Frierson’s
Environmental Ethics Exam Study Sheet
The
exam is closed-book. During the exam,
you should be disconnected from the internet and not consult any online
sources. You should not make use of any
notes except for a single 8.5x11” piece of paper, which you may prepare before
the exam. In addition to this note
paper, I will provide a list of the names and titles of all of the articles
that we read. You should take the exam
alone. I encourage you to study
together, but prior to taking the exam, you should not speak to anyone who has
already taken the exam.
The
exam with consist of three sections: quotation identification and analysis,
short answer, and essay. You will have
4 hours to take the take-home, closed-book exam.
For
the Short Answer portion of the exam, you will be given FOUR short answer
questions, of which you must answer TWO.
The answers should be approximately 1-2 paragraphs. The Short Answer Questions will look like the
following, and at least three of these exact questions will be among the four
you will choose from on the exam:[1]
1.
What
is ethical egoism? Give at least one
argument (from the Rachels reading) in favor of it. (If you give one argument perfectly, that’s
better than two decently, but more arguments can make up for not fully getting
any one.)
2.
What
is ethical egoism? Give at least one
argument (from the Rachels reading) against it.
(If you give one argument perfectly, that’s better than two decently,
but more arguments can make up for not fully getting any one.)
3.
What
is ethical relativism? Give at least one argument (from the Benedict and/or
Shafer-Landau reading) in favor of it.
(If you give one argument perfectly, that’s better than two decently,
but more arguments can make up for not fully getting any one.) Give at least one argument (from the reading
or your own) against it.
4.
What
moral principle does Singer defend in “Famine, Affluence and Morality”? How does he defend it?
5.
In
“Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Peter Singer defends the claim that we ought
to give money for famine relief rather than to spend money for discretionary
things, such as new clothes that are purchased merely for reasons of fashion. Briefly lay out at least two objections that Singer considers against this view,
and give Singer’s responses to those objections.
6.
What
is Colin McGinn’s central objection to Singer’s “Famine” argument? How does Singer respond to that objection?
7.
What moral
principle does McGinn defend in his response to Singer? What implications would this principle have
for our responsibilities to the (distant) poor?
8.
How
is “care ethics” (as described by Lisa Cassidy and Nell Noddings)
different from utilitarianism? What
implications does Lisa Cassidy think
that it has for global poverty?
9.
What
is Lisa Cassidy’s care-based critique of Singer?
10.
What
is environmental justice (according to Figueroa and Mills)? In your response, you should give at least
one example of environmental injustice, explain what environmental justice is
in general, and explain why it is important.
11.
What
is “environmental privilege”? Give at
least one example from your readings.
(Likely, you’ll want to use Aspen as an example.)
12.
How
does Whyte define “settler colonialism”?
In what way(s) is settler colonialism a form of environmental
injustice? Give at least one specific
example.
13.
What
is a “green missionary” (Guha)?
14.
What
is Guha’s attitude towards contemporary conservation biologists? Why does he have this attitude?
15.
In
“Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future,” Richard and Val Routley consider several arguments showing that we do not have to refrain from using nuclear
power. Briefly list at least three of
these arguments.
16.
In
"Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future," Richard and Val Routley consider several arguments showing that we do not have to refrain from using nuclear
power. Lay out one of these arguments,
along with the Routleys’ response.
17.
What
is a “discount rate”? What’s the
difference between discounting utility and discounting consumption?
18.
What
is a “discount rate”? O’Neill considers
four justifications for discounting.
Give at least one of these justifications and explain why O’Neill
rejects it. (You can get full credit for
covering one justification extremely well or 2-3 justifications well.)
19.
In
"Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Identity Problem," Derek
Parfit raises an important objection to most ways of taking into account future
generations in ethical decision-making.
What is the “identity problem”?
Why is it a problem for the moral consideration of future people?
20.
In
"Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Identity Problem," Derek
Parfit raises an important objection to most ways of taking
into account future generations in ethical decision-making. What is the “identity problem”? Is it a more serious problem for
consequentialist views (like utilitarianism) or rights-based views? Why?
21.
Derek
Parfit argued that utilitarianism gives rise to a “repugnant conclusion.” What is the conclusion and why is it
repugnant?
22.
