What I learned at school today....

I've been gone from the blog for a while and it's killing me. The reason, calculus! Among other things. I'm back at it for the fall semester and haven't had a lot of time lately to keep things up to date. The unfortunate thing is that I've been keeping busy with some great topics in my online classes. It's unfortunate because I've been wanting to share some of it with you here. So, I'm stealing a minute to paste in a paper I submitted that summarizes the first two weeks of reading and discussion from my online environmental ethics class. Our textbook is aptly titled Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy by Joseph DesJardins. This summary essay covers the introductory chapters of this book and relates some of my own thoughts on the relative content of the various philosophies mentioned in the book. Enjoy:

Summary Week 1 &2

I see that week 1 & 2 are directed to introduce the class to the field of ethical philosophy, and specifically set the stage for a semester long discussion on the various viewpoints of environmental ethics and the principles behind environmental concern. I come to this class with a well developed sense of my own environmental purposes and stewardship, as well as a fair amount of technical understanding of the issues and intellectual resources. After all, my focus of undergraduate study is electrical engineering for the explicit purpose of working in the renewable energy industry. Philosophy on the other hand, outside of my own self analysis, is a brand new topic for me and chapter one and two served to introduce a more educated perspective to my own amateur reflections.
What stood out to me most prominently in chapter 1 was how DesJardins emphasized the importance of science and ethics assisting each other in the advancement of environmental analysis. Based on this week’s discussions I feel that this idea had a positive impact on many of the rest of this class. In relating to the importance of ethics to scientific activity Jordanne S. prompted an interesting discussion about the ethical quagmire of discerning the choice to label and kill a pest or not. Jordanne made the point that an organism that humans label as a pest can actually play a vital role in an ecosystem. Also in spite of our best efforts at waging chemical warfare that many “pests” evolve around our noxious attacks and simply become stronger. As I see it our ethical appeal to preserve life (pests included) seems to fix, or correct the intentions, of what science is screwing up. For it is the nature of living things to survive. Our chemicals seem to rarely change that successfully in the long run. However natural order tends to control such issues if we would only allow that to happen. An example to finish this argument is found in my search for a proper insect control method for my garden. Chemicals are out of the option for me, so I looked to natural insecticides. Nature has provided this in the form of other living organisms such as lady bugs and green lacewings. Both mitigate the aphid population. So by doing as DesJardins recommends and following the process of philosophical ethics, “stepping back to reflect on our decision making”, we can see the solutions that nature has already provided to us!
On the flip side of Jordanne’s discussion Eric queried the importance of including scientific evidence with ethical motivations. While some of my classmates didn’t whole heartedly believe that ethics requires scientific support, I feel that this can be just as dangerous as scientific activity without ethical consideration. I couldn’t help but be reminded as I was reading last week of a scene from one of my favorite movies. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, King Arthur rides up on a town gathering as Sir Bedevere “the wise” questions the crowd that has brought a woman before him that they claim is a witch. The crowd is adamantly and excitedly determined to act on their “ethical” opinion that this woman is a witch and should be burned (because, after all, that’s what you do with a witch). Bedevere uses some off kilter rationalizing to conclude that if the woman weighs as much as a duck, that she is a witch. So he does give the impression that an ethical decision might be made with the help of scientific evidence. But two things mess this up, first his scientific logic is whack. Second, his scale is not properly calibrated. In the end a perfectly normal woman is sent to be burned because of a strong ethical motivation and a complete lack of scientific proof. This theatrical example pokes fun at the historical actions of religious fanatics that performed similar acts of “witch hunts”. So I think that it is accurate to say that ethical opinion can be empty without science.
Reading chapter 2 really served the meat and potatoes. In fact I found one particular topic very helpful to my own understanding of a new arena that I have recently become more active in. The arena is politics (shudder). The topic addressed in the text is utilitarian tradition in section 2.6. It served to give me a more clear understanding of how public officials much of the time are forced to make their decisions. Part of what DesJardins shows us in these first two chapters is that ethical philosophy is not one dimensional. Along that same understanding is the multifaceted expectations that our society impresses upon those elected to represent us. So with the innumerable ethical opinions that our officials would otherwise have to choose to acknowledge and act upon it makes perfect sense, no matter how flawed, for them to rely on preference utilitarianism. As I understand it this is a pretty way of implementing majority rule as a means to satisfy ethical desires. I also understand it as a way to help quantify the good, as I just learned. The ability to quantify issues of public interest allows for a more scientific approach to making public policy, this is especially true in our highly economically driven society. If it can’t be put in a pie chart, it can’t be put into a 60 second news reel that will hold our attention. Fortunately we have the arts, like theater and music to capture more of our emotional responses to the issues like global climate and pollution. This I feel is because it takes more time to build adequate character development in order to attach our subconscious, and our ethical foundations, to a particular topic.
