The Year of Eating Locally
The professor of the class which follows ours (Dr. Scott, Criminal Justice Department) saw that we were talking about Deep Economy and wondered what you guys think of it. I told him that you have had a range of reactions, from thinking that it was hysterical to thinking that it was boring to thinking that it was on the mark.
He said that his reaction is (and I’m capturing the spirit though not the exact wording) that it opens the reader’s eyes to some terrifying news. It brings you up short. It makes you think about what you are doing and about how fast our lives could change for the worse.
Care to share your reactions here in your own words?
2nd Argument Outline
Due Monday, October 6
Eating is something that we all do several times each day. We eat not just for sustenance, but also as a source of pleasure and, often, as a time of companionship.
Collectively, the choices we make about food have a major impact on our lives, on the lives of others, and on the economy. Until this decade, farming has always been the largest industry on a global scale. Agriculture still makes up about 36% of the global economy.
In spite of the central place of food in our lives, we tend not to think about what we eat, where it comes from, how it was made, or why we’ve chosen to eat it. Even philosophers have perhaps not paid as much attention to the role of food in human life as they ought.
This assignment has more room for originality than the previous one. Following the general argument outline format, construct an argument defending a stance that is related to food choices or food production. You may make use of any ethical framework we’ve covered so far (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) or you may express your own ethical reasoning. You may focus on personal moral choice or on social policies.
Also, this is an opportunity to explore the justification for a position that you may not have thought through before. For instance, you may choose to defend vegetarianism even though you are not yourself a committed vegetarian.
You are responsible for doing any necessary web research. But do not copy anyone else’s words off the Internet—express the ideas in your own way. Cite your sources, please.
Here are some possible topics with a few links to get you started:
— vegetarianism
— buying local agricultural products, reducing food miles, and slow food
— organic farming
— farm subsidies
— farmworker rights
— biotechnology and food
— famine reduction
— food security (including access to food, control over pathogens, and control over toxics)
— obesity and diet-related illness
— fair trade
— agriculture and biodiversity
— treatment of farm animals
More events and resources
I’m sure that many of you are thinking about your project and hoping to complete it before we get into a rush in the second half of the quarter.
I see that there is a public lecture about mass extinction on October 2. It’s at the Brighton Town Hall at 7pm and is sponsored by the Animal Rights Advocates of Upstate New York. I would note that, in general, something as passive as watching a film or lecture is not what I would usually consider “experiential.” However, it does provide an opportunity for a question-and-answer session and some social contact with people involved in these issues. I hope you’ll take advantage of these opportunities for interactive learning.
Two more local resources that you might find interesting are:
The Politics of Food, a group that is involved in sustainable agriculture and food security.
Climate Change Central, a community resource center. They have a movie showing planned for Friday, October 10 and a book discussion group on Tuesday, October 14.
Also, RIT is participating in the local Low Carbon Diet Challenge, which I announced earlier. Now there is a more convenient location: the CIMS building, Room 2230, on three Wednesday nights in October (Oct. 1, 6-9pm; Oct. 15; and Oct. 29).
Register to Vote
Voter registration materials are here (as a pdf). They include a form that you can type onto and then print out. You will need to put it in an envelope and include a copy of your identification. Full instructions are in the pdf, and please notice that they vary by state, just in case you plan to vote absentee from a different state. You are allowed to vote in New York if you wish, even if you live on campus and don’t consider this your permanent home. First class postage is 42 cents. In New York, it must be received 25 days before the election, which is to say in early October. If you aren’t registered, TODAY is a good day to do it.
I was unable to find out where the polling place is for the dorms. If anyone knows, could you please write it in the comment section?
If you are registered to vote in Monroe County, then this site, run by the Monroe County Board of Elections, can help you to find your polling place and answer other questions. Here is another good site for voting information.
Catastrophe and Sustainability
There were two important topics that we discussed in class today. First, I reviewed the two frameworks we’ve studied. The point of looking at different ethical frameworks is not so that, for any problem, you can pick the one that gives the answer that you want to hear. (It’s not like picking a meal off of a menu.) Actually, for many questions, different ethical frameworks will give fairly similar guidance, though perhaps for different reasons.
We looked at how different frameworks are useful for different purposes. A deontological framework, for instance, provides the type of justification that is needed to formulate professional codes of ethics, like these codes from IEEE and ACM. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is useful for highlighting the wide range of harms and benefits that are relevant to complex social decisions.
