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.

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!

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 clichéd 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

What Is Experiential Learning?

Ethical Experience Project Plans are due tomorrow! Why are we incorporating experiential learning into this class?

The philosophy of experiential learning holds that there are some things that can best be learned by doing. As a teacher, I believe that as information has become more and more easily accessible, there is less need for any of us (teachers or students) to remember exact information that can be easily looked up. This frees us to spend more of our time achieving deeper understanding, integrating knowledge from diverse fields, creating new work, and allowing knowledge to transform our sense of ourselves and the world we live in.

Philosophy is quintessentially a method rather than a defined subject area. Just among my colleagues here at RIT, our research has to do with eastern religion, death, mental causation, the promises and dangers of nanotechnology, and the qualities of art. Because philosophy is a method of analysis and questioning, it requires personal involvement. And ethics, especially, has to do with matters of experience.

Experiential learning involves taking on an activity with a commitment to learn something new and to relate it to a preconceived framework. The structure is necessarily open-ended, because it relies entirely on a student's willingness to start a new learning experience that can be based on their personal experience and beliefs. The role of the teacher is to provide suggestions, help students overcome obstacles they face, and to encourage and guide reflection in a way that guides the student away from mis-educative or empty experience.

According to Wikipedia, the educator David Kolb has outlined 4 requirements for experiential learning:

1. the learner must be willing to be actively involved in the experience;
2. the learner must be able to reflect on the experience;
3. the learner must possess and use analytical skills to conceptualize the experience; and
4. the learner must possess decision making and problem solving skills in order to use the new ideas gained from the experience.
   

Experiential learning encourages students to take an active role in their learning activities (even more active than the ubiquitous "think-pair-share" that's found in so much of RIT's curriculum). It encourages taking risks and encourages students to find incentives for learning experiences beyond the incentive of the graded paper.

I'm curious whether you've done open-ended projects like this in other classes. Were they research projects? Building projects (in engineering classes)? How are you encouraged to be creative? Do you find them satisfying or stress-inducing?

Kantian Ethics

Some key ideas from the lecture:

• Kantian ethics responds to the need for moral truths to have an independent justification which depends on reason and not just on intuition or implicit agreement.


• Kant argues that if a law is to be morally valid, then it must follow with absolute necessity.


• He provides such an algorithm in the form of the Categorical Imperative.


• The Categorical Imperative is similar to--but more universal and less subjective than--the Golden Rule.


• The core of morality is not what we do but why we do it. What matters is that an action is motivated by ethical reasoning. Acting out of duty is moral; acting in accordance with duty is not enough.
  


• Principle-based ethical theories are called deontological; Kant's ethical theory is the best known example but many contemporary ethicists are also deontologists.
  

If you have any questions, feel free to raise them in the comments section.

Now just for fun, what would a political attack ad against Kant be like?