Utilitarianism was the concept that had the greatest impact for me, however, the ideas of deontological ethics, ethical relativism, teleology, and religious ethics were important to me as well. Teleology was important in establishing the idea of everything of importance serving a specific purpose. But that opened the question to “what the heck is our (human’s) purpose?” And that draws an interesting connection with religious philosophy. I feel that religion has been a means to direct us towards whatever purpose that might be. Rick Warren made a powerful attempt at helping the Christian faithful find their purpose in life with the appropriately named “The Purpose Driven Life”. Much of what Warren and the teachings of my own religious upbringing have revolved around is a life with the purpose of serving God, in more or less words. The fact of the matter is, no one knows precisely what the purpose of humans on earth is! And that question alone, I feel, is the foundation of environmental debate. If we could only know what our purpose is it would be so much easier to argue, or agree on, what our communal responsibility is to the world around us.
Let me further expand on my thoughts regarding religion as a means to understanding our purpose. We have developed (in the Christian world) a textbook for understanding and acting on our purpose on this planet. However the bible is old, and has been manipulated in order to maintain a current understanding of what is expected of us, but at the cost of misinterpretation. As an example, if we took the literal translation of the King James version of the bible, in Genesis 1:28 it says “God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”, we can easily justify our collective actions involving the environment and the ecosystems we are effecting. But one thing that I find troubling when confronted with a religious argument is that there are so many different versions and interpretations of a text that was written thousands of years ago that has been translated into hundreds of different languages and countless generations of lingual adaptations. So the meaning of “subdue” may not hold the same meaning as it did in ancient times.
Even with the different uses of this introductory text of our own existence we all still need to recognize what is important and what we must take care of. Teology serves to build a foundation for this type of analysis. Aristotle developed a belief that enables us to recognize the full understanding of an individual creature or living organism. Teological principles also allow us to recognize when we do not fully understand the value of a living organism. This is important to the preservationist arguments in that if we have not come to understand the final cause of an organism that isn’t to say that it does not have one, and therefore should be protected. This is a principle argument for the protection of the rainforest, which had been an area of concern for as long as I can remember. The argument that I have heard more than any, is that there are so many undiscovered species in the rainforest that the mathematical odds of finding a medically revolutionary drug in the form of one of these undiscovered species is greatly in favor of preserving this lush resource of unstudied ecology.
Relativism touched home with me because I frequently refer to my religious upbringing as the foundation to who I am now, ethically and morally speaking (although religion is not an active part of my life these days). So my ethics are stated to be relative to my environment as a child. Religious ethics is an interesting side topic to me, because while I just pointed out their influence on my ethical philosophy, I haven’t witnessed very strong evidence of religious environmentalism. This is in a prominently Christian experience. Not to say that religious persons are not also environmentalists, but many of the folks that I know who are devote Christians lead a very conspicuously consumptive lifestyle, this could be tied to the interpretation of “subdue”.
I have saved deontological philosophy to discuss last because this is the ethical basis that I feel most predominantly represents my own environmental ethics. I don’t cast aside the other examples that DesJardins has introduced us to however, because I feel that the collective most effectively represents the most rational and fair means to explain what our duty is to the environment. That is, within the positive points of each example. The way in which DesJardins introduces us to deontology instantly clicked with me. It helped to categorize that unexplainable, unquantifiable, feeling that you get about certain issues. I also like how it brings back a sense of personal responsibility, unlike the consequential comparisons of utilitarian ethics. As I write this and review our textbook, I’m a little unsure of exactly how Immanuel Kant intended to represent his ideas. My first impression of Kantian ethics was sort of like a more intrinsic means of ethical analysis. Taking care of our environment and ecosystems simply because it is the right thing to do. But as I reread section 2.8 on deontology it is beginning to sound like Kantian ethics gives us the negative argument of not being responsible for what we can’t control. I think that this is a lazy scapegoat for important issues. I bet that Kant did not mean to provide such an argument for the irresponsible but rather emphasis the importance of being “held ethically responsible for our intentions” as DesJardins explains.
Awareness and understanding of all of these various ethical philosophies is interesting and important to me because I recognize that I exhibit a bit more of a deontological character. Often I consider packing it all in and starting a sustainable farm that would support my family and simply enjoying what I have without affecting anyone else. Therefore I would have no concern over whether or not I was harming anyone. The reality of this is that by shutting myself off from all but my closest family I would in a round about way be harming the rest simply by my absence and non involvement.

Wow! Good job reading through it all, thanks. Or if you just scrolled through it because it bored you silly maybe you should check out Jody's new blog for your viewing pleasure. (Lots of pictures)