Environmental Ethics: Unit II Short Essay - Considering objections

Goal: In the previous essay, you practiced describing and applying other people’s views. In this essay, you will continue that, and also expand to practicing how to object and respond to objections. Objections are used in many ways in philosophy:

1) The pattern of objection & response is a useful tool for clarifying claims and clearing up common misunderstandings. It is a good way to answer any questions the reader might have.

2) Thinking of possible objections is also an excellent way to practice the Principle of Charity and understand why someone might reasonably disagree.

3) By considering the most important or common objections, the writer can also discover ways to improve the initial argument and even the conclusion.

4) Finally, a back and forth of objection/response/counter-response/counter-counter-response offers a way to explore an idea or argument in much more depth and nuance.

Note: Considering objections is often presented as a way to persuade the reader to agree with the argument and its conclusion. And, yes, that can be important side effect of responding to objections. However, that is not our primary purpose in this Unit II exercise. We are explorers here. You are free to change your mind, disagree with your conclusion, and explore new ideas. Writers often find themselves changing their minds – and their arguments – after gathering more information, thinking about the their arguments in more detail, and imagining how it would play out in real life. This is a good thing!

Writing these essays also results in a close reading of and analysis of the text, allowing you to become more familiar with a major topic in this course.

Length: I was very impressed with the level of editing that went into the first essays. By pruning the words down to the absolute essentials and leaving everything else out, the essays were able to reach a high level of clarity and focus. For this second essay, we are practicing a different skill: the exploration of ideas. So we will have a little bit more space to explore. You can spend more of your time on this essay being creative and thoughtful, and not as much time on editing (though there will still a lot of editing to keep within even this larger word limit). 2-3 pages (500-1200 words)

Assessment: Essays will be graded on whether you complete all parts of the prompt, how clearly you explain your view and the view you are evaluating (examples always help!), the accuracy of the views attributed to the author being evaluated, the originality of your objection and/or response to an objection, and professionalism (grammar, spelling, and proper citations).

More emphasis will be placed on creativity of ideas, practicing the Principle of Charity, and demonstrating an understanding of why someone might disagree with the conclusion (and, of course, how you could respond). When considering objections, it is important to be respectful towards everyone involved, and to respond in the spirit of exploring new ideas. The goal here is not to “be right.” Rather, the goal here is to learn something new.

Committing logical fallacies in reasoning, incomplete citations, and being outside the page limit (either above or below) will result in a lower grade.

Academic Integrity: You are required to follow the Bellevue College policy regarding academic integrity. Failure to properly cite may result in a zero for the assignment, and possibly an F for the course. Breaches of Academic Integrity will be reported to the Dean. It is a serious offense to present someone else’s words or ideas as if they were your own. All quotations, paraphrasing, and references must be properly cited. This means that if you refer to any materials or people when preparing the assignment (including the textbook and lectures), you must provide a list of these materials with your assignment. For any words that you did not write, you must put quotation marks around them (“ ”) and cite them (write down who wrote them). If you have any questions about proper citations, let me know. I’m happy to review citations. For more details, see the Syllabus, the APA Citations Module, and the  Bellevue College Student Code,
Links to an external site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tips on writing a philosophical essay:

When presenting your view, clearly state your main claim. Give reasons to support your view. We are looking for sound (or at least valid) arguments, so state all your premises. If you assume a premise (i.e., "wellbeing is morally good"), write it out. Be sure to clarify all technical terms by defining them in your own words and providing examples. Every time you quote an author, you must also explain the quote in your own words. Never give the impression that someone else's words or ideas are really your own (that would be plagiarism and can result in a zero grade on the essay).

When considering objection make sure the objections and responses directly engage with each other and with the argument, and do not go off into new directions or raise new issues. There is a lot more to say than will fit in your paper, that’s okay.

Useful Resources:

For guidelines on how to write philosophy, I recommend these websites written by philosophy professors:

                                                     http://www.sfu.ca/~horban/ Links to an external site.

                                                     http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html Links to an external site.

                                                     http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/blattnew/tips.htm Links to an external site.