Derek
Parfit argued that utilitarianism gives rise to a “repugnant conclusion.” What is the conclusion and why does
utilitarianism imply it?
23.
Derek
Parfit argued that utilitarianism gives rise to a “repugnant conclusion.” Several philosophers have argued ways of
responding to Parfit. After briefly
laying out how the conclusion is generated, offer at least one detailed
response to it (from the reading).
24.
In an
essay of the same name, Peter Singer argues that “All Animals Are Equal.” What does he mean by this claim? For example, does he mean that we should
treat all animals in the same way? If
not, why not?
25.
In an
essay of the same name, Peter Singer argues that “All Animals Are Equal.” Lay out, as clearly and completely as
possible, Singer’s main line of argument for this claim.
26.
In
“The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan objects to Singer’s
approach to animal equality. In what way
does Regan’s view differ from Singer’s?
How does Regan defend this difference?
27.
In
“The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights,” Tom Regan objects to those
who limit rights to human beings. What
is his argument for extending rights to animals?
28.
In
"Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position," Mary Anne
Warren raises several difficulties for strong animal rights views. Lay out at least two substantially distinct
problems for strong animal rights views.
29.
How
does Elizabeth Anderson defend the moral relevance of (human) species
membership?
30.
What
are two ways in which Anderson’s defense of animal dignity differs from that of
Tom Regan?
31.
For
Christine Korsgaard, what makes humans essentially
different from other animals?
32.
For
Christine Korsgaard, why isn’t human uniqueness a
good basis for claiming that we have no duties to animals?
33.
Holmes
Rolston III defends a biocentric concern for all life. Lay out, as clearly as you can, his primary
argument for this position.
34.
In
the context of defending a biocentric concern for all life, Holmes Rolston III
distinguishes between objective life and subjective life. What is this distinction and what role does
it play in his argument?
35.
In
his defense of biocentrism, Holmes Rolston III raises several particular
examples of cases where human interests conflict with the interests of other
living things. For example, he discusses
the case of “_____.” [Here I will feel
free to insert any of the cases Rolston discusses on pp. 121-123. Using the criteria laid out by Taylor (in “Competing
Claims and Priority Principles”), what should one do? Why?
36.
Briefly
describe at least three key differences between the biocentrisms
of Holmes Rolston III and Albert Schweitzer.
37.
According
to Robin Attfield, what is one important difference that a biocentric approach
would make for thinking about climate change?
Why is this an important difference?
How is biocentrism important for justifying or understanding it?
38.
What
is the fundamental moral principle Leopold defends in
his “Land Ethic”? How does this
principle differ from Rolston’s biocentrism?
39.
Why
does Janna Thompson think that “what is called environmental ethics is not
properly ethics at all”?
40.
Why
does Callicott think that animal liberation is “a
triangular affair”? What are the three points
of the triangle? Why must animal
liberation distinguish itself from both?
41.
What
is the most serious conflict between animal rights and environmental ethics of
the type Callicott defends?
42.
For Cahen, can ecosystems be directly
morally considerable? Why or why not?
43.
For
Eric Katz, is there a place for animals in the moral consideration of
nature? Why or why not?
44.
For
Gary Varner, can animal rights activists be environmentalists? Why or why not?
45.
Why
does Lilly-Marlene Russow think that species matter?
46.
Lilly-Marlene
Russow articulates several defenses of the value of
species. One of these is that “each
species occupies a unique niche in a rich and complex, but delicately balanced,
ecosystem.” What does she think is wrong
with this defense?
47.
Lilly-Marlene
Russow articulates several defenses of the value of
species. Briefly lay out two of these
defenses.
48.
Elliot
Sober articulates several defenses of the value of species. One of these is “the ignorance
argument.” What is that argument, and
what is Sober’s response to it?
49.
Elliot
Sober articulates several defenses of the value of species. Briefly lay out two of these defenses.
50.
Stephen
Jay Gould articulates and criticizes “two linked arguments” that “are often
promoted as a basis for an environmental ethic.” What are these linked arguments?
51.
Stephen
Jay Gould articulates and criticizes “two linked arguments” that “are often
promoted as a basis for an environmental ethic,” one of which is “that we live
on a fragile planet now subject to permanent derailment and disruption by human
intervention.” What does Gould think is
wrong with this argument? What does he
think the practical implications of its falsehood should be for our decision-making?
