PHIL1001 Lecture Notes - Lecture 7: Applied Ethics, Environmentalism, Jeremy Bentham
Agenda
General comments on applied ethics
I.
Why preserve Earth's ecosystems?
II.
Sylvan vs. Traditional Ethical Theory
III.
The "Last Man" Argument
IV.
Goodpaster vs. Anthopocentric Ethics
V.
PART I - Applied Ethics
Aim of 1st half of unit: find general theory that describes the conditions under
which any given act is morally right.
Aim of 2nd half: Arrive at some conclusions about the moral
Three Argumentative strategies in applied ethics.
Strategy 1: Discover the ultimate moral principle, then apply it to the issue
Strategy 2: Formulate and defend a compelling (through perhaps not ultimate)
moral principle, and apply it to the issue at hand
Strategy 3: Argument by moral analogu
(i) Highlight an act, X, that we are confident is morally wrong,
(ii) Identify the morally relevant features of X
(iii) Show that a different act, Y shares these same features.
PART II - Why Preserve Ecosystems
Suppose that it is true that human carbon emissions are causing the average
temperature on Earth to rise.
•
E.g. Suppose the current trend would lead to a 5 degree C increase in 200
years.
•
Q1: Are we morally obligated to choose Conservation?
•
Q2: If yes, then why?
•
What is the reason that we are obligated to choose conservation?
Utilitarian Answer:
Conservation results in a higher quantity of life, pleasure-minus-pain.
Kantian (FH) Answer:
In not preserving the environment through depletion, we fail to treat future
persons as ends-in-themselves.
Kantian (FUL) Answer:
M1. (In order to enjoy luxuries), whenever preserving resources for future
generations requires that I sacrifice luxuries, I will not preserve.
Can we consistently will M1 to be a U. law of nature?
PART III - Sylvan vs. Traditional Ethical Theory
Sylvan's Charge:
Dominant Western ethical theories/principles are Human Chauvanist
[Anthropocentric]
•
Example: Liberal Principle•
LP: an act is morally right if and only if it does NOT
Harm other persons.a)
Irreparably harm the agent.b)
Question:
Is Sylvan's charge fair?•
Are all the Theories we have examined so far anthropocentric?•
Jeremy Bentham - Utilitarianism isn't anthropocentric
"The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights
which could never have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny"
"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or
perhaps the faculty of discourse?"
"But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well a
more conversable animal than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month old."
"The question is not Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?"
PART IV - The Last Man Argument
Is the last man's act morally wrong?
Data from class poll:
Karen the Quokka-eating last person on Earth.
Morally okay - 17%
Wrong b/c killing/eating animals is wrong - 7%
Wrong b/c the acts drive Quokkas to extinction - 76%
P1. If any anthropocentric theory of morality is true, then the Last Man's act not
morally wrong.
P2. The Last Man's act (of destroying the planet) was morally wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
C. It is not the case that any anthropocentric theory of morality is true.
PART V
Kenneth Goodpaster
The question: What characteristics must a thing have in order to be morally
considerable
To be morally considerable is to be the sort of thing to which any agent must show
a minimal amount of respect.
An agent may harm or destroy a m.considerable thing only if there is sufficient
moral weight in favour of doing so.
In order to have moral considerability, a thing must be:
Human?•
A person?•
A potential person?•
A sentient being?
"Nothing short of the condition of being alive
○
•
Lecture 7A - Environmentalism
Tuesday, 17 April 2018
10:43 am
Document Summary
Aim of 1st half of unit: find general theory that describes the conditions under which any given act is morally right. Aim of 2nd half: arrive at some conclusions about the moral. Strategy 1: discover the ultimate moral principle, then apply it to the issue. Strategy 2: formulate and defend a compelling (through perhaps not ultimate) moral principle, and apply it to the issue at hand. Strategy 3: argument by moral analogu (i) highlight an act, x, that we are confident is morally wrong, (ii) identify the morally relevant features of x (iii) show that a different act, y shares these same features. Suppose that it is true that human carbon emissions are causing the average temperature on earth to rise. Suppose the current trend would lead to a 5 degree c increase in 200 years. Conservation results in a higher quantity of life, pleasure-minus-pain. In not preserving the environment through depletion, we fail to treat future persons as ends-in-themselves.
