Philosophy
120 (Fall 2019)
Environmental
Ethics
Class Meets: Olin 192, Monday and
Wednesday, 2:30-3:50
Prof. Patrick Frierson
Office Hours: Monday 10-11am and
Wednesday 10-noon, and by appointment.
Course
GOALS:
The purpose of this course to
introduce you to the main philosophical issues and debates in the field of
environmental ethics. You will learn the
central arguments of those debates, and you will also learn various
intellectual skills for doing philosophical ethics. In particular, you will learn to carefully
read and reread difficult texts, to analyze arguments for soundness, to express
yourselves in writing and orally, and to work collaboratively and respectfully
to further your understanding of complex issues. The central question we will be looking at
throughout the course is what sort of ethical obligations we have with regard
to the natural environment. Over the
course of the term, we will consider such issues as what sorts of entities
deserve moral consideration, whether we have any moral obligations to future
generations, animals, plants, species, or ecosystems, whether the natural
environment has “intrinsic value” (and what this might mean), and what sorts of
policy implications our answers to these questions might have. Our readings will primarily be contemporary,
although a few older philosophical texts will also be included.
REQUIRED
TEXTS:
All readings for this course will be
online and linked from the syllabus, or available on the Canvas site. You should bring copies of the readings,
either electronic or printed, to class each day.
FLOW OF THE
CLASS:
For most of the semester, the class
will have a distinctive “flow.” Weekends will be spent reading and
thinking through several texts (usually articles) on a particular topic in environmental
ethics. There will typically be a lot of
reading, so you should budget time accordingly.
In reading through the material, you should seek to figure out what the
central issues are – that is, what people disagree about and what positions
they are trying to defend – as well as what the most important arguments for
each author’s position are. For each
article, try to identify a central thesis (the position defended) and to
articulate in your own words the central argument for that thesis. In addition, you should pay attention to the
relevance of that article to the “resolved” issue on the syllabus, and you
should briefly sketch an answer to any questions on the midterm study sheet
that are related to that reading. Monday classes will typically be a
combination of lecture and discussion, but may also involve quizzes, small
group work, or other pedagogical exercises.
The goal of these classes will be to equip all students with a good
grasp of the readings and to begin our discussion of the key issues in
them. Wednesday classes will consist in debates about a particular topic
related to the readings. For those
classes, there will generally not be any reading beyond the argument briefs
(see below) you will receive from debaters.
It is essential that you read
these briefs before class. The
debate format is described below.
In addition to this regular flow
week-to-week, every student will be responsible for debating twice during the
semester. During weeks that you are a
debater, you will need to meet with your debating partners over later part of
the week and/or the weekend to put together a draft of your arguments, and then
again with them after class on Monday to revise that draft in the light of
class discussion and my comments on your draft, and then again after
Wednesday’s class to revise the draft into the “final version.” I also strongly recommend that debaters meet
with me after class on Monday (and before turning in the “public draft” of
their briefs) to talk about any issues or questions they have. Those will be intense weeks, so plan
accordingly.
debate
days: For most of
the semester, Wednesday classes will be organized as debates about whether or
not to accept a particular statement.
For each debate, two or three students (the Proponents) will lay out the
argument in favor of the statement and two or three (the Opposition) will lay
out the case against it, and we will end each class with a vote (by “secret”
ballot). Before each debate day, the Proponent
and Opposition students will send out brief explanations of their key
arguments, which must be read by the entire class before class. On debate days, class will begin with opening
statements for each side in the debate.
I will randomly decide which position will go first. After opening statements, which will be
strictly limited to 5 minutes for each side, there will be brief rebuttals,
limited to 2 minutes for each side.
(Whoever gave the first opening statement will give the second
rebuttal.) Then we will discuss the
arguments as a class for a little less than an hour, during which time the
Proponents and Opposition may not speak.
At the end of our discussion, there will be an opportunity for
concluding remarks by the Proponents and Opposition. Each side will have no more than 5 minutes to
lay out their closing case and no more than two minutes for short
rebuttals. The order of presentation at
the end of class will be the opposite of what it was at the beginning. After closing arguments, the rest of the
class will write out their ballots, voting either for or against the
proposition. At the top of your paper,
you should write either “Yay” if you agree with the proposition, or “Nay” if
you do not. You must then, very briefly,
lay out what you found to be the most compelling argument for your
position. Your vote and your
justification should reflect your own considered judgment about the issue, not
your opinion about which side presented their case better. You can include arguments not mentioned by
any of the debaters (though I would hope that you would have mentioned such
arguments in our discussions!)
