Paper Assignment, Environmental Ethics, Spring 2005
The paper should be 5-7 pages (double space, typewritten) and explore the ethical and philosophical dimensions of an
environmental issue. (Please use recycled paper or print your paper on the back side of already used paper, if at all possible.)
The paper counts for 34% of your course grade and so it should be a significant effort. You choose the topic.
A one page description of the proposed paper is Friday, March 25th, at 3pm, in my mailbox, 1st floor 14 Glebe. It should include
a title, characterization of your topic, the major lines of argument you intend to pursue, tentative thesis, and a brief review of
one key philosophical article you will use in your paper (including how you will use it) The paper is due on Friday , April 15th,
3pm, 1st floor mailbox of 14 Glebe. Staple the paper description (with my comments) to the back of the final paper, and keep an
extra copy of the final paper for yourself.
The paper can either focus on a specific issue (such as why preserve biodiversity, the morality of hunting, or property rights and
environmental regulations) or evaluate more general issues (such as anthropocentric environmental ethics, animal rights, or the
tensions between an animal welfare ethics and environmental ethics). You could write a paper developing your own coherent
environmental ethic, in response to those we have studied.
- This paper should be a philosophy paper in which you focus on normative, evaluative, or conceptual issues.
For some topics, factual and scientific information will be necessary. But focus on the ethical and conceptual
dimensions and on the questions of public policy involved. (Always ask: What should we do concerning this
issue and why? What are the philosophical, ethical, and conceptual questions which must be answered if this
issue is to be resolved?)
- Tie your paper into the central themes of the course. The paper must show that it was written by someone who
took this course. Someplace in your paper you should (probably) indicate how the various environmental ethics
we have considered (e.g., anthropocentrism, sentience-centrism, individual biocentrism, holistic ecocentrism)
bear on your topic. Which of these are you assuming (or rejecting) in your argument, if any, and why? In other
words, what position(s) on the question of moral standing are you assuming (or rejecting) and what are your
reasons? Are you accepting (or rejecting) individualism or holism, egalitarianism or inegalitarianism? If the
issue you are discussing (and the position you are taking on it) would be illuminated by addressing these issues,
you should do so. Additionally, if an assigned article has bearing on your topic, you must discuss what it says
about it and your response.
- At least one outside (not assigned in the course) philosophical reading is required for this paper. (This means
you can use a philosophical article from our text that has not been assigned for the course.) Those who write on
a topic not specifically covered on the schedule of assignments will have to do more library work. I suggest
using the journals Environmental Ethics, Environmental Values, and Between the Species (all are in the
library). The library has excellent holdings in most areas of environmental philosophy; you should be able to
find something on almost any topic you choose. I can help you find specific articles relevant to your subject if
you are having trouble finding them. A tremendous Internet resource is available at the following web site:
https://www.phil.unt.edu/bib. This bibliography (kept by the International Society for Environmental Ethics)
summarizes articles in the field and can be searched by key word. Also, my own personal bibliography
(containing mainly environmental material) will be on the class website. You can also use the reference (in the
Library Reference section) called "Philosophers Index" which lists by subject, title, and author most
philosophical articles that have been published. Don't get bogged down on this dimension of the paper. I want
you to think for your self; the outside reading is meant only to help stimulate your own thinking. But I want
every paper description to include such an article and a discussion of how you will use it.
Talk with each other (and me) about your ideas. Read ahead for topics on the syllabus we have not yet discussed. Make sure
you write on an issue you want to spend some time thinking about. Use the College Skills Lab and the Philosophy Writing Lab
(both in 216 Education Center). See the flier on the Philosophy Writing Lab.
Possible Paper Topics (These are suggestions only; their aim is to stimulate your own creative energies in choosing your topic. Consider topics in the second half of the course as well.)
- Should we or should we not let nature take its course in national parks?
- The morality of field research on animals. Is it morally permissible to sedate, capture, radio collar, take blood samples from, etc. (say) grizzly bears?
What sorts of ethical guidelines must field researchers follow in the interference with and handling of wild populations of animals? Is killing birds (and
other animals) for museum specimens morally justifiable?
- Discuss the aesthetic value of nature. How is the aesthetic appreciation of nature different from the aesthetic appreciation of art objects? Is nature always
beautiful? Does nature's aesthetic value provide adequate support for strong environmental protection?
