Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Citizens and Consumers

In class yesterday we watched a video about Carrotmob.org. The idea behind it is that people want to do good, and one source of average people's power is the money they spend. So the company behind Carrotmob does the footwork of organizing ways to help people create good effects by deciding where to spend their money. In the video we watched, one food market agreed to put 22% of their Carrotmob-acquired profits toward increasing their energy efficiency.

I asked for your critical response to the video, and there were several good insights. One was that people might be traveling so far to participate, that it effectively wipes out the environmental good that's created. Another is that it can be inconvenient to participate, taking some extra time. And if it does take extra time, one wonders what else could be done with that time instead, such as some kind of service or personal action (don't we all have ways we could make our own lives energy efficient, if that's what we're into?) rather than standing in a checkout line. That is, does it create change in the right proportion to the perception of creating change?

In general, this sort of effort raises some difficult questions. Should there be skepticism about a for-profit company set up to facilitate environmental and social activism? Or is this a case where the people behind Carrotmob should be applauded for finding a way to set up a company that makes profits (well, presumably they will profit if the model works) by encouraging people and businesses to make a better world?

A different video that I've shown in class before--one which is perhaps more radical and more thought-provoking about economic and social arrangements--is "The Story of Stuff." Implicitly, this video criticizes the Carrotmob approach by questioning the culture of consumption and showing that it is a historical, intentionally created social arrangement. This gives a political valence to DIYers, MAKErs, and hackers, such as Mark Frauenfelder and Carla Sinclair, who visited RIT last month.

Experiential Learning Project: Assessment

This is a reminder that the Ethical Experience Project is due on Monday. It is worth 20% of the final course grade.

In grading the project, I’ll be looking for several things:

1. the quality of your activity. Did you have an original idea? How much time and effort did the activity require? How challenging was it to you, or how far out of your comfort zone? Does it open up ideas or opportunities for future ethical actions?

2. the quality of your written description of the activity. Is your story interesting to read? Do you provide enough background information so that I understand the context of your activity? Do I get a clear picture of what you did, why you did it, and how it affected your thoughts and actions? Was the activity what you expected, or did it present unexpected challenges or surprises? Does your narrative give a vivid picture while excluding unnecessary or irrelevant detail?

3. the depth of your reflections. Have you made the relevance to the course topic (ethical frameworks and/or Deep Economy) apparent? Do you make use of the experience to examine a difficult question? Did you learn something or expand your horizons, and have you reflected critically on what you learned? Can you relate something about your experience to one of our ethical frameworks or to one of the ethical problems that we’ve discussed? Do you use it to highlight some particular conception of “the good life” or of “right action”? What impact did your activity have on other people, now or in the future? Were your attitudes transformed as a result of the experience, and if not, what were the obstacles to transformation? Is there something you wish you had done differently, or do you have advice to pass on to me and future students about this activity?

Monday, April 27, 2009


"All for One, and One for All": we discussed the benefits of tight communities--and the disadvantages, such as a loss of privacy, of options, and (sometimes) freedoms.

We can see McKibben's argument as being implicitly utilitarian: that local economies produce more satisfaction and less harm for more people than our current economy. How would someone argue with him on this point? Probably, it would have to be done on the basis of showing that his calculation of the benefits and disadvantages left something out.

One such disadvantage (which we did not discuss) is the possibility that tighter communities are related to higher levels of conflict between different communities--nationalism, racism, and the policing of ingroup/outgroup loyalties.

It's also plausible to see McKibben as relying on an argument from virtue ethics. You might read his argument not as a strict calculation of utility or preferences, but rather as an argument that says that certain qualities make for more virtuous communities and certain communities lend themselves to the flourishing of a certain kind of good character. He thinks our material and economic culture value things, people, and services that are "fast, cheap, and easy." Instead, he thinks we should build cities and economies which are deliberate, valuable, and lasting. This would promote virtues which are currently neglected, such as loyalty, responsibility, creativity, etc.

A question to consider is whether the only way to achieve the postive results that McKibben attributes is to cultivate cohesive communities that are local in geographical terms. Does technology permit us to participate in communities that are tight and supportive but distributed in space? Although McKibben is concerned with the transport of goods and the environmental toll of transportation, our economy is increasingly based in services, and knowledge and communication are no longer bound by space.

Along these lines, last fall I heard a report on NPR that, for a variety of reasons, local banks are much less affected by the banking crisis than the large conglomerates are. You can listen to the story here.

Also, a former student passed along this interesting timed map of WalMart's spread.

RIT Sustainability Conference

For more extra credit opportunities, there is a conference on philosophy and sustainability this Friday. Most of the presentations will consist of interviews with environmental philosophers or other academics who have taken a stand on the ethics of handling environmental problems. The conference runs all day, and attendance at any one of the presentations (plus a summary and critique) can be used for extra credit.

Friday, May 1st, Carlson Auditorium

8:45-9 Opening Remarks

9-10 Braden Allenby (Lincoln Professor of Engineering & Ethics, Arizona State University)

10-11 Bryan Norton (Distinguished Professor in Public Policy at Georgia Tech)

11-12 David Orr (Paul Sears Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Politics,
Oberlin College)

1-2 Paul Thompson (W. K. Kellog Chair in Agricultural, Food, & Community Ethics,
Michigan State University)

2-3 William Shutkin (Director, Initiative for Sustainable Development and Chair in
Sustainable Development, University of Colorado at Boulder)

3-4 Panel of Commentators, Moderator: Robert Ulin, Dean, Liberal Arts
Randall Curren (University of Rochester), Sarah Pralle (Syracuse University), and
Erin Taylor (Cornell University)

4-5:30 Panel of Presenters, Moderator, Jeremy Haefner, Provost
Braden Allenby, Bryan Norton, David Orr, Paul Thompson, & William Shutkin

These presentations are free and open to all.
Directors: Ryne Raffaelle, Wade Robison, Evan Selinger
For details go to http://www.rit.edu/cla/ethics/Sustainability.html

Monday, April 20, 2009

More extra credit opportunities

These are from SEAL (Student Environmental Action League), a campus organization.
This is Earth week, and Earth Day is Wednesday.
Either of the lectures could be used for extra credit in this course (see the syllabus).

Thursday 4/23:
Speaker - SEAL has brought in Jim Tappon from the Climate Project to speak in the library's Idea Factory from 6pm to about 7pm.
"Who Killed the Electric Car?" Showing - SEAL is co-sponsoring a showing of the film as part of CAB's Thursday Night Cinema Series. The movie starts at 10pm in the SAU Cafeteria.

Friday 4/24:
University of Rochester Speaker - Stephen Schneider from Stanford University will be talking at U of R on climate change and sustainability, starting at 3pm in Hutchison Hall Lander Auditorium. If you are interested in attending, please let us know (sealwww@rit.edu), and also if you would be willing to drive. We are currently planning on meeting by the Sentinel at 2:15pm and leaving shortly after that to attend the event.

High-tech or Low-tech?

The article we discussed about carbon footprints raises the question of what policies and actions will be most effective in curbing fuel consumption and, therefore, carbon emissions and global warming.

Do we need innovative policy instruments? Forward-thinking (or even backward-looking) economic plans? Or will we make our way through this crisis with creative high-tech?

Many researchers suggest that, in fact, lo-tech is the way to go.
One study found that the high energy use of air-conditioning could be greatly reduced if we replaced black roofs with white or reflective one. Changing the color of a 1000-square-foot roof on an air-conditioned building could offset ten metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

How Is a Cow Like a Nuclear Bomb?

An extreme comparison, I totally agree.

But check this out and keep in mind that Mark Bittman knows food, and knows good food.

Friday, April 17, 2009

What do you eat if you don't eat meat?

The word 'vegetarian' came into use in English in the 1840's, but vegetarians have been around for quite awhile. The first prominent vegetarian was the Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived between 490 and 430BC.

How many vegetarians are there? Less than 1% of the global population is vegetarian by choice. Many more people than that eat meat rarely but only because it is not available or is too expensive.

Vegetarianism is more popular in the U.S., where high-quality vegetable protein is available and affordable. A 2008 Harris Interactive poll found that about 1 million American adults are strictly vegan (that's about .5% of the adult population). 3.2% of the adult American population identifies themselves as completely vegetarian. And another 10% say their diet is mostly vegetarian.

India is the country with the highest proportion of vegetarianism, where it is tied to culture and the Hindu religion. In India, strict vegetarians make up between 20 and 42% of the population, and fewer than 30% of the population regularly eat meat.

Here are some links for anyone writing their argument outline on vegetarianism.

