehow, and the purpose is for our use and consumption.
3. The idea of utilitarianism and the difference between good and bad consequences. What is good and who is it really good for? Is it good for the individual, the whole or the environment?
Question:
How can we change the minds of those that believe in the creation myth? If the world was created for us supposedly, then who are we trying to save by creating a sustainable environment?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1.) Due primarily to human activity, the challenges of the climate change on Earth started to become prevalent in the earlier parts of the century. And the rapid increase of humans (currently around 7 billion) only makes things worse because there are that more people doing harmful things.
2.) Science and technology have brought many benefits in the effort to overcome environmental challenges. However, they have also brought many consequences because they add to the warming a lot on their own. So where is the perfect balance between the two that humans can agree with the Earth?
3.) Environmental ethics is a systematic account of the moral relationship between human beings as a species and our natural environment. It also assumed that ethical norms govern human behavior toward the natural world.
Chapter 2:
1.) Ethics consists of the general beliefs and attitudes about the standards that guide customary behavior. This means that every community will be different because they all have different beliefs and attitudes about the standards of behavior with their environment, since everywhere is different.
2.) There are two different basic types of natural objects: those that are alive and those that aren't, according to Aristotle at least. **But I agree with that at least** And to say something has a soul means it is alive. And if it's alive, then it most likely corresponds to Aristotle's three fundamental activities of life: nutrition, sensation, and thinking.
3.) One of the central criticisms of utilitarianism is that it makes the ethical status of our acts depend on factors which we have no control over. An act is judged by its consequences, but the ability to control the outcome of the consequences of an action rarely exists.
EATE Question:
Who originally decided what was "ethical," why did they do it the way they did, and who gave them the right to do it? Or was it more of a general consensus of what the people believed to create what is or isn't "ethical" in our world today?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. It is very evident that the Earth in which we live is becoming less and less livable due to human activity and population growth, which is affecting animal species, climate changes, agriculture, advances in technology, etc.
2. In order to make progress in stopping environmental problems it is important to take in both science and ethics. Including perspectives on both subjects will lead to the most successful solutions or strides to a solution.
3. Are we responsible for the living conditions of the people for the next 10,000 years? That is something this book hopes to aim towards. Getting people aware of environmental issues and why we should work on them.
Chapter 2
1. Natural law vs. natural selection is the difference between the belief evolutionary adaptations and things happening just because. After reading the natural selection example of the giraffe it kind of seems like a stupid ideology.
2. At its most basic level, utilitarianism is the idea that decisions should be made to benefit and to make the most people happy. If someone’s act has more negative than positive consequences it is considered ethically wrong.
3. Modern thinking has been shaped by ethical traditions of natural law, utilitarianism, and Kantian deontology.
Do you think we would live in a better world if more people adopted this utilitarianism approach to ethics and thinking when it came to the environment?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1. Due to human activity and population growth, planet Earth is becoming more and more unlivable. Human activity and population growth is also the affecting animal species and their existence (increasing extinction in species), climate change, agriculture, and advances in technology.
2. The atmospheric gases that are responsible for maintaining the stability in the Earth’s temperature, are carbon dioxide, water vapor, ozone, methane, and nitrous oxide. These greenhouse gasses act much like a glass greenhouse does, it reflects the heat back on to the planet, slowly increasing the Earth’s temperature.
3. Due to human activity, about 100 species are becoming extinct every day and scientists feel that this may double or triple in the next couple decades. This is because the natural resources on the planet are changing so rapidly, that the animals can’t adapt fast enough to live.
Chapter 2:
1. During the 1970’s, most of the significant environmental legislation were enacted. These included; The Clean Air Act (1970), the Federal Water Pollution Act (1972), and the Endangered Species Act (1973). Each act was enacted by a democratic congress, and signed by a republican president.
2. The term ethics is derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning “customary” or “habitual.” Each and every culture around the world has its own ethics that everyone follows because they are the standard beliefs and practices of that culture.
3. Aristotle believed that to make ethical decisions, one must understand both biology and psychology. He thought this because in order to make these decisions you must understand basic human needs, motivation, and common capabilities/potentials.
Question: In order to make progress in stopping environmental problems, which is more important, ethics or science? Why?