- Moral issues concerning pets. The propriety of pet-keeping. Companion animals, paternalism, and community. Are pets degraded wild animals with less
value than their wild counterparts? Should someone who believes in animal rights reject the institution of pet ownership? Is having a pet an
anthropocentric way of relating to nonhuman nature? Describe and evaluate from your own perspective Gary Varner's views on pets. Which animals may
be kept as pets?
- Animal/environmental ethics and zoos. Are zoos morally acceptable? Can we justify putting animals in "prisons" for our viewing pleasure (or even for
educational purposes)? Are zoos an anthropocentric way of relating to other animals? More specifically, should we allow the confinement of marine
mammals (or other mammals?) in "zoological parks?"
- An analysis and critique/defense of Julian Simon's views of the environmental crisis.
- Consumerism and the environment (including issues raised by Peter Wenz and the Afluenza Video).
- The use of animals in teaching (e.g., frog or cat dissection).
- An ethical evaluation of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
- How ought animal activists think about and respond to predation in the wild? How do Sagoff, Everett and Hettinger answer this question?
- A moral evaluation of hunting in light of Brian Luke's article.
- Compare and contrast the morality of fishing vis-a-vis the morality of hunting. Is fishing acceptable even though hunting is immoral? Do hunted animals
feel pain while fish do not? Is fishing just as morally legitimate/illegitimate as hunting? Is catch and release fishing more legitimate (or less illegitimate)
than fishing for one's dinner? How does fishing morally compare to other human uses of animals?
- The promise and limits of the movement to restore the environment. Is restoration a big lie, involving the further domination of nature?
- Environmental Justice and Environmental Racism: What is it? Does it exist? What are the moral issues involved? What should be done about it, if
anything? (Use Peter Wenz's article.)
- Property rights and the environment. Do environmental regulations unfairly "take" private property without just compensation? If
government/community regulations which decrease property values require compensation to the property owners, then does government/community
actions that increase property values require compensation from the property owner to the community? Why or why not? Are property rights natural or
created by the community? Does a community's right to environmental integrity (or the environment's right to environmental integrity) outweigh an
individual human's property rights? Does the right of an endangered species to exist outweigh a human's property right?
- Beachfront management: Morally evaluate the legitimacy of South Carolina's attempt to control construction on the beach. Include a discussion of the
recent (Lucas) Supreme Court case and its implications on environmental regulations in general. This is a subset of the property rights and environmental
- Duties to Endangered Species: Would it matter if the spotted owl went extinct? Ought we to preserve all or only certain species? Do other species have
inherent value independent of their usefulness to human beings? Do they have a right to exist? Is it worse to kill members of endangered species than to
kill equally psychologically sophisticated members of common species? Why?
- Philosophical, ethical, and policy evaluation of the Endangered Species Act: Does the act need to be revised? Why or why not? If so, how should it be
revised? What moral/ethical basis underlies your recommendations?
- Is environmentalism (and environmental ethics) an elitist concern of the rich and of the developed world--one that is irrelevant to the poor and the peoples
of the developing world? Does the developing world have legitimate criticism of the environmentalism of the developed countries?
- Should we preserve wilderness? Why or why not? Is the ideal of wilderness (as a place humans visit, but do not remain) flawed since it fails to realize
that humans are a legitimate part of nature? Is the idea of wilderness flawed since it ignores that ancient humans (as well as modern society) has so
affected the landscape that no pristine wilderness remains to be preserved? Isn't wilderness preservation simply adding recreational facilities for rich
elitist college kids (and their professors) who have the time, money, and energy to backpack into it? Is putting the focus on wilderness to miss a more
important focus on sustainable development, as Callicott suggests. What is Cronon's critique of wilderness and what is Rolston's response?
- Do we have duties to ecosystems and natural processes? Do they have intrinsic value? Evaluate the possibility of seeing ecosystems and natural
processes as morally considerable in their own right. Do we have duties to rain forests or to evolution (or only indirect duties regarding them)? Why or
- The meaning and value of the natural: What does it mean for something to be natural? Is the natural better than the unnatural, artificial, cultural? Are
humans part of--or separate from--nature? In what sense can or should humans follow nature? Does the fact that something is natural give us a reason to
imitate it? Should we, as Aldo Leopold suggests, "reappraise things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free?"