Wikipedia, "Ethics of Eating Meat" and "Environmental Vegetarianism"

The Vegetarian Resource Group (a national coalition)

The EarthSave report on vegetarianism and global warming

The Food Ethics Council (an organization that works on issues of food security and social justice)

Thursday, April 16, 2009

GMO vs. Organic

The organic community has soundly rejected the use of genetically modified crops, and current organic standards do not permit genetically modified crops to be marketed as organic, even if they are grown without harmful pesticides or artificial fertilizers.

The reasons include the fact that genetic modification can come with unknown risks to the environment and that genetic modification alters plants in ways that many people feel are more extreme or unnatural than alterations that are brought about through selective breeding. In addition, genetically modified crops are tied to patents and commercialization which threatens the economic well-being and independence of subsistence farmers.

However, genetic modification also opens up opportunities which can contribute to long-term sustainable agriculture, according to the authors of Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food. For instance, if a variety of rice were genetically modified to make it flood tolerant, then instead of using herbicides that might have negative health consequences, farmers could flood fields to kill weeds. There might also be the possibility of genetically modifying crops so that they are tolerant of marginal growing conditions, permitting them to be grown without the use of high levels of artificial fertilizers.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Lectures and Extra Credit

In the syllabus, I note that
You may replace one missed commentary or add 10 points to an outline grade by attending a philosophy lecture or another relevant public lecture.
There is a lecture [tomorrow evening] next week that would be relevant:

Rochester Committee for Scientific Information Annual Meeting

Thursday, April 23, 2009,
7:00 PM

Rochester Institute of Technology
Chester F. Carlson Center for Imaging Science
Building 76 – Room 1125

Critical Issues In Climate Change Research

Presented by Dr. Benjamin Laabs
Assistant Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
SUNY Geneseo

Dr. Laabs will discuss how new challenges in climate-change research will help to improve the understanding of the Earth climate system.

Co-sponsored by the RIT Department of Science, Technology and Society/Public Policy

In addition, Shirag had a great idea. The Innovation Festival on May 2 will feature a number of sustainability exhibits. Anyone who visits the festival, searches out exhibits on environmental sustainability, and describes/evaluates them can also earn extra credit.

Locavores and Omnivores

The LOCAVORE movement has become so popular that there is even an iPhone app to support locavores in their search for farmer's markets and in-season produce.

The reasons that people support growing and buying food locally include a desire to build strong communities, accountability, support for small and sustainable farming, reduction of dependence on fossil fuels for transportation, and aesthetic enjoyment. Some people feel that it is a way of putting down roots (so to speak) and finding what is special about the unique place where they live. It is a way of reclaiming regional flavors in a mass-market mass-media world.

Here is a list of 10 ways to increase localism in your buying habits. Many of these are quite easy for people in the Rochester area, especially in the summer. In addition to the Public Market, there are neighborhood farmer's markets all over the Rochester metro area, including one at RIT and the South Wedge Farmer's Market which specializes in foods grown within 100 miles.

We also have many affordable CSA's and organic farms in the neighborhood.

Finally, I would recommend Lento, a local restaurant that specializes in local and organic food. They have a buy-one-get-one-free special for college students on Thursday nights.


But let's take a look at this again....

The transportation of food accounts for 11% of food-related greenhouse-gas emissions. So, while all that transportation does add up, it's not the fastest route to cutting greenhouse-gases.

What's faster? Cutting out meat, especially red meat. 18% of all greenhouse gases are produced by livestock, and 30% of the earth's land surface is devoted to raising livestock or the grain and grass they eat. If you replaced beef with beans one day a week, it would reduce your carbon footprint more than becoming a locavore.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Argument Outline 2: Food Ethics

Due Monday, April 20

Eating is something that we all do several times each day. We eat not just for sustenance, but also as a source of pleasure and, often, as a time of companionship.

Collectively, the choices we make about food have a major impact on our lives, on the lives of others, and on the economy. Until the last decade, farming was the largest industry on a global scale. Agriculture still makes up about 36% of the global economy. In spite of the central place of food in our lives, we tend not to think about what we eat, where it comes from, how it was made, or why we’ve chosen to eat it. Even philosophers have perhaps not paid as much attention to the role of food in human life as they ought.

For this outline, you have a choice from among 4 topics:

Topic 1: Localism
What is an ethical justification for buying local foods? Why should we be concerned about where our food is produced, or how far it travels, or whether it is in season? Why do some people choose “slow food” rather than “fast food”? What ethical framework supports any of these choices, and how?