Excellent reflectiond here, EATE'rs!
ReplyDeleteWe'll discuss in class on Monday.
Bravo!
Dr. W
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. “Global climate change is the norm, not the problem it is made out to be” (5). The climate is never constant, and that is something that in generally known information. Sometimes people who do not know all of their facts about global warming and climate change put the blame strictly on takers. It is obviously that humans have a strong impact on the earth, but it is hard to separate what is the natural course of the earth from the impact of human activity. Even the most knowledgeable and well informed scientist who study climate change do not know exactly how much we are to blame for the ozone depletion and how we can stop it.
2. “Complicating matters is the fact that many environmental topics from global warming to land use, from energy policy to food production, have become embroiled in bitter partisan politics” (7). Politics have overtaken the media, especially in the recent past. It has now become people arguing about who is right, just because their political party has a certain opinion. It is really getting us nowhere. People are too caught up in proving the other person wrong that they forget to actually analyze the actual problem and try and come up with a way to fix it.
3. “Underlying the view of people who agree with Thrasymachus, ethics is futile because ethical values are, ultimately, a matter of personal opinion and belief” (15). This goes along with my previous post, in that everyone has a different personal opinion about ethics, which is why it is so difficult for a country to come to a healthy agreement about something. It is true that in politics people come up with facts and use their words to persuade the other side that what they are saying is the truth, but people are taught that everyone is allowed their own opinion, so they become stubborn and will not listen to the other side, even if it makes more sense. Ethics are a huge part of the world today and continue to be a very difficult concept to grasp.
Chapter 2
Delete1. “One approach to ethics advises us to make decisions in terms of the consequences of our actions and to act in ways that maximize overall social benefits” (23). I believe that this statement really outlines the opposite of what most people believe in the world today. Takers tend to not realize the outcome of their actions on other people and the environment, only what will benefit themselves in the short and long run. If takers were to start going about their lives with the mindset in the quote, I think that a lot more changes would be made and people would stop being so one sided. It is very interesting to see how books and political figures say we should act, and compare it to how the world actually goes about their lives.
2. “…a defender of natural law might explain the long neck of the giraffe by claiming that the long neck exists in order to enable the giraffe to reach food high off the ground. The defender of natural selection, on the other hand, would claim that the giraffe did not develop a long neck in order to reach the leaves high in the tree but, rather, that giraffes that happened to have longer necks than other giraffes survived more reliably than shorter-necked giraffes, because they could reach these leaves more readily…” (31). Evolution has always been an interesting, but confusing topic to me. I think it is important for us to really understand how evolution works so we can understand how humans have changed throughout the time we have been on the earth and what caused those changes.
3. “…certain religious attitudes have been among the root causes of environmental destruction” (40). Religion is definitely a topic that has had a huge impact on the environment throughout the years. I do not believe it is as prominent as it used to be, but it is an interesting topic to think about and see what religion has done to our views of the environment and the actual changes it has caused. It has also caused different opinion that people have about certain religions because of they way they view and act upon the environment. Just like evolution and ethics, it is a very controversial topic to discuss.
Is politics one of the main reasons why the world fails to truly understand the affect we have on the Earth and its climate? How is this going to change in the future?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. Many of the present environmental issues that exist today are the result of well thought out decisions made by past generations trying to solve problems that were current for them. It may seem to those of us living in today’s world that the challenges facing us concerning the environment arose from the careless actions of our grandparents, when in reality, the choices they made were thought to be beneficial and helpful at the time. Similarly, the decisions we make today, while hopefully made out of good intentions, may very well have a negative impact on future generations, just as past generations have impacted our current situation.
2. When environmental decisions are left to the “experts” in science and technology, we limit the perspective to just the values and philosophical assumptions of these experts. For many people it makes sense to simply let those who study environmental science deicide what we can do to help solve and abstain all of the damage that is going on, when in reality, leaving the solving of all answers in the hands of specific scientists is a limiting and restrictive practice. Limiting ourselves in this manner is not likely to produce the types of answers needed to address environmental issues.
3. To study and understand various theories, it is common to reduce the object in question to its simplest elements, such as how we study the atom. When it comes to social sciences such as sociology, however, this reductionism causes distortions of reality. If society is stripped down to a collection of individuals driven by self-interest, the very concept of an ecosystem is lost or altered, negating the very purpose of studying such concepts in the first place.