Then we discussed the problem of population growth and the types of conflicts that arise when we consider population control. In our research, many of us saw statements such as this one:
Despite being one of the largest drivers of climate change, the question of population growth is strangely absent from public debate.
As always, this post is available for additional comments on the class discussion.
Utilitarianism
Jonathan asked a good (and difficult) question in class today: what is the difference between utilitarianism and the views of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus. The 19th century ethical framework called utilitarianism does share some elements with epicureanism.
For instance, both hold that pleasure and pain are the measure of what is good and bad. And both put a high value on empirical investigation. For both, “the good life” is a life that has a high ratio of pleasure to pain, and so pursuit of pleasure is a basis for moral action.
However, one difference is that Epicurus thought that this evaluation of pleasure and pain would lead people to value and pursue tranquility or a state of mental peace. (This is a position that certainly shares something with the philosophy of Zen Buddhism.) Pursuing tranquility would lead people to withdraw from politics and other stressful situations or concerns.
In contrast, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were very involved in politics. Mill was a Member of Parliament for several years and an advocate of women’s rights.
Sustainability
Today we discussed the Introduction and first chapter of Bill McKibben’s book Deep Economy.
We looked at his idea that aiming at “MORE” (economic growth) and “BETTER” (improvements in quality of life) are no longer in sync.
We also discussed what makes people happy and the difference between what people anticipate will affect their happiness and what really makes them happy. If you think this is an interesting question, you might like this bloggingheads.tv interview with Eric Weiner, the author of a book on happiness.
Any further reactions to this chapter?
Argument Outline 1
ARGUMENT OUTLINE 1: POPULATION CONTROL
Due Wednesday, September 24. The general format of an argument outline can be found in the sidebar to the left. Direct link.
The current global population is over 6.5 billion people. There is much evidence that at rates of Western consumption, the current population size cannot be sustained. Global population is forecast to reach 9 billion by 2050, and then to keep growing. At the most efficient rates of consumption, the upper limit for a sustainable population is estimated to be right about 9 billion.
Population size is an important issue for environmental ethics. Some argue it is the most important issue because all other policies are moot if the size of the global population is not brought under control. If current rates of population growth are not reversed, then famine and disease will limit population size. Nearly all problems of resource use and environmental degradation are in one way or another linked to population size. However, limiting population growth is a difficult issue because many policy options involve violations of what many believe to be non-negotiable individual freedoms and reproductive rights.
Give an argument supporting or criticizing a means of controlling population size through national policy. Limit your support to arguments that would be expressed either by a deontologist or a utilitarian.
For instance, you might choose to support China’s one-child policy and do so for a reason that a Kantian would approve of. (The objection need not be expressed according to any particular ethical framework.) Your position will be stated in #2. Also state the framework you are adopting in #2 or #3.
I would expect you to spend at least an hour on background reading and research. Not everyone will read the same thing or have the same interests, and this self-directed reading and research will be the basis for our discussion on Wednesday, Sept. 24. (Please do keep track of what you’ve read, as I may ask.)
Some suggestions for starting your research:
Global population size: what the problem is
Treehugger: “The Elephant in the Room: Overpopulation”
Hoover Institute: “The Population Bomb Redux”
Wikipedia: “Malthusian Catastrophe”
China’s One-child Policy
Wikipedia: “One-child Policy”
BBC News: “Has China’s One-child Policy Worked?”
The U.S.
CSMonitor: “Fuse on the ‘Population Bomb’ Has Been Relit”
Salon: “Ask Pablo, population control”
Other nations
Wikipedia: “Population control”
Committee on Women, Population, and the Environment: “Resources on Population Control”
For Bill McKibben Fans:
Environmental Ethics
This post is a reminder that on Wednesday we’ll start discussing the book Deep Economy. Although I’ll structure the discussion somewhat, this is the first of several days when we’ll practice a fairly intense and inclusive discussion method. Please come prepared by having completed the reading assignment, and do have a question or comment that you’re ready to talk about. In a classroom this size, I expect nearly universal participation.
One topic that I want to take up is something that McKibben raises in the Introduction:
We will have to make the biggest changes to our daily habits in generations–and the biggest change, as well, to our worldview, our sense of what constitutes progress. Such a shift is neither “liberal” nor “conservative.” It borrows some elements from our reigning political philosophies, and is in some ways repugnant to each.
This is a class in ethics, not in politics, and I don’t want politics to prevent us from exploring ideas together. So we will from time to time talk explicitly about whether some issues are political or not in order to keep that worry from festering.
Another theme we will return to frequently is whether a problem is a matter to be addressed by personal choice and a sense of responsibility, or whether it is a social problem that is best addressed by social or political actions.
Matt Sokol, a member of our class, sent me a link to a video by Tim Minchin (a musical comedian) called “Canvas Bags.”
This is a funny and sarcastic video, but I think that it treats the subject matter quite sincerely. Matt said
I watched an interview with him where he openly states that his songs are intended to tackle weighty/uncomfortable subjects.
Matt also passed on a video about an egoistic rationalization for philanthropy. I won’t embed it, as the language is vulgar, but if you’re interested, it’s here.
Kantian Ethics
Some key ideas from the lecture:
- Kantian ethics responds to the need for moral truths to have an independent justification which depends on reason and not just on intuition or implicit agreement.
- Kant argues that if a law is to be morally valid, then it must follow with absolute necessity.
- He provides such an algorithm in the form of the Categorical Imperative.
- The Categorical Imperative is similar to–but more universal and less personal than–the Golden Rule.
- The core of morality is not what we do but why we do it.
- Principle-based ethical theories are called deontological.
If you have any questions, feel free to raise them in the comments section. On Wednesday I’d like to hear your ideas about whether you foresee any problems with applying this ethical theory to specific moral problems.
Just for fun, here’s a political attack ad:
Public Transportation
In the spirit of learning about local economies and about personal responses to the energy crisis, both themes of Deep Economy, here’s a New York Times article about Rochester’s public transit system.
Environmental Events
Today I learned about a couple more interesting, and fun, environmental events.
The Finger Lakes Institute is an educational center in Geneva (about an hour east of here) associated with Hobart & William Smith Colleges. It promotes research and education about the natural environment in the Central New York region. Events calendar here.
This coming Saturday (September 13), they are sponsoring a geo-caching event at Mendon Ponds Park (20 minutes’ drive from RIT). This would be fitting for our experiential project because it would be an opportunity to learn quite a lot about the natural environment in our local part of New York. (I don’t know about the fee to attend this event.)
September 13, 10 am -4 pm, Mendon Ponds Park – Algonkian Shelter
Explore the Finger Lakes Geocache
Nathan Burtch, FLI GIS Specialist, and Sarah Meyer, FLI Community Outreach Coordinator
A family fun event! A GPS unit is an electronic device that determines your approximate location on the planet and is used to navigate from your current location to another location. This geocache event incorporates the use of a GPS unit to explore and learn about the natural history of the Finger Lakes region. Participants in this event will use a GPS unit to find their way through an outdoor, trivia-filled scavenger hunt while learning about invasive species, geologic features, wildlife, insects, recreation, wetlands, and more! Beginners are welcome! Lunch provided. Please pre-register by calling (315) 781-4382 or email fli@hws.edu.
There are two other events that would meet our criteria-a service opportunity and a conference.
September 27, 10:00am – 2:30pm; Meet at the Finger Lakes Institute at 8:30 am and return by 4:00pm
Plant a Tree, Restore a Stream! VOLUNTEERS WANTED!!
Vegetation along a stream stabilizes its banks and provides fish habitat and shade. Participants in this volunteer opportunity will plant trees into pre-dug holes along Virgil Creek, which flows into Fall Creek in Tompkins County. Transportation from the Finger Lakes Institute (601 S. Main St.) provided, leaving at 8:30 am. Lunch Provided by Tompkins County SWCD. Children must be supervised by an adult at all times. Participants should dress to get dirty—closed-toed shoes, bug spray, sunscreen, gloves, etc. This event is free and open to the public. Space is limited if needing transportation from Geneva. Call (315) 781-4382 or email fli@hws.edu to sign up!October 18, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY
4th AnnualFinger Lakes Research Conference
The 4th Annual Finger Lakes Research Conference will highlight Finger Lakes scientific research and provide opportunities for students, faculty and other scientists to meet others interested in environmental science and scholarship. The goal of this annual conference is to highlight all aspects of Finger Lakes research, particularly as it applies to problems related to the Finger Lakes of western and central New York State. Both 15-minute oral presentation and poster displays are scheduled during the day-long conference. Presentations and posters are either: 1) results of ongoing or completed research, or 2) research plans and proposals. A $100 cash award honors the best student (undergraduate or graduate student) oral presentation. If you are interested in participating in the 4th Annual Finger Lakes Research Conference, contact Sarah Meyer at (315) 781-4382 or emailfli@hws.edu This event is free and open to the public.
