After reading all of Chapter 13, please select ONE of the following primary source readings:
- “People or Penguins” by William F. Baxter (starting on page 442)
-or-
- “It’s Not my Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations” by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (starting on page 446)
-or-
- “Are All Species Equal?” by David Schmidtz (starting on page 458)
-or-
- “The Land Ethic” by Aldo Leopold (starting on page 465)
STEP 2 – Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection. PLEASE ADD EXAMPLES OF THE LECTURE. DONT PLAGIARISM
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Write a short, objective summary of 250-500 words which summarizes the main ideas being put forward by the author in this selection.
Just from $13/Page
Chapter 13
Environmental Ethics Image is the cover of the
textbook: Background is a blue
sky with white clouds over a
grassy plain. A forked dirt path
cuts through the grass, leading
in two different directions.
The title of the textbook,
Doing Ethics, appears in large
white letters, followed by the
subtitle and author in smaller
font: Moral Reasoning,
Theory, and Contemporary
Issues. Fifth Edition. Lewis
Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
Background – 1
Real-world challenges causing environmental issues:
• endangered species
• pollution
• wilderness preservation
• treatment of animals
• ecosystem protection
• waste disposal
• global population
• resource allocation
• energy use
• economics
• food production
• world hunger
• social justice
• welfare of future generations
Background – 2
Climate change, an increase in global surface temperatures
caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide, is the one environmental problem
that is entangled with all the others.
Background – 3
Outline of the debate:
Nonmoral facts: general agreement
Moral principles and judgments: significant disagreement
For example:
All parties may agree that some activity will bring about
economic development while causing a negative impact on the
environment but disagree on which outcome is most important.
Background – 4
A central question:
What entities have moral status and to what degree do they have it?
• Something with instrumental (or extrinsic) value is valuable as a means to
something else.
o For many people, nature possesses instrumental value only.
• Something with intrinsic value is valuable regardless of its usefulness to humanity.
o For many other people, nature has intrinsic value—it is valuable in itself, for its
own sake.
Anthropocentrism: the notion that only humans have moral standing
Zoocentrism: the notion that both human and nonhuman animals have moral status
Biocentrism: the view that all living entities have moral status, whether sentient or
not; also referred to as life-centered ethics
Background – 5
Species egalitarian: one who believes that all living things have
equal moral status
Species nonegalitarian: one who believes that some living
things have greater moral worth than others
Background – 6
Ecological individualist: one who believes that the
fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental
ethics is the individual
Ecological holist: one who believes that the fundamental unit
of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the entire
biosphere and its ecosystems
Moral Theories – 1
Traditional Kantian view:
• This view is strongly anthropocentric.
• Animals have instrumental value only.
• Kant asserts, “Animals . . . are there merely as means to an
end. That end is man.”
Moral Theories – 2
Traditional natural law view:
Thomas Aquinas: Animals are tools to be employed at the
discretion of humans.
Moral Theories – 3
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• They reject instrumentalist views, asserting that the
environment or its constituents have intrinsic value, just as
persons are thought to be intrinsically valuable.
• Paul Taylor: The “well-being [of the Earth’s wild
communities of life], as well as human well-being, is
something to be realized as an end in itself.”
Moral Theories – 4
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• Tom Regan argues that sentient animals, human and
nonhuman, possess equal intrinsic worth and therefore have
an equal moral right not to be treated as mere things.
• The result of applying Regan’s view to the treatment of
animals would be the eradication of factory farming, animal
experimentation, and hunting.
Moral Theories – 5
Utilitarians:
Peter Singer (following the lead of Jeremy Bentham):
In calculating which action will produce the greatest overall
satisfaction of interests, we must include the interests of all
sentient creatures and give their interests equal weight.
Moral Arguments – 1
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
A “natural” argument:
1. All natural entities have moral status (intrinsic value or
rights, for example).
2. Old-growth forests are natural entities.
3. Therefore, old-growth forests have moral status.
Moral Arguments – 2
A “natural” argument: Is Premise 1 true?
