PHIL 2750 Test 1

Question 1

State the principle of Aldo Leopold’s ‘land ethic.’

Answer 1

An action is right when it tends to promote the beauty, integrity and stability of the eco- system; it is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Question 2

Taylor states that non-human living things are not moral agents and do not possess moral rights. He nevertheless holds that living things deserve equal moral respect and consideration within human ethical decision- making. Explain how he uses a conception of the human good to arrive at this position. (Worth 4 marks)

Answer 2

Taylor provides an argument for the conclusion that all living things deserve equal moral consideration. The human good, for Taylor, involves being rational agents. Rational agents are able to discern that a conclusion follows from an argument and act in accordance with what reason requires. So, realizing our good as rational agents involves acting in accordance with the conclusion of his equality argument.

Question 3

Would Peter Singer say that a species of animal (e.g. Bengal tigers) has moral value as a species? Explain. (Worth 3 marks)

Answer 3

Under Singer’s theory a species would have no moral value as such. Moral value for Singer is a matter of being the sort of thing that has interests, and he defines this in terms utilities which require the capacity for experiencing pleasures and pains. While an individual animal can have an interest in this sense, a species does not have a nervous system or brain and so lacks the interests that would qualify it as a possessor of moral value.

Question 4

What are the four principal fields of philosophical study?

Answer 4

1. Logic-study of formal reasoning (critical thinking)
2. Metaphysics-study if underlying nature of reality
3. Epistemology-study of nature of knowledge (justify your beliefs)
4. Axiology-study if the nature of human values, focus of the course

Question 5

What are the three fields of the philosophical study of ethics ?

Answer 5

1. Meta-ethics: study of underlying nature of ethics, what constitutes a moral fact (what makes it what it is)
2. Normative ethics: study of theories of ethics (what is the right way of looking at ethics) (Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontology, Contractualism/Neo kantian ethics, Virtue ethics
3. Applied ethics: takes one of the two and applies it, what should we do and how should we be?

Question 6

What’s the difference between ethical theories of the good and theories of the right ?

Answer 6

Theories of the good is a theory that
will make ethical evaluations in terms of good consequences as they say the affects of actions is what determines whether or not an action is good or bad; ethical or unethical. (lying can be right to save someone’s life)

Theory of the right says that consequences are irrelevant to ethical evaluations and that actions are right or wrong in themselves. (never lie even if the person will die)

Question 7

What is the Principle of Utility ?

Answer 7

It says that you should act in such a way to maximize the aggregate utility for all effected by your act.

used in utilitarianism; requires that the rule used in making a decision must bring about positive results when generalized to a wide variety of situations.

Question 8

What is the Categorical Imperative ?

Answer 8

The Categorical Imperative says that firstly, act only upon that maxim that you can and at the same time will as a universal law. The second form is always treat humanity including yourself as ends in themselves and never merely as means. It derives from Kant’s Deontology.

“Act only upon that maxim that you can will as universal law”
1) describe maxim (what you are trying to do), 2) state why you want to do this thing
3) universalize your maxim (why everyone should do what I’m about do to)
4) look at the outcome of universalized maxim, if it contradicts the end contemplated by your subjective maxim then your action is immoral

Question 9

What’s the difference between deontic ethics and aretaic ethics ?

Answer 9

Deontic theories are duty based-theories that is to say that they involve duties on whether to act or not to act in certain ethical situations. We look at certain ethical rules on if we should act or not to act in certain situations.

Aretaic theories focus on character of the person and looks at who the person really is as a person (their character). If you are a good person, you will do good things.

Question 10

How does Singer argue for the moral equality of animals and what does this equality entail for utilitarianism ?

Answer 10

Singer argues that anything that can has interests and can experience pleasures and pains has utilities that we need to take into consideration like other human beings in terms of calculating our moral duties.

A big part of Singer’s theory was to focus on whether or not an entity has a brain, nervous system, and feelings. This will determine if animals should be treated as equals.

Something has moral value that counts if it has interests, it can experience pleasures and pains and suffering. Need brain receptors and nervous system. Tree, lower animals, and ecosystem doesn’t have this, but we still need to preserve the ecosystem because it affects the animals in question. Utilitarianism is minimizing the total suffering as the morally correct course of action.

Question 11

What is Regan’s definition of the ‘subject of a life’ and know how this differs from Kant’s account of human dignity ?

Answer 11

Definition: it involves more than being merely alive and more than being merely conscious. It is to have beliefs and desires, perception, memory and a sense of the future, including their own future ; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of desires and goals; a psychological identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, independently of their utility for others.

Kant says all persons regardless of rank/social class have equal intrinsic worth or dignity. Human dignity is an innate worth or stats we didn’t earn and cannot forfeit, rather we must strive to make our individual choices worth of this moral standing which elevate us above animals and mere things

Question 12

What are the core elements of Leopold’s ethical holism and what is his land ethic principle ?

Answer 12

The core elements: 1) Humans are a part of nature, not separate / superior.
2) We should look to the life sciences to tell us about ethics. 3) Land ethic principle

Land ethic principle: An action is right when it tends to promote the beauty, integrity and stability of the eco- system; it is wrong when it tends otherwise.

There is potential inconsistency/contradiction. Land ethic says a thriving and stable ecosystem is right but the life sciences say there is no one right state that things should be

Question 13

What does Leopold mean by the land pyramid ?

Answer 13

• Each species, including ourselves, is a link in many chains.
  The deer eats a hundred plants other than oak, and the cow a hundred plants other than corn.
  Both, then, are links in a hundred chains.
  The pyramid is a tangle of chains so complex as to seem disorderly, yet the stability of the system proves it to be a highly organized structure.
  Its functioning depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts.

Biodiversity is a good thing. Land is not merely soil it is a fountain of energy flowing through a circuit of soils, plants, and animals. Food chains are the bling channels which conduct energy upwards, death and decay return it to the soil. Through a love for the land we can be ethical regarding the land.
Soil-Photosynthesis/Primary producers-Herbivore-Carnivore-Top Carnivore

Question 14

What are the 4 components of Taylor’s biocentrism ?

Answer 14

1.Human beings are thought of as members of the earth’s community of life, holding on the same terms as apply to all non-human members.
2.The parts of the ecosystem are interdependent.
3.Each living individual is a teleological Center of life with its own unique good
4.Fourthly, the claim that humans by their very nature are superior to other species is a groundless claim and fails taking the above 3 into account, the good of all living things is equal.

Question 15

What does Taylor mean by a teleological center of life ?

Answer 15

He means that every kind of living thing has a good. That good includes that species specific good. It’s what allows us to thrive and flourish in order to survive.

Each organism has a purpose and a reason for being, which is inherently good or valuable
Teleology is the study of final ends, everything has a specific way that it should be

Question 16

How does Taylor argue for moral consideration of non-human life notwithstanding his denial of non-human moral agency ?

Answer 16

Non-humans don’t depend on humans to live. However if non-humans became extinct we would die
Moral agency is the individuals ability to make moral choices based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions
Animals do not have moral agency so they cannot be morally inferior in merit to humans

Question 17

What are the differences on issues (e.g., species preservation) arising from the theories of Singer, Leopold and Taylor and the reasons why ? Explain

Answer 17

Singer is utilitarian, actions are right or wrong depending on the extent to which they promote happiness or prevent pain. Moral value relies on interests, we don’t owe anything to the ecosystem only to the animals inside.

Leopold is ethical holism. Wild=natural and is good, domestic=artificial which is potentially bad. The right state is biodiversity

Taylor is biocentrism. Opposes Leopold in that each living individual is different from the “whole view”, damages that affect individuals are wrong not to the ecosystem in general like singer. Closer to singer in that only human being have moral rights (singer doesn’t include plants or lower animals)

Question 18

What is the naturalistic fallacy?

Answer 18

A fallacy is an error in reason so just having a belief that is false just means your belief is false. A fallacy refers to problems in how you infer your inferences. It means you cannot derive a value statement or an ought statement from an is statement.

A philosophically invalid derivation of an ethical “ought” from a natural “is”. Just because something out to be the case doesn’t mean it is the case. Cannot derive that murder is wrong from just physical events in space and time

Question 19

What is Sober’s criticism of the environmentalist’s use of the term natural ?

Answer 19

Sobey argues that seeing humans as a part of nature rules out the environmentalists use of the distinction between artificial (domesticated) and natural (wild). If we are part of nature, then everything we do is part of nature, and is natural in that primary sense. When we domesticate organisms and bring them into a state of dependence on us, this is simply an example of one species exerting a selection pressure on another.

Natural is normative and has very little to do with biology. If humans are part of nature then our domestication of other organisms is natural and is the same as exerting selection pressure on another like a parasite on a fish. Concept of natural abused by the concept of normalcy. Normalcy->usual and desirable, domestication of animals is undesirable and therefore unnatural which is conflicting.

Question 20

What is Sober’s criticism of the environmentalist’s more expansive appeal to interests ?