52.
Stephen
Jay Gould articulates and criticizes “two linked arguments” that “are often
promoted as a basis for an environmental ethic,” one of which is “that humans
must learn to act as stewards for a threatened world.” What does Gould think is wrong with this
argument? What does he think the
practical implications of its falsehood should be for our decision-making? Why?
53.
What
is one way in which Freya Matthews thinks that climate change introduces moral
ambiguity into environmental debate? How
does she propose to respond to that ambiguity?
(Note that she discusses at least two ambiguities, so for this question,
you need choose only one.)
The Essay
Question portion of the exam will include THREE essay questions, of which you
must answer ONE. Your answer should be
2-4 pages in length. The essay questions
will look like the ones below, and at least one of these questions will be
among the three from which you may choose on the exam[2]:
1.
Within
contemporary ethics, there is a distinction between consequentialist approaches
(such as utilitarianism) and rights-based approaches. As we have seen, this distinction cuts across
debates about the status of future generations, animals, life, etc. Write an essay in which you either defend one
of these two ethical approaches (consequentialism or rights) or argue that both
ethical approaches are fundamentally flawed.
Your argument should defend the approaches in their own terms (in terms
of consonance with intuitions, internal consistency and coherence, etc), but you should also defend them in terms of the
implications that they have for animal/environmental ethics.
2.
What
is the best defense of the value of ecosystems?
In particular, is their value intrinsic or instrumental? If intrinsic, why? If instrumental, to whom? (And why should we care about the good of
whomever they have instrumental value for?)
In laying out your response, consider and respond to the best arguments
against your position.
3.
What
is the best defense of the value of non-sentient living things? In particular, is their value intrinsic or
instrumental? If intrinsic, why? If instrumental, to whom? In laying out your response, consider and
respond to the best arguments against your position.
4.
For
whom or what would you be willing to make very
significant sacrifices in your lifestyle?
First, and briefly, lay out the most severe sacrifices you can envision
making, and then explain whether you would be willing to make those sacrifices
for the sake of humans in poverty, animals, non-sentient living things,
ecosystems, or endangered species. Also
specify whether you would limit the beneficiaries to those in the present or
those in the future, and any other criteria that would be relevant to your
decision of whether to take on those very significant sacrifices.
5.
Even
with significant reductions in the use of energy, the world still needs a
massive amount of energy. The building
of dams often serves to reduce dependence upon forms of energy production that
contribute to global warming. But building
dams also harms animals and other living things and endangers certain species,
local ecosystems, and the cultures of indigenous groups. Assuming that you must choose between
building dams with those negative effects and continuing to operate coal power
plants which will contribute to the degradation of the global ecosystem, should
we build more dams? In your answer,
consider the relative importance of present and future generations, and the
degree and type of importance of each of the different parties affected by the
building of the dam.
6.
Defend
anthropocentrism. In your argument,
consider objections from those that see non-human individuals as having
intrinsic value and also from those that see natural wholes (ecosystems,
species, or both) as having intrinsic value.
You may articulate whatever form of anthropocentrism you choose, but it
must be genuinely anthropocentrist.
7.
Assume
the following scenario (based on fact, but not strictly factual): Global warming is making it easier for black
and grizzly bears to survive in habitats formerly inhabited solely by polar
bears. Competition with polar bears, as
well as interbreeding, are drastically diminishing the numbers of “pure” polar
bears, and such polar bears are likely to go extinct without human
intervention. Given differences in
feeding and habitation patterns, it would be relatively easy to trap the
non-polar bears. Many would likely die
due to the traps, but others could be relocated. This would be an expensive project. Carefully
regulated hunting focused exclusively on black and grizzly bears could also
help shift the balance back in favor of the polar bears. The extent and type of such hunting would be
deeply insulting to certain indigenous peoples near the relevant ranges, but it
would also bring in needed economic vitality to struggling rural
communities. What, if anything, should
be done about the looming extinction of polar bears? Does it matter whether global warming is
caused by human activity? Would it
matter if the relevant species were variations of a kind of tree rather than
variations of bears?
[1] I reserve the right to
modify these questions in response to your suggestions before putting them on
the exam, but I will notify you of any such changes.