- Should we manage nature? Must we manage nature? Does managing nature destroy the value of nature? Must we manage nature to protect nature?
- What is the proper religious perspective toward the nature? What does religion have to say about environmental issues. What should it say? Are the new
eco-theologies on the right track? Is Christianity responsible for the environmental crisis or does it provide a strong ethic for responsible treatment of the
environment? Would other religious views (e.g., those of Native American's) foster a better environmental ethic? What view of moral standing does the
proper religious approach to the environment take?
- What are the Native Americans attitudes toward nature? How are they different from the traditional Western European approach toward nature? What
can we learn from the Native American's approach, if anything? What should we reject?
- What has moral standing (=is morally important in its own right)? Do (certain or all) animals? Do plants? Microbes? Do ecosystems? Land forms?
Natural processes? In virtue of what does something have moral standing?
- Is egalitarianism in environmental ethics a preferable approach to various inegalitarian approaches (including moral hierarchies)?
- Are humans superior to other animals and to plants? Explain and evaluate Taylor's views on this issue.
- Environmental individualism versus holism: Is intrinsic value (and/or moral standing) located in organic individuals or in biological communities? What
are some of the different practical implications of these styles of environmental ethics? Consider, for example, the morality of hunting, saving of
endangered species, and the importance of human individuals.
- A critique or defense of anthropocentric environmental ethics. What are the different versions of anthropocentrism? Are some stronger than others? Is
anthropocentrism the best environmental ethic?
- Do we have any duties to future generations of people? Why or why not? What are these duties? How much nature do we owe to future generations?
How can we harm future generations by destroying the environment, if they wouldn't have existed but for this destruction?
- Can animals feel pain? Why or why not? Which animals? Assuming they do feel pain, does their pain count morally? Does it count equally with the
same pain of a human animal? Can animals feel the same sort of pain a human can feel? Discuss the implications of your views for our treatment of
- What is speciesism? Is it a morally acceptable or not? Is it morally analogous to racism and sexism? Why or why not?
- The morality of eating (e.g., meat eating versus a vegetarian diet or hunting for one's meat versus buying it in a grocery store). What do animal and
environmental ethics suggest about ethically appropriate eating? (Compare and evaluate the views of Singer, Regan, Causey, Taylor, and Rolston)
- Should we constrain or eliminate factory farming of animals? Is "old McDonald" farming of animals a morally permissible use of them?
- Are wild animals more morally important than domesticated animals? Are there any morally relevant differences between them? Why or why not?
- Describe, evaluate, and adjudicate the alleged incompatibility between animal liberation and environmental ethics. (Are Sagoff and Causey right that
these movements are not compatible? Does Taylor manage to combine the two sorts of moral concerns?)
- Is human population (growth?) an environmental problem? Should government regulate population? Do we have an obligation to stop increasing the
world's human biomass? Why or why not? What sorts of methods are morally allowable and practically feasible to control human population, if any?
- The moral justifiability (or unjustifiability) of civil disobedience for environmental causes (e.g., Greenpeace). The moral justifiability (or unjustifiability)
of ecological sabotage: Spiking trees, putting sand in earth-movers, etc. to prevent destruction of natural areas (e.g., Earth First!).
- The justifiability of Animal Liberation Front activities.
- Deep ecology: What is it; how is it different from shallow ecology; what is to be said in its favor and against it; what changes in our lifestyle does it
- Ecofeminism: What is it and is it an important or necessary approach to environmental issues?
- Social ecology: Is the root cause of environmental problems the capitalist economic system in which businesses make decisions which effect public
environmental quality on the basis of private economic self-interest?
- Biotechnology and genetic engineering (The moral significance (if any) of genetic engineering or other biotechnology): What are the moral and
environmental ethics issues pertaining to this technology? For example, is it permissible to genetically engineer a strain of mice so they will get breast
cancer and then patent this new strain? What sorts of moral issues (if any) are raised by genetically engineered tomatoes appearing in grocery stores or by
genetically engineered hormones given to cows to increase their milk production? Should we require that genetically engineered foods be labeled? Does
the release into the environment of new forms of life created by humans in a laboratory pose any special problems concerning risk or loss of value? Are
there any morally relevant differences between traditional selective breeding of animals and plants and the new biotechnologies of genetic engineering?
Should we genetically engineer humans for superior traits? Why or why not? (If you write on this topic, please do not focus on human genetic