October 10: Registration Deadline
Ethical Egoism
In class, we’ve distinguished between descriptive theories and prescriptive (or normative) theories.
Psychological egoism is descriptive: it says that people act selfishly (as a matter of fact). We can disprove it when we give examples of people acting unselfishly.
Ethical egoism is normative: it says that people should act selfishly (whether they actually do or not). Acting to further one’s own self-interests becomes the way to define morality, for the ethical egoist. An altruist is not living up to the highest standards of integrity. The egoist believes that the altruist is manipulated and weak for not pursuing egoism.
Looking at actual behavior does not necessarily tell us much about how people ought to behave. If morality were nothing more than always following our intuitions, there would be no point to having either moral codes or ethical theories.
However, I do think (and many other philosophers agree) that we can learn something from studying actual behavior. For example, we can learn whether people find it easy or difficult to act in ways they believe are moral.
I used the example in class of the ultimatum game, which shows that many people value fairness above self-interest. Studies by economists and psychologists have shown that while extreme acts of altruism are rare, altruism that meets the following criteria is quite common:
1. People are willing to sacrifice their own material well-being to help those who are being kind.
The attempt to provide public goods without coercion departs from pure self-interest. Experiments show that people cooperate to contribute toward a public good to a degree greater than would be implied by pure self-interest. Individually optimal contribution rates, as defined by the standard utility model, are close to 0 percent. However, in experiments, the willingness for an individual to contribute to a public good is highly contingent on the behavior of others.
2. People are willing to sacrifice their own material well-being to punish those who are being unkind.
Evidence provided by the ultimatum game, consisting of two people, a proposer and decider, splitting a fixed amount of money. The proposer offers a division of the money, then the decider decides if he or she refuses or accepts the proposal. If the decider says yes, they split the money according to the proposer’s offer, but if the decider says no, neither person gets any money. Standard utility model would find that any offer proposed to the decider should be expected if it is greater than zero because utility should increase with any increase in income. Along the same lines, the standard utility model would predict that the proposer would offer the smallest amount of money possible to the decider in order to maximize his or her own utility. However, data shows that deciders are willing to punish any unfair offer and proposers tend to make fair offers.
3. Both motivations 1 and 2 have a greater effect on behavior as the material cost of sacrificing becomes smaller.
Moral Relativism
I realize now that I should try to write a blog post for every class meeting—even if I don’t have anything to add—because it makes it possible for people to comment on a topic.
We talked quite a bit about tolerance on Monday. Some people think tolerance and relativism are closely related. That is, they want to be tolerant of others’ views because they believe tolerance is a virtue. And then, from the idea that all views deserve to be heard and all people deserve to be respected, they derive the idea that all views are equal.
In arguing against relativism, I hope I made it clear that we can be tolerant without being relativists. The reason is that relativism has strong consequences: it undermines any grounds we might have for thinking our beliefs or ways of life are more correct than someone else’s. Without rational grounds for our beliefs, we adopt one belief rather than another just because it is more popular or because we inherited it. Therefore, relativists have no reason to change or improve their way of life.
Our political system is set up to support tolerance but not relativism. That is, our democracy supports people expressing their views (”free speech”). Our newspapers publish all kinds of views in letters to the editor. But we also have laws that are based on legal principles or votes. If someone wants a law changed, they have to convince others that the change would be right. That is tolerant but not relativist.
Tim wrote a comment—really, asked a question—about tolerance. Does anyone have some answers?
Movies
In the description of the Ethical Experience Project assignment, I mention a film showing that you could attend as a basis for your project. I’ve now come across another. Note that there is a fee for these two options–theater admission is usually between $6 and $8. Each of these two film showings is followed by a panel discussion.
Saturday Sept. 20, 8pm, “A Man Named Pearl” at the Dryden Theater in Rochester.
Wednesday Oct. 15, 7pm, “The Water Front” at the Little Theater in Rochester.
