Test 1 - Focus
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Manitoba *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2750
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by daveroj
Know the four principal fields of philosophical study.
Metaphysics, epistemology, axiology, and logic.
Know the three fields of the philosophical study of ethics.
Metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
Know the difference between ethical theories of the good and theories of the right.
Theories of good say that good consequences are the basis for ethical appraisal. A theory of the good must have something to say about what “the good” is. Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics are both theories of the good and they both agree (at first blush) about what the good is: both say that happiness is good.
Theories of right say that actions are right or wrong in themselves (they are nonconsequentialist. Kant’s deontology and contractualist ethics are both theories of the right. Of course, a theory of the right needs to have something to say about how exactly an action is right (or wrong) in itself - and that is no easy task.
Know the difference between deontic ethics and aretaic ethics.
A deontic theory is a theory of ethics that focuses on agent actions. An aretaic (virtue) theory of ethics is a theory that focuses
on character.
Know the Principal of Utility.
Act in such a way as to maximize the aggregate utility for all affected by the act.
Know the Categorical Imperative.
The categorical imperative in not about doing what is easy or what people like; rather, the categorical imperative is about doing what is “right.” We do not litter because if everyone littered, we would have a dirty and unsanitary world. The categorical imperative is about personal restraint for the good of society. the categorical imperative cannot be used to
guide decisions about things that are not universally agreed upon.
Know how Singer argues for the moral equality of animals and what this equality entails for utilitarianism.
Singer's Utilitarianism specifies a sense of moral equality between humans and animals (Their identical interests are equally morally important and must be treated with equal concern.)
Know Regan’s definition of the ‘subject of a life’ and know how this differs from Kant’s account of human dignity.
For Kant moral agents must be autonomous in the sense of having the power to do or to do otherwise, whereas for Regan a subject of life need only be capable of initiating action. For Kant moral agents must be self-legislating (i.e. capable of conceptualizing an ought statement and logically working out its necessary implications as a universal law)
whereas for Regan a subject of a life need not possess higher cognition (it is sufficient that it possesses introspective, perceptual and memory beliefs and a sense of itself as itself extended over time).
Know the core elements of Leopold’s ethical holism and know his land ethic principle.
Land Ethic principle: A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. This is an action guiding (deontic) principle.
1.
Humans are a part of nature: land ethics enlarge the boundaries of the community to include soil, water, plants, and animals. Land ethic changes the role of Homosapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. Viewing ourselves as just another animal within the eco-system.
2.
We should look at the sciences (particularly the biological and ecological sciences) to inform ethics: the biotic pyramid and the interdependent sub-systems. The function of the pyramid depends on the co-operation of the diverse parts.
3.
The eco-system is the bearer of moral value.
Know what Leopold means by the Land pyramid.
We should look at the sciences (particularly the biological and ecological sciences) to inform ethics.
Plants absorb energy from the sun, this energy flows through a circuit called the Biota, which may be represented by a pyramid consisting of layers. The earth’s biosphere can be thought of as an energy transference system of interdependent sub-systems.
The function of the pyramid depends on the co-operation and competition of its diverse parts. When patterns are disrupted, instability is introduced into the system that will have causal impacts elsewhere in the system.
The human capacity to introduce rapid artificial change into the system can overwhelm the capacity of natural processes to adapt, disrupting the stability of the system and resulting in an escalating loss of biodiversity. We too are
dependent on the health of the ecosystem. The less violent the man-made changes, the greater the profitability of successful readjustment in the pyramid.
Know the 4 components of Taylor’s biocentrism.
Humans are part of the environment: (they are on the same terms as all non-human members).
The environment is an interdependent web of life: with the sound biological functioning of each being dependent on the sound biological functioning of others.
Individual living things in that web are teleological centers of life: everyone has a good.
There are no good grounds to assert the superiority of the human good: Whether we relate to standards of merit or with the concept of inherent worth. Just because humans thrive and flourish by rational thought, self-determination and moral freedom does not mean other living things thrive and flourish in the same ways.
Know what Taylor means by a teleological center of life.
Each individual organism, like each individual human, is a teleological (purposeful) center of autonomous choice and thus each organism is an end. It is the idea that each organism possesses needs that must be satisfied for the thing to thrive and modes of being that enable the thing to attain its good. With this Taylor is saying that humans are not superior to other living things, and we should regard all living things as having inherent worth.
Know how Taylor argues for moral consideration of non-human life notwithstanding his denial of non-human moral agency.
Taylor argues only humans possess Moral Agency and Moral Rights:
Through being RATIONAL, humans attain their "good"; it’s a characterization of what human good is.
To see that its RATIONAL that the argument that all living things are morally equal is reasonable is attaining that good; thus, in terms of our actions, we must reflect that good by considering these other things lives and their "goods"
when making decisions.
Be able to explain the differences in issues (ex. Species preservation) arising from the theories of Singer, Leopold and Taylor and the reasons why.
For Leopold the loss of species would be a matter of moral concern because for Leopold the eco-system is the bearer of moral
value and actions that adversely impact the stability of the eco-system would be wrong. Citing the interdependence of species
within a stable ecosystem, species loss would be regarded as an adverse impact. Singer, on the other hand, would not view species loss as a matter of moral concern. For Singer, moral obligations are owed to things with interests and a thing can only have an interest if it has an awareness of pleasures and pains. While individual animals can have interests, a species has no mind and thus no interests. Taylor believes all living things are teleological centers of life (each organism is an end to itself) and has a good of its own. No organism is above or below the others. The parts must work together for optimal flow and output so if a species were to go extinct it would throw off the co-existence.
