Philosophy 120 (Fall 2016)
Environmental Ethics
Class Meets: Olin 192, Tuesday and Thursday
1:00-2:20
Prof. Patrick Frierson
Office Hours: Tuesday 5-6 (after which I’ll
usually be at the Climbing Wall for a while), Wednesday 11-noon, and by
appointment.
I am often in the office late,
particularly on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, so I’m happy to meet with
students in the evenings.
Course GOALS:
The
purpose of this course is 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 put online
or on our Cleo site. You should bring
copies of the readings, either electronic or printed, to class with you 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. Tuesday
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. Thursday 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 the weekend to put together a draft of your arguments, and then again with them after class on Tuesday to revise that draft in the light of class discussion and my comments on your draft, and then again after Thursday’s class to revise the draft into the “final version.” I also strongly recommend that debaters meet with me after class on Tuesday (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, Thursday 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 Proponents 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. While you may write comments
about the effectiveness of the students who presented the various sides, your
vote and your justification should reflect your own considered judgment about
the issue, not your opinion about which side presented their case better.
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 all of these. Remember, this
will be a stressful time in your other classes.
Course Requirements:
TWo Argument
Briefs (25% total). Most Thursday 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 Monday 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 Monday before the debate.
I will partly base our class meetings on Tuesdays 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
and the date (e.g., “Egoism Proponents Frierson Ireland Jenkins
9-1-2016.docx”).
Public draft, due the Wednesday 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
afternoon or evening or Wednesday morning to discuss remaining questions. All students will be required to read these
briefs before class on Thursday. This
draft should be emailed to me and posted to the Cleo site for the class.
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 profit for
yourselves from 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, 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 often 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 21 (the Monday of
Thanksgiving break) and should be emailed to me at frierspr@whitman.edu. Final versions of these papers will be due on
December 12th, the Monday
after the last day of class. During the
last two weeks of class, we will probably 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 17 in
an unsealed envelope, and you will have to turn them in the following class (November 29). 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. You can
also see the exam from the last time I taught the class by clicking here.
PARTICIPATION, IN-CLASS QUIZZES,
“SECRET” BALLOTS, AND OTHER SHORT ASSIGNMENTS (10%). 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) |
|
August 30 |
Introduction – no reading |
Introduction: Ethics *Nature and structure of the course *Varieties of ethical theory *The distinctive problems of environmental ethics *The distinctions between meta-ethics, normative
ethics, and practical ethics |
|
|
|
|
Sept. 1 |
“In
Defense of Relativism,” Ruth Benedict "Ethical Relativism," Russ
Shafer-Landau "Ethical
Egoism," James Rachels OPTIONAL: “The
Myth of Egoism,” Christine Korsgaard Russ Shafer-Landau on Moral Skepticism (video on YouTube) |
Ethics in General Ethical Relativism and Ethical Egoism |
Everyone
ought to be directly concerned for the welfare of others. |
Professor
Frierson |
Patrick |
|
Sept. 6 |
"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 |
Obligations to Existing Humans |
|
|
|
|
Sept 8 |
|
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.” |
Joe Jolley
and Tyee Williams |
Emma Hansen
and Julia Mason |
|
Sept. 13 |
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. Optional: Ramachandra Guha on the Daily Show! (This is just fun, not particularly
relevant to our discussion.) |
Environmental
Justice |
|
|
|
|
Sept. 15 |
|
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). |
Sara Federman Travis Fehr |
Elena Arakaki Conner Myers |
|
Sept. 20 |
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: John
Broome, “Discounting the Future” |
Obligations
to Future Generations: Ethics and Economics |
|
|
|
|
Sept. 22 |
|
Our obligations to human beings
living more than 300 years in the future should have a significant impact on
our present-day actions. |
Natalie Whitesel Ridley Eastland-Fruit Emma Hansen |
Carter Daume Skye Goedert Thomas Harbor |
|
|
Sept. 27 |
"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 |
|
|
|
|
Sept. 29 |
|
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. |
Wil Kotnik Alyssa Taylor Elena Arakaki |
Nate Perry Kyle Kearney Nick Rapp |
|
Oct. 4 |
“On Being Morally
Considerable,” Kennath Goodpaster |
|
|
|
|
|
Oct. 6 (Break) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct. 11 |
"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. 13 |
|
Animal
Rights |
Animals have rights just as strong as human rights. |
Daniel Brock Bryn Carlson Tyee Williams |
Tyler Landau Benjamin Tracy Joe Jolley |
|
Oct. 18 |
"Organisms," Holmes Rolston III "Reverence
for Life," Albert Schweitzer "Competing
Claims and Priority Principles," Paul Taylor “A
Refutation of Environmental Ethics,” Janna Thompson |
Biocentrism |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 20 |
|
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. |
Nate Perry Hailey Mount |
Carter Daume Saisha Brody |
|
Oct. 25 |
Readings to be
assigned by Andrew Light. Katie
McShane, “Anthropocentrism vs. Non-Anthropocentrism: Why should we care?” |
Visiting
Speaker: Andrew Light on Environmental Pragmatism |
|
|
|
|
Oct. 27 |
|
|
It is pointless for philosophers and
others to spend time trying to determine which entities are worthy of direct
moral consideration. |
Benjamin Tracy Bryn Carlson |
Alyssa Taylor Julia Mason |
|
Nov. 1 |
“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 |
|
|
|
|
Nov. 3 |
|
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. |
Kyle Kearney Wil Kotnik |
Daniel Brock Tyler Landau |
|
Nov. 8 |
“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 |
|
|
|
|
Nov 10 |
|
Species
Preservation |
Species matter (morally and for their own sakes). |
Natalie Whitesel Nick Rapp |
Skye Goedert Saisha Brody |
|
Nov 15 |
"Non-Anthropocentric Value Theory and
Environmental Ethics," J. Baird Callicott REREAD: “On Being Morally Considerable,” Kennath Goodpaster "Organisms,"
Holmes Rolston III |
Summary:
Environmental Values |
|
|
|
|
Nov. 17 |
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.) |
Ridley Eastland-Fruit (Yay, Nay) Thomas Harbor (Yay, Nay) Sara Federman (Nay, Yay) Connor Myers (Nay, Yay) |
Travis Fehr (Nay, Nay) Hailey Mount (Nay, Nay) |
|
|
THANKSGIVING |
THANKSGIVING |
THANKSGIVING |
|
|
|
Nov. 29 |
“Intrinsic Value,
Environmental Ethics, and Adam Smith,” Patrick Frierson. “Annie
Dillard’s Ecstatic Phenomenology,” Julia Ireland. Annie
Dillard selections. |
Perspectives from Whitman philosophers |
MIDTERM DUE |
|
|
|
Dec. 1 |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec. 6 |
TBD |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec. 8 |
TBD |
|
|
|
|