I also recommend this book: Writing Philosophy: A student’s guide to writing philosophy essays by Lewis Vaughn

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Topics

Select one topic from the prompts below.                                                      

 Prompt A Evaluate Carbon Tax in terms of Environmental Justice

Photo caption: Proponents of I-732, the revenue-neutral Carbon Tax. 2016

In 2016, Washington State voters considered whether to implement a state-wide carbon tax. This tax would have been revenue-neutral, meaning the taxes raised from carbon emissions would have been offset by a lower state sales tax, for example. Proponents argued that carbon pricing is an essential tool for shifting our economy away from carbon emissions and for fighting Climate Change (Planet Money 2013; Bauman n.d.; Thomas 2016). Critics on one side argued that Climate Change was not a serious threat, and so did not need a tax to address it, or that a carbon tax would hurt the economy (Sykes 2016; Morrone 2016). Critics on another side, including the Sierra Club, Front and Centered, and Governor Jay Inslee, agreed Climate Change is a threat and that Carbon Pricing is needed, but argued that revenue-neutral carbon pricing/taxing violates the principles of Environmental Justice (Front and Centered 2016, Barnes 2016; Roberts 2016):

“The problem a carbon tax faces – the problem we both face because we are ultimately allies on the long road to putting a price on carbon – is that carbon is an economic necessity. Some people will continue to use it because their current reality gives them no choice. That imposes a hard limit to the tax’s effectiveness.

This is a primary reason why infrastructure improvements must be a compulsory part of a carbon tax. Some infrastructure changes will happen – in wealthy households and communities. This is cost prohibitive in lower income communities, though. That is why we must invest in infrastructure as part of the tax system – or we won’t lower carbon emissions enough. People have to do more than simply decide that they aren’t going to use fossil fuels anymore in order to give them up….

Wealthy people and communities can build infrastructure and avoid paying the carbon tax – poor people and communities can’t. Over time, the poor folks are stuck paying the tax while the wealthy get a break.” (Barnes 2016)

The initiative I-732 was voted down by 59% of the state voters. Since then, Governor Jay Inslee has proposed carbon pricing (WA Governor’s Office 2018), and there is a bill, House Bill 1646 Links to an external site., currently being considered in the Washington State Senate (Martinell 2017; Front and Centered 2018).

To answer this prompt:

Evaluate carbon pricing from the perspective of the Principles of Environmental Justice. Evaluate either the current bill being considered, House Bill 1646 Links to an external site., or evaluate the revenue-neutral proposal that was voted down, I-732 (or another carbon pricing proposal that you are aware of). That means explain what Environmental Justice is, present an argument for the bill, state a possible objection to that argument, and a possible response, and then a counter-response, focusing on the principles of Environmental Justice.

The following outline is a guideline. Each part is not strictly required this time, so that you can explore your ideas more freely. However, this should give you a sense of what I’m looking for:

First, very briefly explain the Carbon Pricing plan being considered and provide a brief possible argument in support of it (for instance, see Bauman n.d.; Project Money 2013). Second, explain the concept of Environmental Justice (see Bullard 2001; National.. 1991). Third, explain one objection to carbon pricing from the perspective of Environmental Justice. (For example, you could use the concepts of Environmental Justice to evaluate Barnes’s objections. See Barnes 2016; Front and Centered 2016b). Fifth, describe a possible response to the objection you considered. Sixth, Explain a possible counter-response to the response you considered. Ultimately, do you think the carbon pricing plan you focused on (either HB 1646 or the revenue-neutral I-732 plan) violates the Principles of Environmental Justice? Why or why not? Cite all sources that you use when preparing this essay. Optional: Keep going with responses and counter responses until you run out of space. This allows you to focus on one objection and go into more detail.

(You may answer these questions in whatever order works best for the flow of your essay.)

Sources:

Bauman, Yoram. Interview. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G41YZ9KPYPM Links to an external site.

Bullard, R. D. (2001). Environmental justice in the 21st century: Race still matters. Phylon.  49(3/4)

Barnes, Robin. (2016). “Why say NO to I-732? It’s about justice — environmental and social justice,” The Cascadia Advocate. Accessed Feb 10, 2018. https://www.nwprogressive.org/weblog/2016/08/why-say-no-to-i-732-its-about-justice-environmental-and-social-justice.html Links to an external site. (see especially comment #8).

Front and Centered. (2016a). “Equitable Carbon Pricing: Our Priorities and How to Identify False Promises,” http://frontandcentered.org/equitable-carbon-pricing-our-priorities/ Links to an external site.

------ (2016b) “Challenging Armchair Equity: Toward A Movement Lead By Frontline Communities” http://frontandcentered.org/challenging-armchair-equity-toward-a-movement-lead-by-frontline-communities/ Links to an external site.

------ (2016c) Principles for Climate Justice, http://frontandcentered.org/principles/ Links to an external site.

------- (2018) Statement on 2018 Climate Legislative Proposals

http://frontandcentered.org/statement-on-2018-climate-legislative-proposals/ Links to an external site.

Martinell, TJ. (2017). “New Carbon Tax Proposal Under Fire By Washington Manufacturers,” in lens.

http://thelens.news/2017/03/15/new-carbon-tax-proposal-under-fire-by-washington-manufacturers/

Morrone, James, Jr. (2016) “Top Five Pitfalls of a Carbon Tax,” in Americans for Tax Reform. https://atr.org/top-five-pitfalls-carbon-tax Links to an external site.

