PHI 236 Final Exam Review
PHI 236 Final Exam Review PHI 236
Popular in Values and the Environment
Haley J Schuhl
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 8 page Study Guide was uploaded by Haley J Schuhl on Sunday May 1, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PHI 236 at Illinois State University taught by Todd Stewart, Ph.D in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 55 views. For similar materials see Values and the Environment in PHIL-Philosophy at Illinois State University.
Reviews for PHI 236 Final Exam Review
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 05/01/16
● Office hours next week: Monday 13, Tuesday 23, and Wednesday 23 ● Our final is 3:10 on Monday ● 5 true/false ● Answer 3 essay questions but we will be given a choice of which ones we want to write about ● Very focused questions he might be able to help over email Review for the final! ● #3: What’s the main idea behind ecofeminism? ○ There is a connection between the oppression of women and the oppression of nature ○ Warren thinks that the logic of domination ○ We use differences to rationalize oppression and exploitation ○ It’s a mindset that is built into the way that we are taught to think about the world around us ○ Warren thinks that we need to learn to reject the logic of domination and instead celebrate differences. There might not be any universal traits that all women share or all respectdeserving beings share. That means extending it to understanding that there is not some unified problem that womanhood shares but we need to realize that there are many different groups of people and they have unique problems they face ● #7: Schmidtz and tragedy of the commons ○ Right to exclude and control is an important part of private property which can help combat the tragedy of the commons ○ There are certain benefits from control too in order to prevent overuse ○ What sorts of problems will it not solve? → large scale externalities like smoke coming out of a private property will be hard to pin down blame on a certain person. Smoke and other large scale externalities can travel hundreds of miles which make it someone else’s problem ○ How would you privatize air or water? These are things that are constantly move ○ It can be difficult to get people to agree to property schemes in which case privatising would be difficult ○ Tragedy of the commons: there is a mismatch, individual incentive to use as much as possible but the costs are placed on everyone who is involved in the cost of overuse. Privatising can help reduce the mismatch in incentives since the private owner will have to bear the cost of overusing their property. ● #6: Harden and overpopulation ○ He thinks that whenever you have a generous social safety net (food aid, education) the costs of child rearing may be socialized so it might be beneficial to the individual to have as many children as possible since they will be sources of income or care later in life or labor for family run businesses, but then the community as a whole has to pay the cost for things like food stamps or education of their children ○ This isn’t purposefully deliberate but people respond to these incentives that they don't realize are there. The incentive structure influences their choices and behaviors ○ He’s focused on the third world country ○ Another way of looking at it: there’s another mechanism of looking of this as a tragedy of the commons → current people get the benefits of overpopulation but it’s future people who will pay the cost of it (we simply can’t grow enough food to feed everyone) ● #8: Perfect Moral Storm ○ A bunch of independent factors that converge and make climate change almost impossible to solve ○ Lack of unified agency that has any power to decide and control emissions → countries don’t want to give up their sovereignty ○ Intergenerational conflicts ○ Difficulty in making required lifestyle changes ○ Politics and economics ○ Who will pay the cost? Unless every country agrees to a certain program then some countries are sure to resist agreeing to a climate change program and use the reason “well, they’re not cutting back their emissions” ○ Imagine telling people in the US that they can’t have their own car because people in India are having their fields flooded with ocean water ○ Dispersion of cause and effect → areas contributing to pollution won’t necessarily feel the effects ● #4 Preservationism vs conservationism ○ Conservationists say that “wise use” is the best option, but preservationists argue that the only wise use is no use. It’s very difficult to weigh these options because it’s just so hard to predict the real outcomes of environmental policies. Using the rain forest as a natural resource by cutting it down might seem like a good option since we gain wood and arable land to grow crops for human consumption. However, the unexpected consequences of exposing humans to previously unknown diseases and missing out on atmospheric oxygen might make people realize no use was actually better than “wise use”. One size will not fit all situations though. ○ Private property vs. unregulated commons: neither one of these might be beneficial for the environment ■ Private property could be helpful because it has the right of exclusion ■ Unregulated commons is an area that everyone could use it (hunting or fishing) ■ Now we have parks and lakes that are commons but you have to pay for entry sometimes or there might be regulations, for example regarding how many fish you can take home ■ Africa has been treated as unregulated commons ○ Preservationist critiques ■ Nature itself deserves respect, conservationism treats nature instrumentally (it just becomes about money, the most profit will be the option that will be chosen) ■ Given the increasing scarcity of “wilderness”, conservationism ends up agreeing in practice with preservationism, we should leave this piece of land alone ■ Callicot said that whichever you endorse, it affects the types of arguments you’re going to use ○ What types of things would convince a conservationist that wise use = no use ■ There could be unknown negative