Topic 2: Vegetarianism
Is vegetarianism/veganism a choice that people make on ethical grounds? Why? What ethical framework supports a choice to be vegetarian/vegan, and how?

Topic 3: Organic vs. GMO
Currently, organic certification for organic farming in the United States prohibits organic crops from being genetically modified. Some people argue that genetic modifications are risky and threaten food purity. Other people argue that the most sustainable form of agriculture might include organic cultivation of crops that have been genetically modified to suit them to specific environments. Do you support this policy or not? On what ethical grounds?

Topic 4: Sustainable agriculture
There is not currently a global food crisis. That is, on a global scale, the modern world has produced more than enough food to feed its population. Food shortages have been local in nature and usually are due to political conflict and war or to distributional problems. However, we might worry about the long-term effects of modern agricultural methods. For instance, fish stocks are falling rapidly, and the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is attributed in large part to agricultural runoff from the Midwest. What ethical issues are raised by intensive agriculture or intensive fishing?

As always, the purpose of this assignment is to practice constructing clear, straightforward, and focused ethical arguments. Grading is based on how strong your arguments are and how well they illustrate the ethical frameworks we have studied up to now (deontology, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics).

In addition, this is an opportunity to explore the justification for a position that you may not have thought through before. For instance, you may choose to defend vegetarianism even though you are not yourself a committed vegetarian.

You are responsible for doing any necessary web research. But do not copy anyone else’s words off the Internet—express the ideas in your own way. Cite your sources, please.
And I hope you find the assignment thought-provoking!

Carbon Footprint Measurements

On Wednesday, we'll discuss carbon footprint models in class.
  • How can they be helpful? What is their goal?
  • What do they measure?
  • What are the differences among them?
  • Is there a standard way of measuring carbon footprints?
  • What are some obstacles to lowering carbon emissions?
  • Is the use of fossil fuel an ethical problem or a practical problem or an economic problem?
  • Is the solution to excessive carbon emissions a technological one? A political one?
  • What motivates people to lower their energy use? What are some obstacles?
Reminder: the assigned reading is this article: "Big Foot" from The New Yorker.
And I request that each person measure their carbon usage with both of these online tools:
Model 1: http://www.rprogress.org/
Model 2: http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/

Another comment is due, and you should probably write it on the reading assignment. There are many challenging ideas in this article that are begging for commentary. One question I would like us to discuss in class is: Why does the subtitle say "In measuring carbon emissions, it's easy to confuse morality and science"?

I would also entertain thoughtful comments on the carbon footprint exercise, if you'd rather write about that instead, providing that your comment gets to the substantive and theoretical issues that are raised.

See you tomorrow!

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Virtue Ethics

This week we talked about the ethical framework that guides moral actions based on evaluations of moral character. That is, right moral action is based in virtue, and wrong moral action is based in vice.

In contrast to modern theories, it asks not what we should do, but what should we be? Of course,
as Tom pointed out, a virtuous character is based in good acts. One can't be virtuous merely by believing the right thing. But by calling this the "morality of being," we are highlighting that how you act is constitutive of the kind of person you are. If you say you believe in charity for the poor, but never give of your own time or money, then we would not say that you are a charitable person.

By contrast, modern theories focus on decision-making. A utilitarian sizes up a problematic moral situation, calculates the total harms and benefits that would be produced by different courses of action, and picks the one that produces the greatest overall good. Then the utilitarian's moral faculty can go on holiday until the next crisis of decision arises. Not so for the virtue ethicist. She recognizes that ethics has to do with how we live our lives--every day. She sees virtue as a potential that has to be actualized over the course of a whole life. This is a theory of moral development.

The scope of morality includes these questions:
How do you choose your friends?
What do you do on the weekends?
What books do you read?
How have you chosen to live your life?
Is it an admirable life?

Some modern theories influenced by virtue ethics are “the capabilities approach” to ethics, care ethics, and communitarianism.

Virtue ethics is useful for understanding Bill McKibben's views because he seems to be arguing for living well, with virtue, in strong communities--even if he doesn't use that language. Virtue ethics can help to understand the normative aspects of everyday actions of the sort that are often advocated when people are talking about “going green”.

