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.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.
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.
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”
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”
Posts
6 comments:
I am dissatisfied with the requirements that are given for this assignment. We are to create an argument outline based from two different perspectives only. This may re-enforce our readings; I however find that open discussion would be more suitable. Besides, who wouldn't want to write the outline or argument based upon their own beliefs? A positive I can see from using only two types of ethical thought is that we might be forced to be creative with answering.
Anonymous, it might be helpful for me to clarify again what the discipline of philosophy does. Our work is to clarify assumptions and to give arguments. Our method is to analyze the consistency and validity of other's arguments and to construct our own consistent and valid arguments.
I should also repeat the purpose of the assignment: to practice using the ethical frameworks and to practice standard, basic argument construction techniques. The reading provides a topic, but it is ethical reasoning that is the goal.
You use the word "perspective," and I wonder if by this you mean "opinion"? Although the rigorous reasoning of philosophical argument may start from where our opinions lie or the perspectives that we have, it must wind up in a place where it can be backed up by empirical evidence, ethical theory, and consistent reasons. We do exchange ideas in the class in order to have discussion, but the expression of opinions is not the main point.
You seem concerned that your ethical argument is one that cannot be expressed using either consequentialist or deontological frameworks. Although there are some other ways of doing ethics and political theory which we'll look at in the next few weeks, these two ethical theories-consequentialism and deontology-make up the vast majority of ethical discourse and are the only theories studied in many ethics courses. Which is to say that one or the other ought to do the trick. One theory considers consequences to be the criterion of morality; the other argues that morality is guided by universal principles.
In other words, if your beliefs can be backed by ethical theory, the constraint that those beliefs be expressed in terms either of Kantian or utilitarian ethics is not severe.
Yes, creativity is key. The assignment requires no more than 10 sentences; it is brief. But at the same time, it is condensed. It encapsulates practice using ethical reasoning, making use of basic argumentative techniques, and application to a real-world problem. It is not meant to be an easy assignment. Even with practice, skills, and knowledge it took me some time to craft the sample argument I handed out. I wish you luck on finishing yours.
Mill's Utilitarianism is not the only Consequentialist philosophy possible, and Kant does not represent all Deontological frameworks. Others differ in specifics, so even being deontological, you could come to a different conclusion about what to do about the population than what Kant would say, and the point of the assignment would still be fulfilled.
Yes, that's true. There are other consequentialists and other deontologists, as well as approaches that draw something from both, as Mill (technically) does. For instance, Peter Singer has developed a uniquely 20th century version of utilitarianism. The capabilities approach is arguably consequentialist, and there are contemporary deontologists such as Thomas Nagel.
But in this class we've only studied two consequentialists and one deontologist. And so those are the frameworks that this assignment tests your understanding of.
It sounds like you have a specific ethicist in mind whose theory you would like to apply to this difficult problem. Why don't you run a name by me, and if it's appropriate, then I can give you a thumbs-up, permitting you to both follow your moral compass while not feeling like you're taking a risk on the assignment.
Also, if you believe you already have the background to cite other ethicists and are interested in more of a challenge than the course is providing right now, perhaps we could figure out some appropriate enrichment. You could come onto the blog as a contributor, for example.
I think I might have made my initial response simpler by just pointing out that one of the requirements of an ethics class is for each person to show 1) that he or she understands the most prominent ethical frameworks and 2) that he or she can apply these frameworks to cases in order to justify ethical actions.
It would take ages to go through everything that’s wrong with Nagel and other Kantian knock-offs, and every version of Utilitarianism after Bentham varies only by the degree to which it has been watered-down. Singer, at least, is consistent, and scarily is not afraid to follow Utilitarianism to its logical conclusions, a thing few are able to stomach. Religion is a form of philosophy and most are deontological, though through appeals to authority, so something like that could be used. Specifically, I would have used Rand’s Objectivism. I have written in my comments that I am an ethical egoist. We breezed by that too quickly for me to catch any solid reason why ethical egoism should be rejected, but so has the entire philosophical community for decades. There is some debate about which she is, but I believe her philosophy is Deontological and I think she did as well.
I have just wanted to point out for a long time that Kantianism and Utilitarianism are not the only options, because it would be easy to make that assumption based on what we have covered. I have no problem writing from the standpoint of one of the two for practice, that will be probably be more useful to me, it just won’t be genuine because I don’t think either philosophy is a good option.
I have taken Intro to Philosophy, but most of my information comes from reading in my free time. I have an interest in philosophy because it affects everything, but is especially linked to my field: art.
-Skye
Post a Comment