consequences to the use of something (it’s thought that HIV probably originated from moving into the rainforest and eating primates) or we might destroy something that we don’t understand the value of… Wise use is very difficult to know/calculate ■ There are often competing uses/competing goods. One benefit of a tree would be the oxygen it gives off but we could also use it for lumber.. Which is more useful? It’s difficult to know the wise use ■ A pressing matter might outweigh the “better safe than sorry” idea, because playing it safe might mean that people starve ○ In practice, you might was well be a preservationist as resources become more and more scarce ○ Schmitdtz focuses more on ecosystems than on individual species ○ When is it that preservationist policies won't preserve? ■ When policies are imposed from the outside → ● outsiders might not understand the local problems that people are having and it’s imposed to people whom it affects can resent the policy. People who live the problem will understand it better. If people come up with the solutions themselves they will deal with any negatives better than if it’s imposed by an outsider ■ We need to be very careful about the economic incentives we might accidentally create with policies/laws ● Guy Grant: he was trying to support his family by running a ranch where he also sold hunting licenses. Due to laws, eventually his only income was raising cattle, so instead of sharing land with other animals, he now had the incentive to kill intruding animals. ■ Making something illegal sometimes makes things worse. Think of the example of “the war on drugs” → creates a black market, unregulated, drives the prices up which creates incentive for people to sell it ● #5 Elephants ○ Can live around 70 years → their long lifespan means that they don’t cycle through quickly at all ○ Move about 612 miles per day but can move as much as 110 miles in a day ○ Seasonal migrations, up to about 200 miles ○ “Home range” for an elephant is about 35X35 kilometers square ○ Elephant mourning: elephants will touch the recent dead, might return to burial area of a long deceased family member and might touch or gently pick up the bones ○ Elephants seem to be owed some level of respect ○ What problems generate the crisis here? ■ We’re not sure how elephant reproduction cycles work? Hot season, wet season? Doesn’t seem to influence their reproduction for elephants… They reproduce at a very steady rate regardless of how many resources are available ■ Very little elephants get killed, hard to hunt, difficult for a sickness to kill them, what kept their population in check historically? ■ “Island” preserves, less and less space available, they will break through and go in the direction they want ■ More humans → more confrontations that often don’t end well (they come through on their ancient route and rip up large portions of a crop) ■ Migrating by nature, won’t stay in one spot all year ■ They shape the environment around them, use up all available resources and then move onto the next hot spot ■ Less room to migrate means that they impact the local environment more because they can’t move onto the next space ■ When resources become scarce, their behaviors become more destructive ○ What are the options ■ Culling (hunting maybe? Sell a number of permits) ■ Translocate ■ Contraceptives ■ Expand their territory ■ Bring in food for them ■ Combo of the options ■ Integrate elephants into the community in some better way ○ Often the problem is that any solution would be very expensive ○ Elephant management options ■ Culling → keep them at target population, and what does target population mean? ■ Range extension → money and delays ■ Contraceptives → expensive ■ Let them be (let them starve after destroying their local environment) ■ Better integrate them into society ■ Translocation → very expensive, elephants might just return to their home range, moving the problem to another location ■ Give them food ● #2 Taylor Biocentric ○ Biocentric → if an individual has biological needs, then it has moral standing ■ Mental state theory is incorrect (a cat may desire to go outside but we know it has an interest in staying inside in order to keep it safe) ■ Intuitions about which type of world is better (a beautiful one, flourishing with plants vs a ball of rock) → this “argument” isn’t a very strong one, it’s kind of a personal opinion ○ He argues that we are one species among others. The survival of species is highly dependent on many other species (very interconnected). He says you can’t prove egalitarianism, but it fits in with doctrines ○ There’s no reason to favor destructive species over benign ones, parasites over others, invasive species in his theory. ○ This theory doesn’t fit what environmentalists want, but environmental philosophy isn’t meant to fit the desires of environmentalists ● #1 Sagoff and the tension between environmentalism and welfare of individual animals ○ We could possibly care about both but their interests would come into tension at times ○ A Singerinspired environmentalist argument: (1) Currently existing and future individual sentient animals will be made most happy if people work to preserve their environments (2) The right action is the one that produces the most happiness (3) Conclusion: so we ought to preserve the environment ● If we pollute everything then there won’t be safe places for future people (and animals) to live healthy, happy lives ○ Nature isn’t all beauty, it’s actually brutal in a lot of ways ○ Sagoff argues against this since even healthy ecosystems are violent places. Many animals are just barely keeping themselves from starving. Some predators are incredible inhumane in the way they treat their prey ○ Sagoff suggests that, if we are interested in the happiness of all sentient creatures, then we could turn the world into a giant petting zoo (keeping predators separated from prey and feed them). This would be the best way to reduce suffering. This doesn’t seem feasible. ○ there is a tension between holism (environmental ethics) and individualism
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'