|
Environmental Ethics Second Take-Home Quiz on Readings Due by: Tuesday Dec. 5. Mini-Essays: Choose any three (20 points each). Don't do more than three! Type your answers on a separate sheet, starting each answer with the number of the corresponding question (no need to retype the questions themselves). You should not need more than about two-three short paragraphs (3/4 page single spaced) to give a concise and adequate answer to the questions. No need to include quotes from the texts: these are short answer questions, so just explain the main points. But be sure to cover each part of the questions you select. 1. How does Holmes Rolston argue, in "Naturalizing Values," that living organisms are "value-generating systems," whether recognized as valuable by sentient animals or not? How does he argue on this basis that species themselves are higher-level life forms with intrinsic value? 2. Why does Herman Daly think "sustainable growth" is ultimately impossible? Contrast his view with William Rees's view that development is sustainable if it lives off the "interest" from environmental capital. 3. Distinguish the problem of decay in the stratospheric ozone layer from the problem of global warming. Why does Gary Taubes doubt the main arguments of conservative critics who argue that humans are not the main cause of ozone-destroying gasses? 4. Why does Hardin think that having babies is taking from a commons, and that we cannot expect voluntary restraint from people free to take from a commons? What policy implications might this have for keeping down population growth? Why, by contrast, does Kasun think that market forces will work to slow or halt population growth if and when this is needed? 5. Kasun argues that there is plenty of open space and capacity for additional farming. Briefly explain her view. Which of Bill McKibben's considerations might answer these arguments and show that there is still a need to halt human population growth? 6. In your view, what is the most persuasive evidence for or against the view that human beings are contributing to global warming? From the articles we read, what in your view is the most effective thing we could do to try to ameliorate this problem? 7. Explain Mark Sagoff's view that as citizens, we can judge policies according to environmental values that conflict with our economic interests as consumers. Contrast his view with Schrader-Frechette's view that we should continue employing cost/benefit analyses in determining environmental policy. 8. How do Vandermeer and Perfecto in their paper and Stewart in his argue that small farmers making inroads into the Amazon are really more victims of an export-economy system than intentional perpetrators of environmental crimes. How convincing is their arguments, in your view? |
|
Send mail to philosophy@fordham.edu with
general questions or comments.
|