Introduction to Environmental Ethics- DesJardins Chapter 1 and Hale Chapter 1

Why does DesJardins believe caused the crisis?

Mass extinctions, populations increase and ecological burden, toxic wastes.

Forests, wetlands, topsoils, mountains, grasslands are being developed, paved, drained, burned, and overgrazed out of existence

What is DesJardins view on science on climate change?

The debate about climate change is not merely scientific

What do we value?

How much should science inform policy decisions?

How do we make the right decisions in such a context?

• It's about what we should do after we know the scientific facts. It comes from our values Ex. cut carbon emissions to prevent human deaths. It's not until we discover that value until we claim we should act bc that is bad

What does DesJardins say about Philosophy?

Philosophical ethics involves stepping back to reflect on decision making Term: A rational, unbiased way of deciding "how we ought to live" through reasoning rather than just following authority or emotion.

Normative ethics concerns what we ought to do and not do

Critical thinking concerns the evaluation of the reasoning

• We are not taking someone's word, but thinking. Do right things for the right reason

What does DesJardins say about science?

Provides reliable information on which to shape policy. Technology offers hope in addressing environmental challenges

However, both have helped produce environmental problems

We take risks when we treat environmental problems as technical problems: science is not entirely value-neutral, geo-engineering skepticism seems justified, environmental problems are multi- disciplinary (you have to talk to physicists, environmentalists, politicians; not just one person)

What is an example of this connection?

_Silent Spring (1962) - Rachel Carson

Notes the deadly, long-term effects of DDT and other pesticides, influencing public attitudes

• successful environmental movement. So many people were concerned about DDT being in food, that it removed from all food

What does DesJardins say about science asking questions?

Science can only ask specific questions, bound by our conception of objectivity (It can tell us answers to questions we measure)

Policy makers can ignore concerns that cannot be measured objectively or can reject science as a decision-making procedure

How we frame questions will suggest different answers (eg. energy questions in terms of supply and demand)

Science is _____

Science is expensive

We should be careful to avoid overgeneralizing the expertise of science and particular scientists

• Scientists are experts in their domains. Asking questions beyond their domain raises questions. Why would their judgment be different from ours?

What does DesJardins say about politics and ethics?

But isn’t ethics relative? Just a matter of opinion?

We shouldn’t confuse the fact of disagreement with the claim that it is impossible to resolve. or that there isn’t a right answer. eg. slavery, murder, the holocaust, friendship, love, happiness (ex. I believe happiness is objectively good)

(if you believe one moral truth, say murder is bad, then you are not a relativist)

• Ex. debate with friend, one justifies stealing a chocolate bar from Target. One says its not right to do, while another says they don’t need the money because it won’t make a difference

• Ex. The Earth is flat. There is evidence just because there is a disagreement doesn’t mean there isn’t a right answer

DesJardins says ethics cannot “____” a conclusion beyond doubt.

Ethics cannot “prove” a conclusion beyond doubt (in the mathematical sense), but this is true for the sciences as well

All science is grounded on some unproven foundational, metaphysical and epistemic claims  Ethics deals with questions of "right" and "wrong," which are based on values, beliefs, and reasoning—not physical, measurable facts.

• You can’t make progress if you believe everything is relative

moral relativism

idea that right and wrong are merely matters of personal opinion or cultural custom (DesJardins does not believe in relativism)

Compare moral realist and relativist

• What is DesJarden?

Moral realist- you believe moral truths are objective facts, they are universal. (DesJardins is a realist- He says nothing will get done if we are relative), he thinks ethics should be as objective as science

Moral relativist: moral truths are not objective and depend on your culture and personal experiences

• It is hard to say who is wrong bc multiple people can be right.

What is the goal of politics and ethics?

Goal: Resolving the question of what we should do largely requires doing ethics

What is environmental ethics?

a systematic account of the moral relations between human beings and the natural environment

ex. Anthropocentric, future generations, natural objects

*Familiarity with ethical/philosophical issues involved aims to empower citizens to chrome full and thoughtful participants in the public policy debates

DesJardins main argument

Can’t just do science, but ethics too

Hale Chapter 1

TL;DR for Hale

Nature can be evil (wicked, bad) and we humans should still be environmentalists. In this sense, we should be better than nature

• Even though nature is bad, we still have to care about it because our capacity gives us more responsibilities (we are brute animals but have to act like human beings)

Where does Hale say to look for discovery at?

Discovery of dinosaur fossils calls out for explanations (1811)

Buckland calls it Megalosaurus. Sir Richard Owen later names dinosaurs

What do the bones suggest?

The bones also suggest mass extinction: there used to be large lizard-birds roaming around

The extinction of the dinosaurs 66 Bya made room for us mammals

What two things does science require?

Science requires data accumulation, but also inference-making (conceptual dot-connecting)

Observation and arguments

• -This is paradigm science. We also have to do dot-connecting

What is conceptual dot-connecting

observations and arguments

What does hale say about Science?

Climate scientists provide arguments

We should do x, because of climate forecast y

Like a physician

Description (y) (ex. the planet will warm by 2 degrees; science) vs. Prescription (x) (ex. we should implement a carbon tax)

-Scientists in this case do science and ethics (it does not tell us what to do, it jumps)

-The description informs us, but doesn’t tell us what to do

Explain the two ends: Science and Ethics

• Hale believes scientists are very good at telling us what is happening in the world. They provide the facts, the data, and the causal explanations

• This is where we decide how to act. It involves reasons, values, and moral justifications

• Hale argues that people often mistakenly think that science automatically tells us what to do

- People expect that the data provides moral motive, but it doesn’t

Hale claims: Hale’s main point is that because science can’t tell us what we "ought" to do, we must do the hard work of philosophical ethics and REACT

Who does Hale blame for climate change and the ecological crisis?

Its our own making

We disrupt our own ecosystems

Scientific arguments are not sufficient to tell us what to do (to be green)

What does Hale say about catastrophe vs responsibility?

We focus on catastrophe over responsibility

Catastrophe is only part of the moral problems. What if climate change benefited most of us? Still, we have strong reason to change our behavior

-Shouldn’t just rely on catastrophe

What is the history of catastrophes?

Around the 1980s NCAR, NOAA, NASA and others deeply investigate the history of the climate

can do this through sediment and rock strata, tree rings, ice-cores

--There is evidence that our earth goes through natural processes, but we should start to see cooling right now. We are out of wack. This are anomalous 

What is a good motivator for helping our crisis?

Understanding our current climate situation as a catastrophe may be a great motivator

However, it won’t motivate everything (selfish response)

Some have an investment in the status quo (ex. fossil fuel industries)

We might benefit from viewing the benefits of their action instead of hardships that it avoids

What does Hale say many ignore?

Many ignore the ethical in favor of the political (think partisans)

But what is the right thing to do

What are ethical problems with catastrophe logic?

Expected value calculation would suggest that we should dump all of our resources into preventing the catastrophe, even if it is extremely unlikely      -Also, what are we permitted to do in order to avoid catastrophes?

Catastrophes are everywhere: you ought to never drive fly, or go outside (most of our daily behavior is risky; we don’t treat that likely as central to our life even if they are possible; if we sacrifice everything in our life and live a catastrophic life, we are disregarding the things in life that are good)

Environmentalists ought to take a better route

Catastrophic- life ending If you take something catastrophic, nothing in your life is worth it. You disregard everything

What is theoretical reasoning indicated by?

Indicated by suppose, if, consider, maybe 

Main point on philosophy***

Philosophy relays on thought experiments to support ethical judgements