Common answers:
Yes: Premise 1 is supported by our moral intuitions.
No: The property of naturalness does not confer some kind of
moral standing on objects.
Moral Arguments – 3
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
Biocentric egalitarianism (Paul Taylor):
1. Humans are members of earth’s community of life in exactly
the same way that all other living things are members.
2. Human beings and all other living things constitute a
dynamic system of interlinked and interdependent parts.
3. Each living thing is a “teleological center of life, pursuing its
own good in its own way.”
4. Human beings are not superior to other species.
5. Therefore, all living things have equal moral status.
Moral Arguments – 4
Biocentric egalitarianism:
• Taylor: If we accept Premises 1–3, it would not be
unreasonable to accept Premise 4.
• Criticism: Premise 4 does not follow from Premises 1–3. (Even
if Premises 1–3 are true, we are not obliged to accept Premise
4.)
Moral Arguments – 5
Biocentric egalitarianism:
Criticisms of Taylor’s conclusion: “What seems far more
problematic for species egalitarianism is that it seems to suggest
that it makes no difference what we kill. Vegetarians typically
think it worse to kill a cow than to kill a carrot. Are they wrong?”
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 13
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
- Chapter 13
Background – 1
Background – 2
Background – 3
Background – 4
Background – 5
Background – 6
Moral Theories – 1
Moral Theories – 2
Moral Theories – 3
Moral Theories – 4
Moral Theories – 5
Moral Arguments – 1
Moral Arguments – 2
Moral Arguments – 3
- Moral Arguments – 4
Moral Arguments – 5
Credits
Chapter 13
Environmental Ethics Image is the cover of the
textbook: Background is a blue
sky with white clouds over a
grassy plain. A forked dirt path
cuts through the grass, leading
in two different directions.
The title of the textbook,
Doing Ethics, appears in large
white letters, followed by the
subtitle and author in smaller
font: Moral Reasoning,
Theory, and Contemporary
Issues. Fifth Edition. Lewis
Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
Background – 1
Real-world challenges causing environmental issues:
• endangered species
• pollution
• wilderness preservation
• treatment of animals
• ecosystem protection
• waste disposal
• global population
• resource allocation
• energy use
• economics
• food production
• world hunger
• social justice
• welfare of future generations
Background – 2
Climate change, an increase in global surface temperatures
caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide, is the one environmental problem
that is entangled with all the others.
Background – 3
Outline of the debate:
Nonmoral facts: general agreement
Moral principles and judgments: significant disagreement
For example:
All parties may agree that some activity will bring about
economic development while causing a negative impact on the
environment but disagree on which outcome is most important.
Background – 4
A central question:
What entities have moral status and to what degree do they have it?
• Something with instrumental (or extrinsic) value is valuable as a means to
something else.
o For many people, nature possesses instrumental value only.
• Something with intrinsic value is valuable regardless of its usefulness to humanity.
o For many other people, nature has intrinsic value—it is valuable in itself, for its
own sake.
Anthropocentrism: the notion that only humans have moral standing
Zoocentrism: the notion that both human and nonhuman animals have moral status
Biocentrism: the view that all living entities have moral status, whether sentient or
not; also referred to as life-centered ethics
Background – 5
Species egalitarian: one who believes that all living things have
equal moral status
Species nonegalitarian: one who believes that some living
things have greater moral worth than others
Background – 6
Ecological individualist: one who believes that the
fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental
ethics is the individual
Ecological holist: one who believes that the fundamental unit
of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the entire
biosphere and its ecosystems
Moral Theories – 1
Traditional Kantian view:
• This view is strongly anthropocentric.
• Animals have instrumental value only.
• Kant asserts, “Animals . . . are there merely as means to an
end. That end is man.”
Moral Theories – 2
Traditional natural law view:
Thomas Aquinas: Animals are tools to be employed at the
discretion of humans.