AFTER THANKSGIVING: After Thanksgiving, we have some flexibility
about how to spend our class sessions.
There are several possible options for these days. Last time that I taught the course, we spent
two classes on guest speakers (on environmental entrepreneurship and on Hanford
whistleblowers), spent one day discussing ecoterrorism, and spent our last day
on a pleasant short passage from Thoreau.
We could also add substantive units to the course (with or without
debates) on topics such as ecofeminism, global warming, wilderness
preservation, urban environmentalism, environmental virtues, religious
perspectives on the environment, or deep ecology. These are all things I wish I could have
included in the course but did not for lack of time. We might also spend these classes discussing
the material in your practical papers.
What we do during these last classes will be worked out by all of us
together as a class. I strongly recommend
something that is either helpful to your final papers, low-key and fun, or
both. Remember, this will be a stressful
time in your other classes.
Course
Requirements:
TWo
Argument Briefs (25% total). Most Wednesday classes will be
organized as debates about whether or not to accept a particular
statement. For each debate, two students
will lay out the argument in favor of the statement and two will lay out the
case against it. The students who will
lead the debate for a given week are required to write argument briefs laying
out their position and arguments. Each
group will have to submit three drafts
of these briefs, due as follows:
First
draft, due the Sunday before the debate, by noon: The
first draft will be based on your own reading and processing of the material in
the readings and will be due the Sunday before the debate. I will partly base our class meetings on
Mondays on these briefs, as they will give me a sense for what you understand
well and what you do not. You should
make these as polished as possible, and their quality will partly determine
your overall grade on the brief, but you should also feel free to add footnotes
or comments expressing questions, confusions, and so on. I will return these drafts with comments as
quickly as possible (for drafts turned in on time). Drafts must be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu
in .doc or .docx format. The filename
should include the last names of all students who contributed to it, the date,
and the word “draft” if it is a draft or “final version” if it is the final
version (e.g., “Egoism Proponents Frierson Ireland Jenkins 9-2-2019
Draft.docx”).
Public
draft, due the Tuesday before the debate, by 5 PM: The
day before the debate, you must turn in your “public draft.” This should incorporate changes made in the
light of my comments and our class discussion on Tuesday. I also encourage groups to meet with me on
Tuesday morning to discuss remaining questions.
All students will be required to read these briefs before class on
Wednesday. This draft should be emailed
to the entire class (including me) no later than 5PM on the evening before the
debate.
Final
draft, due the Sunday after the debate, by 9 PM: The final draft of the brief should reflect
any modifications made in the light of the debate itself, and you should “track
changes” (in Word) so that I can easily see what these changes are. You will be evaluated in this draft on its
overall quality, not on whether (or how many) changes you make. Thus if you think
that the public draft was sufficiently excellent, you need not change it for
the final version. I will not comment on
the public draft; the purpose of this additional draft is to give you a chance
to improve based on your peers’ discussion of your position. This draft should be emailed to me.
These briefs should lay out the best
arguments for your position and respond to likely arguments against it. They should make use of the readings we have
done in class, with clear textual references for key claims. Brevity is a virtue, so you should make as
many points as effectively as possible in as few words as possible. The briefs may not exceed 2000 words.
NOTE: This is a course in philosophy,
not in rhetoric. The arguments laid out
these briefs, while they should be persuasive to your classmates, will be
evaluated in terms of the soundness, sophistication, clarity, and precision of
argument as well as their effective use of the material we have read in class,
not in terms of rhetorical flourish or general persuasiveness. For example, deliberately presenting
opponents’ arguments as straw men (that is, as weaker than they really are) may
be rhetorically effectively but is not philosophically respectable. Each pair/group of students will submit a single brief, and you will be graded on
it as a group. If you believe that you
did considerably more work than your partner or that your partner was in any
other way deficient, please let me know and I will factor that into your
partner’s final grade. If your partner
was particularly good, please let me know that as well.
Two Oral
arguments (15% Total). During
the debate, you and your partner(s) must present your case orally. You should clearly lay out your position and
key arguments for it. YOU SHOULD NOT
SIMPLY READ YOUR BRIEFS OUT LOUD. Even
if you are going to read a statement, it should not be identical to what
everyone in the class has already read.
The best arguments will draw attention to the key points in your brief
but present them in a more intuitive way.