Friday, April 10, 2009

The Unexamined Life Is Not Worth Living

That's what Socrates says, and so presumably the examined life is worth living, and the film Examined Life ought to be worth seeing! It's a documentary about philosophers and despite its small opening has been receiving rave reviews.

At the Dryden Theater this Saturday at 7pm and Sunday at 5pm. Eligible for extra credit!

Look out for Peter Singer mentioning the article we'll read during the last week of class, and Slavoj Zizek visiting a garbage dump to talk about environmental responsibility.

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Did you know?

What do we know about the future? How can we make educated guesses?
Here's a presentation of some information that shows how rapidly our world is changing.
And keep in mind--how many other concerns this presentation leaves out!

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Many Cool Project Ideas

Wow, am I excited about the project ideas that have been generated in our class! The more I teach this class, the more original and meaningful ideas are generated, and the more I realize that although creativity is becoming a clich├ęd catch-phrase at this university, there really is a fountain of creativity among RIT students.

Pretty much everyone has turned in an idea, but a few people seem as though they are not 100% pleased with their plan and are looking for alternatives. Let me list a few. Some of these ideas came from your classmates and some from students in my upper-level environmental philosophy class. Keep in mind that it is not just OK but even encouraged to work on projects as a team. I do require that each person do their own writing on the reflection paper.

1. Greater Rochester Urban Bounty
GRUB is an organization in Rochester that promotes enriching the natural and social capital of the northeast neighborhood through a farm and educational center. I talked to the RIT faculty coordinator who works with GRUB, and there will be several volunteer work days at The Vineyard (the farm in downtown Rochester) in April. Anyone who would like to contribute is welcome, and the campus contact is Jane Amstey at j.amstey@rit.edu.

2. The City of Rochester's Clean Sweep Program
In this program City of Rochester employees, neighborhood groups, Boy Scout troops, and volunteers pick up trash and tidy up neighborhoods in the city. It has both environmental and community-building goals. The first one is on Saturday, April 25 and is in the city's Southwest quadrant. Information and links to sign-up forms are here and here. Anyone who is interested can sign up directly--or you can contact an RIT student, Jesse Knoth, at jak0965@rit.edu. He is organizing Clean Sweep activities in his 19th ward neighborhood.

3. Go Green Recycle Rally at the Seneca Park Zoo
On Sunday April 19 the Seneca Park Zoo is partnering with Sunnking, an electronics recycling company, to host a recycling event. Families can bring items like sneakers, cell phones, and car batteries to be recycled, and volunteers are needed to help out on that day. The person to contact if you'd like to volunteer is Kimie Romeo. Her e-mail address is kromeo@Sunnking.com, and she has worked with RIT students a lot this year and is very clear and helpful. She knows a lot about recycling!

4. Other Volunteer Programs
Here is a calendar and contact list for a few projects in April. They include working for Foodlink, which is our local food pantry; a recycling project for Habitat for Humanity; and a sorting day at InterVol, which is a local organization that recycles unused medical supplies and sends them to places that desperately need them.

Monday, April 6, 2009

Lifeboat Scenarios

The first film clip I showed today was from Powaqqatsi, second film in a trilogy by director Godfrey Reggio and scored by Philip Glass. The film was released in 1988, and Wikipedia says:
Powaqqatsi is a Hopi word meaning "parasitic way of life" or "life in transition". While Koyaanisqatsi focused on modern life in industrial countries, Powaqqatsi, which similarly has no dialogue, focuses more on the conflict in third world countries between traditional ways of life and the new ways of life introduced with industrialization.

The first scene is of a gold mine in Brazil, called Serra Pelada, in which the miners carry sacks of dirt for processing. Towards the end of a scene, we see some workers carrying another who has been struck by a falling rock.

The images from this film help put a human face on what it might be like to be one of the people who is not in Garrett Hardin's lifeboat. They also highlight the difference between the material comfort that you and I experience, and the lives of less privileged others.

I also showed this interview with Garrett Hardin.