Moral Theories – 3
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• They reject instrumentalist views, asserting that the
environment or its constituents have intrinsic value, just as
persons are thought to be intrinsically valuable.
• Paul Taylor: The “well-being [of the Earth’s wild
communities of life], as well as human well-being, is
something to be realized as an end in itself.”
Moral Theories – 4
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• Tom Regan argues that sentient animals, human and
nonhuman, possess equal intrinsic worth and therefore have
an equal moral right not to be treated as mere things.
• The result of applying Regan’s view to the treatment of
animals would be the eradication of factory farming, animal
experimentation, and hunting.
Moral Theories – 5
Utilitarians:
Peter Singer (following the lead of Jeremy Bentham):
In calculating which action will produce the greatest overall
satisfaction of interests, we must include the interests of all
sentient creatures and give their interests equal weight.
Moral Arguments – 1
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
A “natural” argument:
1. All natural entities have moral status (intrinsic value or
rights, for example).
2. Old-growth forests are natural entities.
3. Therefore, old-growth forests have moral status.
Moral Arguments – 2
A “natural” argument: Is Premise 1 true?
Common answers:
Yes: Premise 1 is supported by our moral intuitions.
No: The property of naturalness does not confer some kind of
moral standing on objects.
Moral Arguments – 3
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
Biocentric egalitarianism (Paul Taylor):
1. Humans are members of earth’s community of life in exactly
the same way that all other living things are members.
2. Human beings and all other living things constitute a
dynamic system of interlinked and interdependent parts.
3. Each living thing is a “teleological center of life, pursuing its
own good in its own way.”
4. Human beings are not superior to other species.
5. Therefore, all living things have equal moral status.
Moral Arguments – 4
Biocentric egalitarianism:
• Taylor: If we accept Premises 1–3, it would not be
unreasonable to accept Premise 4.
• Criticism: Premise 4 does not follow from Premises 1–3. (Even
if Premises 1–3 are true, we are not obliged to accept Premise
4.)
Moral Arguments – 5
Biocentric egalitarianism:
Criticisms of Taylor’s conclusion: “What seems far more
problematic for species egalitarianism is that it seems to suggest
that it makes no difference what we kill. Vegetarians typically
think it worse to kill a cow than to kill a carrot. Are they wrong?”
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 13
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
- Chapter 13
Background – 1
Background – 2
Background – 3
Background – 4
Background – 5
Background – 6
Moral Theories – 1
Moral Theories – 2
Moral Theories – 3
Moral Theories – 4
Moral Theories – 5
Moral Arguments – 1
Moral Arguments – 2
Moral Arguments – 3
- Moral Arguments – 4
Moral Arguments – 5
Credits
Chapter 13
Environmental Ethics Image is the cover of the
textbook: Background is a blue
sky with white clouds over a
grassy plain. A forked dirt path
cuts through the grass, leading
in two different directions.
The title of the textbook,
Doing Ethics, appears in large
white letters, followed by the
subtitle and author in smaller
font: Moral Reasoning,
Theory, and Contemporary
Issues. Fifth Edition. Lewis
Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
Background – 1
Real-world challenges causing environmental issues:
• endangered species
• pollution
• wilderness preservation
• treatment of animals
• ecosystem protection
• waste disposal
• global population
• resource allocation
• energy use
• economics
• food production
• world hunger
• social justice
• welfare of future generations
Background – 2
Climate change, an increase in global surface temperatures
caused by higher concentrations of greenhouse gases,
particularly carbon dioxide, is the one environmental problem
that is entangled with all the others.
Background – 3
Outline of the debate:
Nonmoral facts: general agreement
Moral principles and judgments: significant disagreement
For example:
All parties may agree that some activity will bring about
economic development while causing a negative impact on the
environment but disagree on which outcome is most important.
Background – 4
A central question:
What entities have moral status and to what degree do they have it?
• Something with instrumental (or extrinsic) value is valuable as a means to
something else.
o For many people, nature possesses instrumental value only.
