PHI 236 Week 4 Lecture Notes
PHI 236 Week 4 Lecture Notes PHI 236
Popular in Values and the Environment
Haley J Schuhl
verified elite notetaker
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 6 page Class Notes was uploaded by Haley J Schuhl on Monday February 8, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHI 236 at Illinois State University taught by Todd Stewart, Ph.D in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 19 views. For similar materials see Values and the Environment in PHIL-Philosophy at Illinois State University.
Reviews for PHI 236 Week 4 Lecture Notes
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: 02/08/16
Week 4 Lecture Notes Tuesday 2/2/16 Talking about Varner and Taylor ● He wants to defend biocentric individualistic: all and only individual organisms (not just animals) matter ● Holistic entities only matter instrumentally ● Biocentric → if an individual has biological needs, then it has moral standing ○ Mental stat 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 does not think that all interests matter equally and, therefore, not all organisms matter equally ● Species inegalitarianism (Varner’s view): the interests of some species are more important than those of other species; a plant matters, but a squirrel matters more than the plant, and humans matter more than both ○ Ground project (categorical) desires: big picture desires that help structure the rest of our lives → becoming a doctor (there’s a lot of steps you have to take to achieve this), being a good parent (impacts a large part of your life for many years), winning a gold medal ○ Nonground project (noncategorical) desires: desires that aren’t life structuring → desire to buy some milk, reading a book, having lunch, scratching your back ○ Biological needs: needs like caloric intake, water, vitamins, and minerals ○ He prioritizes ground projects over all else. They are hierarchically structured since completing their biological needs, as well as years of nonground project desire satisfaction to take the steps to achieve a group project. ○ People interpret other animals though, we contemplate what it means to be a human where as other animals probably don't ○ Moral importance: ground project > nonground project > biological need ● Species egalitarianism (Taylor’s view): members of all species have the same moral importance ● Notice, Taylor and Varner are both individualists ● Varner argument (1) The satisfaction of ground project desires is of high moral importance (2) In order to fulfill current and future ground projects desires, we need an environment which is stable and protects biodiversity (3) Conclusion: so, it is morally important to protect stable ecosystems ● This conflicts with the goat island issue. An island has been overrun with goats, and people want to kill them to protect 3 species of plants that don’t grow anywhere else ● There’s a movement to kill all the eucalyptus trees in California (they’re been imported from Australia) since they poison the soil around them. People are worried that they are an invasive species and might damage the ecosystems ● It’s not obvious that what is best for people involves protecting biodiversity Taylor: Species Egalitarian ● 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. ● Why is it more important to satisfy a ground project than a biological interest. ● Taylor’s perspective argument: (1) Suppose that trait T1 is good from the perspective of an organism with the lifestyle L1 (2) In contrast, suppose that trait T2 is good from the perspective of an organism with lifestyle L2 (3) There is no nonspeciesist reason to prefer the perspective of L1 to L2, and hence to think that T1 is of more value than T2; both are equally reasonable taken on their own (4) Conclusion: so, T1 and T2 should be treated as equally valuable traits. We cannot rate types of organisms in a hierarchy because of their differences in traits, and we should endorse species egalitarianism. ● This would mean that all organisms are equally important Thursday 2/4/16 ● Talking about Taylor’s perspective argument ○ There’s no reason to favor destructive species over benign ones, parasites over others, invasive species. ○ This theory doesn’t fit what environmentalists want, but environmental philosophy isn’t meant to fit the desires of environmentalists. ● Objection to biological individualism (1) Holistic entities have moral standing (Sagoff) → under biological individualism, killing one elephant would be just as bad as killing the world’s last elephant (2) Pluralism: individual organisms matter and holistic entities matter (3) There are examples from Rolston (goat vs plants example) that challenge the individualist (4) Why do only biological needs matter? What about psychological needs? ● Objections to species inegalitarianism (Varner) (1) Moral equality is an appealing ideal (2) Ranking is always biased ● Objections to species egalitarianism (Taylor) (1) Pest species (things like tape worms, mosquitoes carry many diseases) (2) Worse to kill a chimp than a carrot? It seems obvious that one is more important than the other. We might have a duty to prevent suffering. Your mother and a stranger have equal moral standing, but maybe you have special obligation to your mother. (3) We are the ones deciding how to live; why shouldn’t we rely on a human value perspective? ● Ecosystem “health” ○ There are analogies between the health of one’s body and the health of an ecosystem ○ Two opinions ■ Healthy ecosystems have a lot of biodiversity ■ Healthy ecosystems have stability/selfregulation ○ Ecosystems with the most biodiversity tend to be pretty unstable ○ Stressed ecosystems, where many organisms are fighting it out on who’s going to occupy that niche, tend to be the most diverse ○ Having a dominant and recessive trait is generally the strongest genetic makeup (heterozygotic) ● Talking about Sober’s article ○ If we are ok with letting one species go extinct, then there’s slippery slope to let a lot die off. ○ Ignorance argument for protecting biodiversity (1) Species S might have some value of which we are currently ignorant (holds the cure to cancer, plays some fundamental role in the ecosystem, might later become an important food source) (2) If species S might have some value, then we ought to preserve S (better safe than sorry) (3) Conclusion: so we ought to preserve S ● It’s not clear where we stop extending our ignorance ○ No wild/domestic/invasive/native distinction ○ What about the unknown bad effects of preserving species S ○ We also have to rate probabilities ■ Example of flying on an airplane with small probability of crashing, but a much slower form of transport might be safer. You have to weigh your options. ■ Instead of preserving a piece of land, we could build a playground or numerous other things. What gains could we achieve? ○ Most species aren’t vital ○ Do your ecological homework!
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'