Know what the naturalistic fallacy is.
One commits the naturalistic fallacy when one attempts to derive a statement of value (an ‘ought statement’) from a statement
of fact (an ‘is statement’).
Know Sober’s criticism of the environmentalist’s use of the term natural.
Natural means very little ethically.
When the environmentalist asserts that actions are right insofar as they preserve a stable ecosystem, and wrong otherwise, they are placing a normative value on a state of the ecosystem: the state where it is richly biodiverse and relatively unchanging. In the biological and environmental sciences that Leopold and environmentalists look to however, there is no sense of the ‘natural’ or proper state of the ecosystem. Rather, the sciences tell us that nature is in constant change, sometimes stable and incremental but at other times rapid and violent. The is no normative sense of the ‘natural’ state of the system, simply the relative frequency of such states.
If we are part of nature, then everything we do is natural, including destroying the environment. reason for environmentalists to resist simply grounding their ethics in what is “natural"?
Know Sober’s criticism of the environmentalist’s more expansive appeal to interests.
If one doesn’t have a mind with interests then what is it using as a base. If it doesn’t have wants / needs, what are we requiring of it to be relevant. Leopold’s work is an example of the last of these, it represents quite a radical departure from traditional ethics.
Know the category of value Sober would use to address environmental issues.
Yet, when it comes to environmental issues, the concept of naturalness continues to live a double life. The destruction of wilderness areas by increased industrialization is bad because it is unnatural. And it is unnatural because it involves transforming a natural into an artificial habitat. Or one might hear that although extinction is a natural process, the kind of mass extinction currently being precipitated by our species is unprecedented, and so is unnatural. Environmentalists should look elsewhere for a defense of their policies, lest conservation simply become a variant of uncritical conservatism in which the axiom "Whatever is, is right" is modified to read "Whatever is (before human beings come on the scene), is right.
Know the parallels Sober argues for between environmental concerns and aesthetics.
1.
Context: (in both aesthetics and in our own experience of the environment.) Seeing a polar bear in a zoo rather than seeing it as a natural habit.
2.
Rarity: As an ethical concern, rarity is difficult to understand. Perhaps this is because our ethical ideas concerning justice and equity are saturated with individualism. Rare organisms may be valuable because they are rare. 3.
Originality (a concern in preserving context): Analogy between environmentalism and aesthetics that illuminates how
we may value natural objects for more than just their use. Mona Lisa has no use but is valued for its originality.
Knowing the difference between Parsons articulates between strong and weak aesthetic preservations.
Strong aesthetic preservation (simply says to save natural things from destruction or degradation. This version is analogous to the notion of a positive right (a duty to promote something); it enjoins us to not merely refrain from interference but promote preservation on aesthetic grounds. More logical of the two options. If preserving nature is justifiable on aesthetic grounds, then it seems irrelevant whether the threat is human or non-human.
Weak aesthetic preservation (requires us to save natural things only when they are threatened by human action). This version is analogous to the notion of a negative right (or a right on non-interference); it merely encourages us not to interfere with nature on aesthetic grounds.
Know the problem Parsons identifies with the strong version.
Acting to preserve natural environments from non-human events typically involves some form of human intervention or modification of the environment (because of this, the weak version is the relevant position).
Know what Parsons means by the aesthetic preservationist’s dilemma and why he believes it arises.
The dilemma for the aesthetic preservationist is that on the one hand, aesthetic reasons may be insufficient to preserve all that
the environmentalist wants while on the other hand, preserving all that the environmentalist wants may relegate aesthetic reasons to the merely rhetorical. The first horn of the dilemma arises because aesthetic reasons are morally neutral between ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ beauty, so it is doubtful that they will go as far as the preservationist would want. If moral reasons for
preserving the ‘natural’ are introduced they would take precedence, relegating aesthetic considerations to that of rhetorical persuasion.
Know the two virtues that Hill relates to environmental concern and why he believes they are relevant.
Proper Humility: Recognizing one’s place in the environment, both our power within it but also our limitations before it, would be an example of proper humility applied to the environment. Humility virtue is derivative because if
we treat the environment well it will translate towards humans. The person who is too ready to destroy the redwoods may lack humility, not so meh in the sense that he exaggerates his importance relative to others, but rather in the sense that he tries to avoid seeing himself as one among many natural creatures.” Corresponding vices would be servility (excess of humility) and arrogance (deficiency of humility).
Gratitude: It is sometimes characterized in terms of feeling proper joy for what is and what one has. (ex. The expression ‘count your blessings’). The corresponding vices would be ingratitude (deficiency) and grateful oversensitivity (excess).
Know why Hill’s application of virtue ethics to environmental concern may be described as derivative.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Hill’s approach could be characterized as derivative because the virtues that Hill associates with a concern for the environment are interpersonal virtues; that is, they are traits or characteristics that are conducive to ethical interactions between humans. Virtues are acquired by doing (i.e. habituation). So, by exhibiting proper humility toward the environment one is more likely to become the sort of person that will exhibit proper humility toward other people.