• Something with intrinsic value is valuable regardless of its usefulness to humanity.
o For many other people, nature has intrinsic value—it is valuable in itself, for its
own sake.
Anthropocentrism: the notion that only humans have moral standing
Zoocentrism: the notion that both human and nonhuman animals have moral status
Biocentrism: the view that all living entities have moral status, whether sentient or
not; also referred to as life-centered ethics
Background – 5
Species egalitarian: one who believes that all living things have
equal moral status
Species nonegalitarian: one who believes that some living
things have greater moral worth than others
Background – 6
Ecological individualist: one who believes that the
fundamental unit of moral consideration in environmental
ethics is the individual
Ecological holist: one who believes that the fundamental unit
of moral consideration in environmental ethics is the entire
biosphere and its ecosystems
Moral Theories – 1
Traditional Kantian view:
• This view is strongly anthropocentric.
• Animals have instrumental value only.
• Kant asserts, “Animals . . . are there merely as means to an
end. That end is man.”
Moral Theories – 2
Traditional natural law view:
Thomas Aquinas: Animals are tools to be employed at the
discretion of humans.
Moral Theories – 3
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• They reject instrumentalist views, asserting that the
environment or its constituents have intrinsic value, just as
persons are thought to be intrinsically valuable.
• Paul Taylor: The “well-being [of the Earth’s wild
communities of life], as well as human well-being, is
something to be realized as an end in itself.”
Moral Theories – 4
Nonconsequentialist/Kantian theorists:
• Tom Regan argues that sentient animals, human and
nonhuman, possess equal intrinsic worth and therefore have
an equal moral right not to be treated as mere things.
• The result of applying Regan’s view to the treatment of
animals would be the eradication of factory farming, animal
experimentation, and hunting.
Moral Theories – 5
Utilitarians:
Peter Singer (following the lead of Jeremy Bentham):
In calculating which action will produce the greatest overall
satisfaction of interests, we must include the interests of all
sentient creatures and give their interests equal weight.
Moral Arguments – 1
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
A “natural” argument:
1. All natural entities have moral status (intrinsic value or
rights, for example).
2. Old-growth forests are natural entities.
3. Therefore, old-growth forests have moral status.
Moral Arguments – 2
A “natural” argument: Is Premise 1 true?
Common answers:
Yes: Premise 1 is supported by our moral intuitions.
No: The property of naturalness does not confer some kind of
moral standing on objects.
Moral Arguments – 3
When, if ever, do environmental entities or beings have
moral status?
Biocentric egalitarianism (Paul Taylor):
1. Humans are members of earth’s community of life in exactly
the same way that all other living things are members.
2. Human beings and all other living things constitute a
dynamic system of interlinked and interdependent parts.
3. Each living thing is a “teleological center of life, pursuing its
own good in its own way.”
4. Human beings are not superior to other species.
5. Therefore, all living things have equal moral status.
Moral Arguments – 4
Biocentric egalitarianism:
• Taylor: If we accept Premises 1–3, it would not be
unreasonable to accept Premise 4.
• Criticism: Premise 4 does not follow from Premises 1–3. (Even
if Premises 1–3 are true, we are not obliged to accept Premise
4.)
Moral Arguments – 5
Biocentric egalitarianism:
Criticisms of Taylor’s conclusion: “What seems far more
problematic for species egalitarianism is that it seems to suggest
that it makes no difference what we kill. Vegetarians typically
think it worse to kill a cow than to kill a carrot. Are they wrong?”
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 13
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton & Company
- Chapter 13
Background – 1
Background – 2
Background – 3
Background – 4
Background – 5
Background – 6
Moral Theories – 1
Moral Theories – 2
Moral Theories – 3
Moral Theories – 4
Moral Theories – 5
Moral Arguments – 1
Moral Arguments – 2
Moral Arguments – 3
- Moral Arguments – 4
Moral Arguments – 5
Credits