Also, the goal of these statements is to actually communicate your ideas
orally. If you speed through or mumble a
lot of very good points, you will not get a good grade for your oral
argument. Just as a paper that makes
good points but with poor grammar or bad style is not an excellent paper, an
oral presentation that makes excellent points in too quiet or loud or meek or
obnoxious or fast or boring a voice is not a good oral argument.
As with your briefs, this part of
your grade will be shared with your partner.
If you give an excellent opening statement but your partner bungles the
closing, you will both get the same grade for oral arguments. This means that you need to work very hard to
equip your partner to do well in class.
Again, if you think that your partner is not pulling his or her weight
during the preparations for class, you should let me know. Especially with regard to oral arguments, I
will take these comments much more seriously if submitted before the class
discussion (even by a matter of seconds) than after. (That is, I want to know that your partner
didn’t prepare well, even if she happens to do well in class, and I don’t
really want to hear excuses for poor performance after the fact.)
Some general tips for these
arguments:
PRACTICE. Your presentation in class should not be the
first time that you present your material.
Even your initial rebuttal can be practiced ahead of time, since you
will have access to your opponent’s arguments in their brief. When I make a presentation, I usually present
it at least twice in front of a blank
wall. It’s even better if you practice
it with your team, or in front of friends.
do not read
your briefs. Everyone in the class is required to
read your briefs before class, so you should present your arguments, but not read your briefs out loud. Even if you are going to read something, it
should not be identical to what everyone has already read. (That said, you might draw particular
attention to particular parts of your brief, reading short sections from it, if
you can do this in a non-redundant and non-boring way.)
Eye-contact
and clear voice.
You should look at the class as much as possible. Find a couple of sympathetic faces in two or
three different parts of the room and speak to them. Also gauge your audience. If they look confused, repeat or clarify your
point. If they look bored, liven things
up. (Relatedly, and despite the cost to
trees, it’s almost always better to read from index cards or paper than from a
computer.)
Listen. Particularly for rebuttals and closing statements,
it’s important to modify what you had planned to say in the light of what
others have said. Don’t respond to an
argument that your opponents have already disavowed.
Googledocs. Last
time I taught this class, a few groups realized that they could communicate
through googledocs while other students were
talking. You should use this with care,
since you need to actually listen to what is going on, but googledocs
can provide a nice way to work on closing arguments together. (If anyone needs a laptop, ask me as soon as
possible – at least 24 hours – before the debate and I can get you one for that
class period.)
Paper on
practical ethics (20%). Over
the course of the semester, you should take up a practical issue in
environmental ethics or policy and write a term paper analyzing that issue in
terms of the topics we’ve discussed in class. You may choose any issue you
like. For example, for more
personal/individual ethical issues, you might consider whether to be a
vegetarian (or vegan), whether hunting is ethically acceptable, to what extent
(and why) recycling might be morally required, etc. For a more social/political
policy issue, you might consider the appropriateness of building dams (in
general or in the context of a particular dam), the right approach to species
preservation (e.g. how should the endangered species act be applied), how national
parks/wilderness areas/etc should be managed (and for
whose sakes), whether nuclear energy should be supported, etc. For issues that
cross over ethical and political, you might consider the ethically and/or
politically appropriate response to global warming, biodiversity loss,
etc. For these papers, you are
responsible for doing the requisite research to get the facts right, but I am
primarily interested in the philosophical
richness of your argument, how effectively you draw from the relevant facts to
give valid arguments for well-reasoned, well-supported, ethical
conclusions. These papers are not to be
advocacy papers nor autobiographical narratives but genuinely thoughtful
considerations of the issues, so you should give the best arguments for all of
the most plausible positions, and then provide rationally justifiable arguments
to show why you settle for the view you end up agreeing with. Drafts of these papers will be due on Monday, November 25th (the
first Monday of Thanksgiving break) and should be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu. Final versions of these papers will be due on
December 16th, the Monday
after the last day of class. During the
last two weeks of class, we may spend class time discussing and/or debating the
topics of these practical papers, and you should be prepared to orally defend
your thesis for the class.
Exam (25%).
About 2/3 of the way through the semester, there will be a
cumulative exam. This will be a
take-home, closed-book, closed-note, no-internet, timed exam. I will hand out the exams on November 6th in an unsealed
envelope, and you will turn them in the following class (November 11th).