A contemporary writer whose views are also relevant to the discussion of the connection between political and social actions and our ecological status is Jared Diamond. His book Collapse shows how the collapse of societies is often prefaced by an unsustainable exploitation of their natural resources. From the Amazon.com review:
While Guns, Germs, and Steel explained the geographic and environmental reasons why some human populations have flourished, Collapse uses the same factors to examine why ancient societies, including the Anasazi of the American Southwest and the Viking colonies of Greenland, as well as modern ones such as Rwanda, have fallen apart. Not every collapse has an environmental origin, but an eco-meltdown is often the main catalyst, he argues, particularly when combined with society's response to (or disregard for) the coming disaster.
There are two videos of Jared Diamond that I'd recommend. One is an interview on PBS's News Hour on the topic of how nations respond to environmental and economic crises. The other is a talk that he gives at TED.

Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number

Utilitarianism has become so entrenched in modern life, and particularly in public policy, that we often don't even realize that an ethical framework is being deployed. Instead, we just assume that the best action is going to be the one that produces the best consequences, and that what counts as the best consequences is human welfare. However, unlike Mill, I think that contemporary society is not very reflective about what outcomes make up "welfare." Bill McKibben makes many controversial points, but one point that is not controversial is that welfare cannot be reduced simply to material possessions (e.g., "Can't buy me lo-o-ove"). Still, what welfare is exactly, is a question worthy of discussion.

It's worth distinguishing utilitarianism from several nearby positions.
1. ETHICAL EGOISM. The ethical egoist claims that morality demands that individuals always act in their own best long-term self-interest. Utilitarianism, similarly, evaluates what is good based on people's interests (Mill referred to the total sum of happiness of all people affected by an action, but modern utilitarians refer to an aggregate of "preferences"). However, the utilitarian does not say each individual should act in their own self-interest. Rather, individuals should do what is required for the good of the group as a whole, and it is the total welfare that determines what that desired consequence is.

2. EPICUREANISM: Utilitarianism does share some elements with ancient Greek epicureanism. For instance, both hold that pleasure and pain are the measure of what is good and bad. And both put a high value on empirical investigation. For both, “the good life” is a life that has a high ratio of pleasure to pain, and so pursuit of pleasure is a basis for moral action. However, one difference is that Epicurus thought that this evaluation of pleasure and pain would lead people to value and pursue tranquility or a state of mental peace. Pursuing tranquility would lead people to withdraw from politics and other stressful situations or concerns. In contrast, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were very involved in politics. Mill was a Member of Parliament for several years and an advocate for women’s rights.

3. COMMUNISM: It seems ironic that utilitarianism has close relations both with the evaluative practices of capitalist economics, particularly cost-benefit analysis--and also with communism. In structure, the socio-economic theory of communism resembles Bentham's utilitarianism in that both prioritize the good of the group over the good of the individual. However, the two theories differ at many points as well. For instance, redistribution of goods to create social and economic equality is a central tent of communism. But a common criticism of utilitarian theories is that they don't necessarily pay attention to distributive justice. Indeed, Karl Marx was a prominent critic of utilitarianism.

Thursday, April 2, 2009

More vs. Better

Earlier this week we discussed the first chapter of Bill McKibben's Deep Economy in class, in which he examines the economic rationale for continued growth, considers some problems with economics, and lays out the framework for his book's argument. He promises to show us that there are alternatives to economic growth that are more environmentally sustainable over the long run and that don't sacrifice happiness or social stability. Will his arguments and examples be convincing?

We should keep our eye on the three points he promises to develop. These are challenges to the idea that there are no limits to economic growth (p.11).
1. One is political: growth, at least as we now create it, is producing more inequality than prosperity, more insecurity than progress.
2. [T]he second argument draws on physics and chemistry as much as on economics; it is the basic objection that we do not have the energy needed to keep the magic going, and can we deal with the pollution it creates?
3. The third argument is both less obvious and even more basic: growth is no longer making us happy.

The central claim of this chapter is that for 19th century utilitarianism (which is the foundation of our contemporary economic outlook), when society aimed at “MORE” economic growth and material wellbeing, it could ultimately achieve the ethical aim of "BETTER" human welfare and opportunities to pursue happiness. McKibben claims that in the U.S. at the beginning of the 21st century, getting "MORE" stuff and achieving a “BETTER” quality of life are no longer aims which are in sync with one another.

Utilitarians measure what is good according to the total of human happiness. That is, overall happiness provides the criterion for morality. If we had a science of happiness, it would contribute to a science of ethics.

Interestingly, we do now have a science of happiness which has been developed mostly by psychologists, but also by economists, anthropologists, and political scientists. They've found out that people are often mistaken about what will make them happy. It turns out that we're not very good at predicting our future happiness. There is a difference between what people anticipate will affect their happiness and what really makes them happy. If you think this is an interesting question, you might like this bloggingheads.tv interview with Eric Weiner, the author of a book on happiness.

