Argument Outline 3
ETHICS OF ACTIVISM: Animal Rights
Due Wednesday, October 15.
Consider these activities of animal rights activists:
1. There have been several firebombings of the homes of research scientists in California in recent years. Although no one has claimed responsibility, the police believe that they are the work of animal-rights extremists. There have also been many cases of personal threats, harassment, and vandalism of researchers’ private property. For instance, last February six masked intruders tried to force their way into the home of a UC-Santa Cruz researcher during a birthday party for her young daughter. One of the researchers targeted by a firebomb is a neurobiologist who uses mice in studies of how the brain’s visual system develops. News story and analysis here and here (also a class handout).
2. In 2004, animal activists illegally broke into a private egg production facility, owned and run by Wegmans, in Wolcott, NY. The facility housed 750,000 laying hens in battery cages and, other than being a very large farm, was similar to other egg farms across the country. The activists filmed the conditions, including dead and sick chickens in unsanitary conditions, and made the film widely available. The animal activists were sued by Wegmans, and Wegmans eventually sold the egg farm (though still uses it as a source of eggs). More information at http://www.wegmanscruelty.com/
3. A number of animal rights activists have created alternatives to animal dissections in schools and colleges. These include models, videos, and interactive computer simulations. Examples can be seen here: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=92
Pick one of these activities of animal rights activists (or some other activity that involves animal rights) and evaluate whether it can be ethically supported. If it cannot be supported, be sure to explain why. If it should be supported, evaluate whether doing so is an obligation or a merely a consideration. Depending on the case you pick and your argument supporting it, you might need to distinguish whether your position is in the realm of personal responsibility or public policy. You may support your view with any of the ethical frameworks we have considered so far: deontology, consequentialism, virtue, or justice.
Here are a few more links:
Wikipedia, “List of Animal Rights Groups”
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and PETA’s blog
McKibben, Chapter 4
“All for One, and One for All”: we discussed the benefits of tight communities–and the disadvantages, such as a loss of privacy, of options, and (sometimes) freedoms. McKibben’s argument is implicitly utilitarian: that local economies produce more satisfaction and less harm for more people than our current economy. How would someone argue with him on this point? Probably, it would have to be done on the basis of showing that his calculation of the benefits and disadvantages left something out.
One such disadvantage (which we did not discuss) is the possibility that tighter communities are related to higher levels of conflict between different communities–nationalism, racism, and the policing of ingroup/outgroup loyalties.
A question to consider is whether the only way to achieve the postive results that McKibben attributes is to cultivate cohesive communities that are local in geographical terms. Does technology permit us to participate in communities that are tight and supportive but distributed in space? Although McKibben is concerned with the transport of goods and the environmental toll of transportation, our economy is increasingly based in services, and knowledge and communication are no longer bound by space.
Along these lines, I heard a report on NPR yesterday that, for a variety of reasons, local banks are much less affected by the banking crisis than the large conglomerates are. You can listen to the story here.
Tim passed along this interesting timed map of WalMart’s spread.
Films that examine environmental ethics
We haven’t had a film clip in class for a couple of weeks, but we’ll find time for more viewing toward the end of the course. Ethics is amenable to learning through the film medium because learning to think philosophically is not just about amassing knowledge but about identifying and thinking through problems and observing how others frame ethical problems.
Here are some of my recommendations for films that are related to the issues raised in Deep Economy and other problems in environmental sustainability. Many of these have trailers available on the web. I’d love to hear your further suggestions!
About our energy economy:
About climate change:
About wildlife:
About local economies:
About waste:
- The Story of Stuff (20 min., online)
About food:
About industrialization and natural environments:
- Manufacturing Landscapes (showing on campus in January)
Reminder: Peter Singer Lecture
Peter Singer will be speaking on
“A Better, More Sustainable World”
at 2:30 tomorrow (Friday, Oct. 3)
in the Golisano Auditorium (Building 70).
I hope to see you there!
Here is an interesting interview with Peter Singer and a review of his book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, in which he applies utilitarianism to decisions about food.
Virtue Ethics
Deontological ethics and utilitarian ethics are called “the ethics of doing.” In contrast, virtue ethics is “the ethics of being.”
John Stuart Mill wrote that “Ninety-nine hundredths of all our actions are done from other [than moral] motives, and rightly so done if the rule of duty does not condemn them.” What this implies is that a utilitarian theory provides guidance on framing and solving certain kinds of moral problems. It is not intended to apply to every choice you make or action you undertake.
But, intuitively, most of us believe that normativity extends beyond solving big problems. Leading a good life is built up on daily habits and is not only the result of making the right choice at critical junctures. Virtue ethics speaks to this by casting morality as a matter of constantly building moral character.
We could find some weaknesses with virtue ethics as a way of characterizing morality, too. Such weaknesses don’t indicate that we should reject it, necessarily; rather, they are intended to show where the theory needs to be filled out and where it has to be applied cautiously.
One such weakness is that there is sometimes a fine line between virtue and vice. We don’t all admire the same people, or admire them for the same reasons. Is a politician who changes her mind on an issue an indecisive “flip-flopper” or someone who considers evidence and is not afraid to admit she was wrong?
How wide is the gap that separates being committed from being a fanatic? Or the difference between displaying perseverance and being stubborn? between being enthusiastic and being a zealot? between being cautious and being timid? between being assertive and being aggressive? between being confident and being an egomaniac?
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:
