Exam 13: Extending Ethics

Can you recount the changes and actions McKibben recommends? Are they sufficient, too much, or too little? Explain your answer.

What does Hawken identify as the primary cause of environmental degradation?

Shiva argues that--contrary to popular belief--globalization and economic development have not raised the standard of living for the vast majority of those living in the developing world, but rather have led to environmental degradation and poverty.

McKibben calls for a "world government" to manage our descent into the abyss of global warming.

Leopold writes that the "extension of ethics, so far studied only by philosophers, is actually a process of __________."

Naess lists even principles of deep ecology. Restate each of these principles in your own words. Which of them are and are not moral imperatives? Why? Which are feasible? Why? Which are infeasible? Why?

Naess's second principle is "biospherical egalitarianism-in principle." Is the equal value of all life a reasonable value? A moral value? Why or why not? Does the qualification "in principle" make the principle easier to accept? Why or why not?

Hawken argues that overpopulation is the primary cause of environmental degradation.

According to Shiva, exactly what is the "dominant paradigm"? Do you find this generalization persuasive? Why or why not? Are there more complicated motives and factors involved that she doesn't address? If so, what are they?

The central concern in Oliver's poem is to show that _________.

Ethically, what do you think can be gained, if anything, by coming to some recognition of your place "in the family of things"?

Oliver's poem is written from a Christian perspective.

Naess advocates shallow ecology.

Leopold's primary argument is that there has been a moral evolution insofar as human beings have gradually expanded their moral consideration to people different from themselves. Do you see a reason why the expansion should not extend beyond human beings? Is so, what is it? How do you think Leopold might respond to your objection?

Taylor argues that plants and animals have inherent worth.

McKibben argues that we have so fundamentally changed the face of the Earth, that Earth merits a new name-this he calls "Eaarth."

Shiva argues that subsistence economies that satisfy basic needs through self-provisions are not genuinely poor. What examples does she give of this "culturally perceived" false poverty?

Oliver claims that we should walk on our knees for 100 miles through the desert, repenting for the harms we have done to the environment.

The "biocentric outlook on nature" has four main components, according to Taylor. What are they? Do you agree with any or all parts of this outlook? Which parts and why?

Restate in your own words the two ways that Leopold thinks people view the natural world. Is this division too simple, or are there other possible positions? Explain. Which position, A or B, do you find more reasonable? Why?