You will have four (4) hours to take the exam. You should study as long as you need to, find
a comfortable quiet place, turn off your wifi/internet
connection, settle down with your exam, and open the envelope. You should write
down your start time and take up to four hours to answer the questions on the
exam. Then you should email me a copy of
your answers (to frierspr@whitman.edu), print out your answers, staple them to
your exam, put your name and end-time on the exam, write out the honesty
statement, put the exam back in the envelope, and celebrate finishing the
mid-term. You should not talk to anyone
else about the content of the mid-term until after I have collected them
all. (If any of you are concerned about
the integrity of your classmates and do not think that I should trust them with
this sort of take-home exam, please let me know and we will have the mid-term
in class.) A study sheet for the
mid-term is available here. I recommend that you prepare answers for each
question as you complete the relevant readings; this will make your study for
the exam much more effective.
PARTICIPATION, IN-CLASS QUIZZES,
“SECRET” BALLOTS, AND OTHER SHORT ASSIGNMENTS (15%). Because a significant part of this element of
your grade will be based on your secret ballots, I will give these a check,
check-plus, or check-minus, so that you can get a sense for how you are doing
on that part of your grade. I may or may
not give quizzes, depending upon my sense of how well you are keeping up with
the readings.
pROJECTED SCHEDULE:
|
|
Reading |
Topics for Discussion |
“Resolved” |
Proponents (arguing
for the resolution) |
Opponents (arguing
against the resolution) |
|
Sept4 |
“In
Defense of Relativism,” Ruth Benedict "Ethical Relativism,"
Russ Shafer-Landau (on Canvas) |
Ethics
in General Ethical Relativism
and Ethical Egoism |
Everyone ought to be
directly concerned for the welfare of others. |
Professor Frierson |
Patrick |
|
Sept9 |
"Famine,
Affluence and Morality," Peter Singer "On Duties to Animals and the
Poor," Colin McGinn “Response to McGinn,” Peter Singer
“Starving
Children in Africa: Who Cares?” Lisa Cassidy (Optional: “Feeding
People vs. Saving Nature,” Holmes Rolston III.) |
Obligations
to Existing Humans |
|
|
|
|
Sept11 |
|
Obligations
to Existing Humans |
“Until every starving
child in the world is fed, all Whitman students should use discretionary
money they have to alleviate the suffering of others before spending anything
on movies, alcohol, or eating at nice restaurants.” |
Heidi Alex |
Alejandra (Ally) Olivia |
|
Sept 16 |
Watch this selection from WGBH’s “Toxic
Racism” "Environmental Justice,"
Robert Figueroa and Claudia Mills Bjorn Lomborg, “Setting priorities
and risks” (Skeptical Environmentalist,
pp. 333-338), Bjorn Lomborg TED talk available here. Robert Bullard, The Quest for Environmental Justice,
selection. Lisa Sun-hee
Park and David Naguib Pellow, The Slums
of Aspen, selection. |
Environmental
Justice |
|
|
|
|
Sept18 |
NOTE: I will be at a conference in
Indiana on the day of this debate, so I will have the debate video-taped. |
Environmental
Justice |
Even if we also care
about social justice, it’s important to start by focusing our energies on the
most pressing environmental problems facing the world today (such as global
warming, deforestation, endangered species, etc). |
Jessica R. Katie K. |
Hayley Semolina |
|
Sept 23 |
Richard and Val Routley, “Nuclear Energy and Obligations to the Future” John O’Neill, “The Constituency of
Environmental Policy” David
Roberts, “Discount Rates” Cameron
Hepburn, “Ethics and Discounting Global Warming Damages” Optional: |
Obligations
to Future Generations: Ethics and Economics |
|
|
|
|
Sept 25 |
|
Our obligations to human beings
living more than 300 years in the future should have a significant impact on
our present-day actions. |
Mario Nora |
Annie E. Abby |
|
|
Sept30 |
"Energy Policy and the
Further Future: The Identity Problem," Derek Parfit “The
Repugnant Conclusion,” (Arrhenius et. al, Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy). And these two entries from the 1000-word
philosophy website: |
Obligations
to Future Generations: Metaphysical Considerations |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 2 |
|
Obligations
to Future Generations: Metaphysical Considerations |
Our only obligation to members of
distant future generations is to ensure that they have lives that are at
least minimally worth living. |
Bryce Maddie |
Emma H. Ruby M. |
|
Oct. 7 |
"All Animals Are Equal,"
Peter Singer "The Radical Egalitarian Case
for Animal Rights," Tom Regan "Difficulties
with the Strong Animal Rights Position," Mary Anne Warren |
Animal
Rights |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 9 |
|
Animal
Rights |
Animals have rights
just as strong as human rights. |
Annie E. Lilia |
Jessica Claire P. |
|
Oct. 14 |
"Organisms," Holmes
Rolston III "Reverence
for Life," Albert Schweitzer "Competing
Claims and Priority Principles," Paul Taylor “A Refutation of Environmental
Ethics,” Janna Thompson (Optional: “Should Trees have Standing?,”
Christopher Stone.) |
Biocentrism |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 16 |
|
Biocentrism |
We should often kill
non-native animals solely in order to protect native vegetation. OR All non-sentient
living things are worthy of direct moral consideration. |
Olivia Abby |
Bryce Katie K. |
|
Oct. 21 |
“Thinking like a Mountain,” Aldo
Leopold "The Land Ethic," Aldo
Leopold "Animal Liberation: A
Triangular Affair," J. Baird Callicott “Against the Moral Considerability
of Ecosystems,” Harley Cahan
“Is There a Place for Animals in the Moral Consideration of Nature,” Eric
Katz “Can Animal Rights Activist Be
Environmentalist,” Gary Varner |
Ecocentrism |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 23 |
|
Ecocentrism |
Individual animals
should sometimes be sacrificed for the good of non-sentient nature (even
where this will not have a net positive impact on sentient beings). OR: Non-sentient,
non-living aspects of nature are worthy of direct
moral consideration. |
Claire P. Lilia |
Semolina Harrison |
|
Oct. 28 |
“On
a Monument to the Pigeon” Aldo Leopold "Why
Do Species Matter" Lilly-Marlene Russow “Philosophical Problems for
Environmentalism,” Elliot Sober "The
Golden Rule – A Proper Scale for Our Environmental Crisis," Stephen Jay
Gould Optional: "Defining
'Biodiversity,'" Sahotra Sarkar |
Species
Preservation |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 30 |
|
Species
Preservation |
Species matter (morally and for their own sakes). |
Hayley Emma H. |
Nora Ruby M. |
|
Nov. 4 |
"Non-Anthropocentric Value
Theory and Environmental Ethics," J. Baird Callicott “On Being Morally Considerable,” Kennath Goodpaster "Organisms," Holmes
Rolston III |
Summary:
Environmental Values |
|
|
|
|
Nov. 6 |
MIDTERM
HANDED OUT |
Summary:
Environmental Values |
Three-way debate, on
two different propositions: Only human beings
have intrinsic value. All and only _____
have intrinsic value. (For this day, one
team will defend Yay, Nay; another Nay, Yay; another Nay, Nay.) |
Yea, Nay: Ally Heidi Nay, Yea: Mario Alex |
Nay, Nay: Harrison Maddie |
|
Nov. 11 |
MIDTERM
DUE. “Annie
Dillard’s Ecstatic Phenomenology,” Julia Ireland. Annie Dillard, “Living Like
Weasels,” available here. |
Perspectives from Whitman philosophers 1: Julia Ireland |
MIDTERM
DUE |
|
|
|
Nov 13 |
Brian Norton, Towards Unity Among Environmentalists, selections (pp. 237-43) Andrew Light, “Finding a Future for
Environmental Ethics” Andrew Light, “Does Public Environmental Philosophy Need a Convergence Hypothesis” |
Environmental
Pragmatism |
|||
|
Nov 18 |
Katie McShane, “Anthropocentrism vs.
Non-Anthropocentrism: Why should we care?” |
Pragmatism, Continued. |
|
||
|
Nov. 20 |
“Intrinsic
Value, Environmental Ethics, and Adam Smith,” Patrick
Frierson. |
Perspectives from Whitman philosophers 2: Patrick Frierson |
|||
|
|
THANKSGIVING
BREAK |
Paper drafts are due by November 25th at
noon. |
|||
|
Dec. 2 |
Chris
Pinney |
Dammed Ecosystems |
|||
|
Dec.
4 |
Rebecca
Hanrahan |
Animal Ethics |
|||
|
Dec.
9 |
If a Tree Falls,
documentary available here. |
Eco-terrorism |
|||
|
Dec.
11 |
TBD |
Final
Drafts of Final Papers are Due by noon. |
NO FINAL EXAM 😊 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|