National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit “Principles of Environmental Justice (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Links to an external site. “ (1991) 

Planet Money. (2013). “Episode 472: The One-Page Plan To Fix Global Warming” 20 minutes.https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming Links to an external site.

Roberts, D. (2016) “The left vs. a carbon tax” in Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington Links to an external site.

Sykes, Justin. (2016). “Overwhelming Majority in the House Votes to Oppose a Carbon Tax,” in Americans for Tax Reform. https://www.atr.org/overwhelming-majority-house-votes-oppose-carbon-tax Links to an external site..

Thomas, Jake. 2016. “Q&A with Yoram Bauman, economist behind carbon tax initiative,” in Inlander. https://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/07/19/qanda-with-yoram-bauman-economist-behind-carbon-tax-initiative Links to an external site. 

Washington Department of Ecology. (2012). “Water Resources,” in Preparing for a Changing Climate: Washington State’s Integrated Climate Response Strategy, Publication No. 12-01-004 https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1201004i.pdf Links to an external site. 

WA Governor's Office. "Inslee’s State of the State calls for action this session to put a price on carbon." Jan 9, 2018, https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslees-state-of-the-state-calls-for-action-this-session-to-put-a-price-on-carbon-6700b2f6ab2d Links to an external site.

Photo caption: Climate Change is leading to increased winter water flows and decreased summer water flows Washington State. Combined with melting snowpacks, these changes could lead to a “severe impact” on water supplies in Washington State.

 “Figure 5. 2040 Projected climate change impact on summer flows by watershed. Climate change will intensify current water needs of people, fish, and farms in at least 45 percent of the state, shown in red on the map.
” Source: Washington Department of Ecology

Photo Caption: Trends in April Snowpack in the Western United States, 1955–2016 https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-snowpack Links to an external site.

Prompt B Evaluate Mass-transit construction in terms of Environmental Justice Principles

King County is currently expanding the light rail in the Seattle metropolitan area, including planning lines out to Bellevue. This has led to a lot of construction, as well as a push for “Transit Oriented Development” (TOD). Evaluate the process by which new mass transit is built from the perspective of Environmental Justice (that is, evaluate either Transit Oriented Development, or the process of decision making for the construction, etc.). That means: explain what Environmental Justice is, then present a very brief argument for such development, state a possible objection to that argument, followed by a possible response, and then a counter-response, focusing on the principle of Environmental Justice. Be sure the objections and responses directly engage with each other and the argument.

Photo Caption: Rosalie Johnson, 84, who has lived in the Central District since 1956, says it wasn’t always a “convenient” part of Seattle to live in. But the volunteer greeter at the Central Area Senior Center says it was a friendlier place before its gentrification. (Ken Lambert / The Seattle Times)

The following outline is a guideline. Each part is not strictly required this time, so that you can explore your ideas more freely. However, this should give you a sense of what I’m looking for:

First, explain very briefly explain one argument in favor of Transit Oriented Development. Second, explain the concept of Environmental Justice (see Bullard 2001; National Peoples…1991). Third, explain one objection to Transit Oriented Development from the perspective of Environmental Justice (See Saldaña and Wykowski, 2012; Madrid 2012; Puget Sound Sage 2012). Fourth, describe a possible response to the objection you considered. Fifth, explain a possible counter-response to the response you considered. Ultimately, do you think the transit oriented development in King County violates the Principles of Environmental Justice? Why or why not? Cite all sources that you use when preparing this essay. Optional: Keep going with responses and counter responses until you run out of space. This allows you to focus on one objection in more detail.

Note: Do not object directly to the conclusion by showing a reason to think the conclusion is false. That is an improper way to object. If your essay does this, you will be asked to resubmit the essay for partial credit.

Sources:

Aldern. Clayton. (2016). “Seattle’s new environmental justice agenda was built by the people it affects the most,” in Grist. https://grist.org/justice/seattles-new-environmental-justice-agenda-was-built-by-the-people-it-affects-the-most/ Links to an external site.

Bullard, R. D. (2001). Environmental justice in the 21st century: Race still matters. Phylon.  49(3/4), 151-171.

---- (1996). Environmental justice: It's more than waste facility siting. Social science quarterly, 77(3), 493-499.

Madrid, Cienna. “Sage Study Claims Light Rail is Pushing Minorities Out of Rainier Valley” May 15, 2012 in the Stranger. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/15/sage-study-claims-light-rail-is-pushing-minorities-out-of-rainier-valley Links to an external site.