Question: How can we encourage more people to weigh in on environmental issues, instead of perpetuating this belief that the scientific “experts” are going to solve all of the world’s problems that we have caused?
Chapter 2
1. The order that is found in nature is not derived from a divine plan but from the process of species adapting to their environment. Through natural selection and random mutation, species have come to exist in the way that they do today, and it is this very process that allows these species to continue to thrive and exist.
2. Religious ethical principles can act as a reason for environmental motivation, justifying ethical beliefs and encouraging ethical actions. In many religious themes, the natural world is good objectively and independently of human judgments or actions. Such a perspective supports the preservation of natural areas, and urges awareness for how humans tend to deem parts of creation for our own uses.
3. Those who are impacted the most negatively by environmental pollution and degradation are the people least able to take action against such factors. The world’s poor go through the worst environmental afflictions and receive the fewest environmental benefits. Since these are the people on the lower end of the economic scale, they are less likely to have the resources needed to change the environmental issues facing them. This in turn holds this group back and traps them in a perpetual continuum of environmental degradation.
Question: If many different religions encourage the idea that the earth is sacred and living creatures should be respected, and if these beliefs were followed at one point in our history, what led people away from such ideas? Would it be helpful to determine when people lost sight of these religious beliefs?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. Due the ever growing Taker population and constant exploitation of the earth’s natural resources. They’ve affected other organism’s survival, climate, shape of the land, as well as their own way of living due to dwindling resources and climate change.
2. Although the Takers have advanced realty in science and technology to counteract these changes, however there’s still much more that hasn’t been addressed such as the other living species as well as a way to live sustainably since the Taker population continues to grow. Having a wide perspective in both the environment and ethics can lead to solutions to some of these problems though it will be much more difficult when we reach the 9 billion population mark let alone any increase in the population.
3. If the mass majority of Takers can realize that we need to focus on the sustainability of all living creatures and less on looking out for themselves, can we begin to gain progress in solving these various issues. If we continue to break the law of living as referenced in Ishmael then there is no hope for saving humans as well as all that calls this planet home.
Chapter 2
1. The idea of Utilitarianism intrigued me as well as disturbed in that in the Taker view, it can be viewed as selfish natural selection. What is good for the majority (Takers) may not be beneficial at all to others (animals, Leavers, etc.).
2. Discussing ethos in our Concepts classes last year and then having it tie in with this class with ethics was really awesome to find how it all ties in to our community and various cultures. Also the similarity in the Greek meanings also intrigued me.
3. Ethical traditions of the past have shaped what we know as our Taker society today though through further exploration of these old traditions, could we find something new that could teach us to coexist better with the world we live in? For instance the different religions view on sustaining the environment.
Question:
Are we in an ethical system that’s so far along it would take too long to try and correct?
Chapter 1:
ReplyDelete1. There have been a lot of people who have said that there will be an increase in global temperature and it would cause environmental damage as well as humans suffering from it. The Earth’s atmosphere is made up of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen and the rest being a mix of carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane.
2. Human population has been growing very rapidly over the past few years. It took 12 years to reach 7 billion people after being at 6 billion people. It is expected to slow down and take 15 years to add the next 1 billion people to the world population. Poverty, war, disease and famine are some factors that are contributing to the decline in population.
3. “In general, environmental ethics is a systematic account of the moral relations between human beings and their natural environment” (17). Then these environmental ethics are to go on and explain what these norms are and what humans have for responsibilities.
Chapter 2:
1. There are three different approaches to ethics. The first one being to make decisions that will maximize social benefits. The second approach is to tell us about certain duties that require us to act in a certain way. “A third approach argues that there are natural rights and duties prescribed by nature laws which direct ethical behavior” (23).
2. “The word ethics derived from the Greek word ethos, meaning something like “customary” or “habitual.” One of the hardest challenges in looking at an issue and discovering the ethical issue.
3. “Utilitarianism is a second ethical tradition that is helpful in the study of the environmental ethics.” “Utilitarian reasoning is especially influential in the areas of economics, public policy, and government regulation, and this means that it has also played a significant role in the environmental policy” (33). Utilitarianism helps us make the right decision about one good or to make a good for the greatest number.
