SMU – PHIL 3379 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – FALL 2023 – JEAN KAZEZ – eesmu.blogspot.com

Friday, September 8, 2023

MODULE 1: The problem of conflicting claims


AGENDA

  1. Taylor, continued
  2. A little reviewing

RESPECT FOR PERSONS AND NATURE

We covered this last time. He discusses in "The Ethics of Respect for Nature."


A few details:
  1. He denies human superiority; says nature deserves the same respect
  2. But doesn't deny differences
    • plants don't have any interests and don't suffer
    • only humans have rights, because only they make their own claims
  3. Respect has a narrow basis--just based on having a good of your own

Would it be totally life-altering to life by the ethics of respect for nature?

What should we do in conflict situations?


  1. Taylor says we can't resolve by saying "we are owed greater respect"
  2. How should we resolve? 

Priority principles for resolving conflicts (Taylor, "Competing Claims" p. 263). These principles express the ethics of respect for nature.  If you follow them, you're respecting nature.

  • A. The principle of self-defense
  • B. The principle of proportionality
  • C. The principle of minimum wrong
  • D. The principle of distributive justice
  • E. The principle of restitutive justice


PRIORITY PRINCIPLE A: SELF-DEFENSE

Persons: pursuing life or other crucial goods
Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods by threatening humans
Principle: You can defend yourself in the least harmful way available




Applications
Which of these are allowed under the Self-defense Principle?
  1. Shooting an attacking bear
  2. Killing a bear that's on your property
  3. Cutting down a wild tree that threatens to fall on someone
  4. Using weed killer on wild poison ivy
  5. Using DDT on mosquitos
  6. Killing wild fish if I'm starving in the woods


PRIORITY PRINCIPLE D: DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE 

Persons: pursuing life or other crucial goods
Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods but not threatening humans
Principle: I should distribute seriously good things and bad things fairly.



Applications
Which of these are allowed under the Distributive Justice principle?
  1. Must kill fish to stay alive--may I?  Taylor says: It's not unfair to choose my own life.
  2. I killed the fish to stay alive, but must I share it with my hungry dog?
  3. Suppose I could kill a plant instead of a fish, would that be better?

PRIORITY PRINCIPLE B: PROPORTIONALITY

Persons: pursuing something trivial
Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods and not threatening humans
I should give up trivial goods that are seriously costly for plants and animals.



Applications (all bad, says Taylor)
  1. Cutting down wild redwoods to create beautiful furniture
  2. Picking wildflowers for a bouquet
  3. Killing wild animals for fun or trophies
Review--compare and contrast:


PRIORITY PRINCIPLE C: MINIMUM WRONG

Persons: pursuing something important, but not absolutely essential
Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods and not threatening humans
Principle: I can pursue such goals if I minimize the wrongs done to plants and animals as much as possible



Applications
  1. Cutting down a forest to build an art museum? Ok if we build tall, to save trees
  2. Cutting down trees to build apartments, an airport, etc.



PRIORITY PRINCIPLE E: RESTITUTION

Persons: have harmed plants/animals despite following the other principles
Plants/animals: some are dead or have been harmed
Principle: I should make up for the harm by doing something good for plants/animals

Applications

  1. After killing animal for food, perform acts of kindness.
  2. After destroying forest for art museum, plant more trees.     


REVIEW