Any further reactions to this chapter?

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Argument Outline 1: Population Control

The current global population is over 6.5 billion people. There is much evidence that at rates of Western consumption, the current population size cannot be sustained. Global population is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2050, and then to keep growing. At the most efficient rates of consumption, the upper limit for a sustainable population is estimated to be right about 9 billion.

Population size is an important issue for environmental ethics. Some argue it is the most important issue because all other policies are moot if the size of the global population is not brought under control. If current rates of population growth are not reversed, then famine and disease will limit population size. Nearly all problems of resource use and environmental degradation are in one way or another linked to population size. However, limiting population growth is a difficult issue because many policy options involve violations of what many believe to be non-negotiable individual freedoms and reproductive rights.
Give an ethical argument supporting or criticizing a means of controlling population size through national policy. Limit your support to arguments that would be expressed either by a deontologist or a utilitarian.

For instance, you might choose to support China’s one-child policy and do so for a reason that a Kantian would approve of. (The objection need not be expressed according to any particular ethical framework.) Your position will be stated in #2. Also state the framework you are adopting in #2 or #3. For the general outline format, refer to this page.

You may base your argument on the assigned reading, “Reaching the Limit,” or on material you research independently on the internet. Not everyone will have exactly the same topic or approach it in exactly the same way.

Here are a few links, but feel free to seek out your own or to refer to the reading assignment.

Global population size: what the problem is

Treehugger: “The Elephant in the Room: Overpopulation

Hoover Institute: “The Population Bomb Redux

Wikipedia: “Malthusian Catastrophe

Population Clock

China’s One-child Policy

Wikipedia: “One-child Policy

BBC News: “Has China’s One-child Policy Worked?

The U.S.

CSMonitor: “Fuse on the ‘Population Bomb’ Has Been Relit

Salon: “Ask Pablo, population control

Other nations

Wikipedia: “Population control

Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment: “Resources on Population Control

Argument Outline Format

The goal of an argument outline is to present a thesis (a claim) in a crystal clear format, to show why someone would support that claim, and then to defend it against an attack. Debating ideas in real life is more complex than this, often including fallacies such as changing the subject or failing to be clear. The more we can practice a simplified and formalized method of presenting and defending claims, the better we will become at expressing and supporting our beliefs in the less-than-ideal circumstances of real life—and the better we will become at spotting others’ failures to support their claims.

Each argument outline should be between 5 and 10 sentences long. It should fit on a single page. Use complete sentences. Your points should be perfectly clear and devoid of ambiguity. Use examples if necessary.

For each of the assignments, I will provide you with a specific topic or choice of topics, a source of background information (you may also do your own research), and some constraints on the ethical position you may choose.

1. Issue Statement (1 to 3 sentences)
State what the problem is and why we should be concerned with finding a solution. This is the place to provide factual, historical, or political background. Do not take a stand at this point or offer a solution. You may wish to define the options. Keep the issue, as you set it up, narrow and concise. Cite your sources. Do not copy this from the assignment sheet! Formulate the problem in your own words, making it more specific if necessary.

2. Position Statement (only 1 sentence)
State your claim. You will use a word like “should” or “ought.” Be very clear! If you use the word “we,” make sure it is clear who falls into the category of “we.” Is it everyone alive? Everyone in the U.S.? College students? Utilitarians? Keep the claim focused and specific. Usually you will be referring to a specific policy action that a government should pursue or a specific behavior which individuals should engage in.

3. Support (1 or 2 sentences)
Provide one reason in support of your position. This is ethical support, not factual support, and it answers the question “Why?” not the question “How?” If you have referred to an ethical framework, then the support must be congruent with that framework.

4. Objection (1 or 2 sentences)
Consider a reasonably good objection to your position. This is difficult to do, admittedly. A rule of thumb is to pick the strongest objection you can think of. If it is so strong that you cannot find a way of responding to it, that may be a sign that your position is overstated or that you are not really committed to it. If you pick an objection that is too weak, you will miss an opportunity to strongly support your position. The objection should be one that someone might actually try to use to undermine your position.

5. Response to the objection (1 or 2 sentences)
This should respond specifically to the objection and should not be merely a restatement of #2 or #3.