Question:
In order to start making progress on making the world more environmentally friendly, do we do what is ethical or follow science?
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1 Since the 1980’s we have known about our effect on the environment through climate change. We knew that, through our burning of fossil fuels, we admitted more greenhouse gases into the air leading to an increase in global temperatures.
2 Even though we had this knowledge of global warming, and there were environmental activists who suggested policies to help reduce our admissions, there were critics. These critics would use the slightest snow fall in their defense. And now they are twisting the predictions of destruction into positives. For instance, there will be increase evaporation, causing more cloud cover, causing less sunlight; but the critics say that it’ll just make the previously inhospitable areas livable.
3 The human population grows exponentially. Our population, being 6 billion in 1999, has increased to 7 billion in only 12 years. This increases demands on natural resources and demands on the biosphere. And in turn we will produce more waste.
Chapter 2
1 A large amount of environmental legislations were passes during the 1970’s. They ranged from protecting thing such as the air, water, and animals. These were major steps in our fight for the environment and brought about some change within our country.
2 Utilitarianism is a belief that we should only focus on maximizing our utility because utility is what brings us happiness right? Utilitarianism has played a “significant role in the environmental policy” (33).
3 Our traditions have helped form the culture we live in today, we take bits a pieces from the past and then add to it was we advance. However, maybe through further investigation into these traditions we can find ways that our ancestors helped the environment, or lived more sustainably.
Question- Do you think there would be an up rise in increased tax on emissions? It would cause an increase of price for electricity but in turn reduce our rates of emissions.
Chapter 1
ReplyDelete1. Science and Technology are seen as the by-all-end-all solution to environmental problems. While these are great "tools" (usually reactive) to combat environmental issues, they should only be tools in a much more encompassing approach to environmental health and sustainability. We cannot use products of the societal machine to fix environmental issues. That would be like introducing an invasive species to fix an issue in an environment.
2. If viewed in a completely scientific sense and thinking at the margin, we could fix a lot of todays environmental issues by radically altering the current circumstance, but here is where the issue of fact vs. value comes into play, and the idea of environmental and societal efficacy. We must not sacrifice principle to achieve an easy fix, but rather balance the science based knowledge the world in conjunction with societal knowledge of right and wrong.
3. As we are so hyperaware of ourselves and the world around us, especially in proportion to the other cognitive beings on this planet, also considering how drastically we have altered our world- that we've acted in such a way, means we have assumed responsibility for our creations, and for the natural systems which support it- the natural world. As we have taken control over so much means that we have also assumed all of the responsibility of taking care of and ensuring the continued existence of this said construct.
Q: Can we as a society balance societal needs and environmental needs, while considering our efficacy in doing so?
Chapter 2
1. There are three theories around why we should preserve endangered species: that there will be consequences for our actions, good or bad; we must act based on principle; we have natural rights and duties to the natural world. I believe in all three of these principles, and think if we all acted at all moments with innate knowledge of how our individual actions would push or pull circumstance in the right or wrong direction, we shall be moving in the right direction, whatever that may be.
2. Understanding ethics, and our environment are essential for the continued existence of man. And while I value efficacy and my own morality and our environment, most individuals in today's globalized and progressively societal world, the majority of first world citizens are propagating societal success at the expense of the environment to second and third world citizens. We are exploiting other nations and peoples that are connected to the environment, and severing these ties so that we may profit from the economically.
3. I consider myself to be virtuous and follow my own tune- my efficacy is a direct product of my morality, and while I do not always adhere to modern rule-based ethics of societal living, I always adhere to my own sense of right and wrong. We must be realistic and understand that some (or more) people are going to be incapable and lack the self-discipline to adhere to a sense of morality and efficacy that is appropriate, especially in context to the environment and sustainability. So we must make modern rule-based ethics that will protect the environment and ensure a sustainable model. (If) We are not doing that now, we are being grossly irresponsible.
Q: Efficacy is a product of individual virtues and morality. So to affect the general sense of ethics (and the environment) would it make sense to approach altering the mindset of individuals and their own virtues/morality or the masses?