Answer 20

Sober suggests that while preference utilitarianism (which states that an object having interests, needs, or preferences gives it ethical status) may seem like a foundation for environmentalism, it still presents challenges. Sober argues that if you give intrinsic moral value to all things that possess a need of interest, you get living things but you also get a lot of things that presumably we don’t want to say have moral value such as automobiles, garbage dumps, buildings, corporations.

Preference utilitarianism says objects interests give ethical status and is at the core of natural objects communication of wants, but this grants ethical importance to what environmentalists want (cherry picking). You don’t need a brain to have interests (garbage dump), you need to weigh and compare interests which is overlooked

Question 21

Which category of value would Sober use to address environmental issues ?

Answer 21

Sober would argue that Aesthetics provides a better category of value to make the case for preservation and other environmental issues.

Sober wants to preserve “art” in the natural habitat to keep aesthetic (category if value) value. Proposes a basis for being environmentalist consisting of aesthetic value in nature and natural entities

Question 22

What are the parallels Sober argues for between environmental concerns and aesthetics ?

Answer 22

Originality: Sober argues that most people value seeing an original work of art more than a copy, as people can have connections with certain real objects. The same is argued for aesthetics, most would value the beauty of the wilderness more in the wild than seeing it in a wilderness experience machine.

Context: Environmentalists stress the importance of preserving endangered species, yet it’s important to preserve the species in its natural habitat. For example, they wouldn’t be satisfied if a species were saved by putting in a zoo. Similarly, aestheians want to save works of art in their original “natural” setting. The idea of objects residing in a “fitting” environment plays a powerful role in both domains.

Rarity: A work of art may have enhanced value simply because there are very few other works. Viewed as valuable aesthetic objects, rare organisms may be valuable because they are rare. Environmentalists will give far more value to an animal that is part of an endangered species, they are more rare.

Context-> environmentalists don’t want to preserve a species in a zoo they want it in the wild, we don’t want a painting in a box we want it in the original museum and town
Rarity-> both see value in rarity

Question 23

What is the difference that Parsons articulates between strong and weak aesthetic preservationism ?

Answer 23

Aesthetic preservation is preserving nature in its underdeveloped state for the sake of its aesthetic value. Strong is doing anything if we can to preserve the natural environment no matter the threat. Weak is only concerned with non-interference.

Aesthetic preservation is preserving nature in its underdeveloped state for the sake of its aesthetic value. Strong is doing anything if we can to preserve the natural environment no matter the threat. Weak aesthetic preservation requires us to save natural things only when they are threatened by human actions.

Question 24

What problem does Parsons identify with the strong version ?

Answer 24

Problem of strong is preserving nature from itself turns it into an ARTIFACT

The strong version is self-defeating. If we preserve a natural thing or area in this way, we make certain of its aspects artifactual. Environmentalists are against humans interfering with natures natural processes.

Question 25

What does Parsons mean by the aesthetic preservationist’s dilemma and why he believes it arises ?

Answer 25

1) make the case for preservation on just aesthetic grounds -> we can say this value can also be found in a garbage dump (hanging a urinal in an art gallery has aesthetic value, so does Vegas and Disneyland) no guarantee nature “wins”
2) put a finger on the scale so the environment always wins. If there are ethical considerations this renders aesthetics irrelevant. I don’t care about not murdering you cause you’re attractive now i just won’t murder you cause you’re a human!

The appeal to aesthetics either fails to favour nature or else becomes purely rhetorical

The preservationists Dilemma:
- Facing a dilemma: A) one can assess aesthetic value purely on aesthetic considerations (persuading sceptics that nature has greater value than the development that would replace it). B) One can allow ethical judgements to play a role in shaping aesthetic judgements.
- The dilemma: For the preservationists, the appeal to aesthetic value either fails to favour nature or else becomes a purely rhetorical device rather than a reason for accepting the preservationists’ position.

Answer 26

1. Humility -> you should value things for their own sake and not only care about things that directly affect you
2. Gratitude -> When someone takes joy in something (nature) it is common to cherish it, and not simply to be happy with it at the moment but to care about it for its own sake. One wants it to survive and when appropriate to thrive not simply for its utility

Question 27

Explain why Hill’s application of virtue ethics to environmental concern may be described as derivative ?

Answer 27

His application is pretty traditional

The good -> still something that is anthropocentric (regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence especially as opposed to god/animals)

Answer: Traditional Virtue Ethics - Hill: If you practice the virtues with respect to the environment, its more likely that we will exhibit them to other human beings.

• The virtues are interational virtues, and if you practice these virtues towards the environment, you are more likely to in turn practice these virtues towards other human beings.
• No assertion that there are specific environmental virtues (no specific way we need to act towards the environment in order to flourish as human beings)