National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit “Principles of Environmental Justice (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. Links to an external site. “ (1991) 

Puget Sound Sage. (2012). “Transit Oriented Development that’s Healthy, Green & Just” http://pugetsoundsage.org/research/research-equitable-development/healthy-green-just-tod/ Links to an external site. (download report)

Saldaña, Rebecca and Wykowski, Margaret. (2012). “Racial Equity: New Cornerstone of Transit-Oriented Development,” in Race, Poverty & the Environment Vol. 19.no 2.

http://pugetsoundsage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/RPE.pdf Links to an external site.

On problems with gentrification / “having to move” in general

Balk, Gene. 2016. “Historically black Central District could be less than 10% black in a decade” in Seattle Times. Originally published May 26, 2015 at 7:04 pm Updated September 6, 2016 at 12:16 pm

Accessed Feb 10, 2018. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/historically-black-central-district-could-be-less-than-10-black-in-a-decade/ Links to an external site.

Prompt C Consider objections to Leopold’s Land Ethic as applied to ocean acidification, Climate Change, and emitting greenhouse gases.

Consider the following argument

Premise 1. An action is morally wrong if it undermines the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community, as stated by Leopold’s Land Ethic.

Premise 2. Emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and contributing to carbon dioxide significantly above levels above historic levels undermines the stability, integrity, and beauty of the biotic community of the oceans in the Pacific Northwest (and, by effect, the land, as well).

Conclusion. Emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and contributing to carbon dioxide levels above historic levels is morally wrong.

Consider one objection to this argument. That means: First, state the argument. Second, briefly explain what is means and clarify any important terms. Third, either pick one premise and give a reason to think it is wrong, or show how the argument is invalid, or show how the conclusion leads to an absurd result. Fourth, offer a response to the objection. Fifth, offer a counter-response to the response. Ultimately, do you think being a part of emitting greenhouse gases is immoral? Why or why not? Cite all sources that you use when preparing this essay.

Optional: Keep going with responses and counter responses until you run out of space.

Note: Do not object directly to the conclusion by showing a reason to think the conclusion is false. That is an improper way to object. If your essay does this, you will be asked to resubmit the essay for partial credit. Also note, as humans, we emit carbon dioxide when we breathe. 

Sources:

Dunagan, Christopher. “Local Actions Highlight Ocean Acidification Report.” Puget Sound Institute. http://www.pugetsoundinstitute.org/2017/12/local-actions-highlight-ocean-acidification-report/ Links to an external site. Dec 21, 2017.

Aldo Leopold, “Thinking Like a Mountain  Links to an external site. ”
--- “The Land Ethic” Links to an external site. 

Prompt D  Topic of your choosing

Topic proposals must be submitted in writing at least 3 days before the paper is due, and they must be approved by the instructor. You may build on the paper you submitted for Unit I.

A proposal consists of:

1. A sentence briefly describing the moral dilemma you are considering.
2. Name the moral framework or principle you are using to evaluate that dilemma (Kant’s Formula of Ends, Mill’s Utilitarianism, Peter Singer’s Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests, Regan’s views on subjects of a life, or Leopold’s Land Ethic, Principles of Bioethics, critique of Logic of Domination).
3. State the main conclusion of the paper. (Which resolution to the dilemma will you argue for, based on the moral framework or principle you will use?
4. A list of sources you used to prepare the proposal.

This paper should have the following format:

Part 1. Describe the scenario and its moral dilemma.

Part 2. Explain the moral framework or principle being considered to help choose the morally correct action.

Part 3. State and explain an argument showing what the moral framework would say is the morally correct action. For example:

Premise 1. It is morally wrong to use another subject of a live as a mere means without also treating it as an end itself, as stated by Regan’s interpretation of Kant’s Formula of Ends.

Premise 2. Eating factory farmed animals is using another subject of a life as a mere means without also treating it as an end itself.

Conclusion Eating factory farmed animals is morally wrong.

Part 4. Explain a possible objection to the argument you presented in Part 3.

Part 5. A possible response that directly engages with the objection considered in Part 4.

Part 6. A possible counter-response that directly engages with the response considered in Part 5.

Part 7. A possible third option that could avoid the moral dilemma all together.

Optional: add counter-counter response if you want to end up agreeing with the argument.

In this paper, focus on parts 5-6. 

Remember there are only three proper ways to object to an argument:

• Pick one premise and give a reason to think it is false,
• Show how the argument is invalid, or
• Show how the conclusion leads to an absurd result 

Note: Do not object directly to the conclusion by showing a reason to think the conclusion is false. That is an improper way to object. If your essay does this, you will be asked to resubmit the essay for partial credit.

To download or print these directions: Phil 122 Unit 2 Essay Prompts.doc Download Phil 122 Unit 2 Essay Prompts.doc