Prompt: How does a Christian ethicist approach problems of poverty and consumption?
My response: Injustices are an everyday part of life. Their commonplace causes a numbing to the fact that they are injustices. It is not necessarily that people are enjoy these injustices it is merely the fact that they don’t care enough to do anything about them. Unfortunately this reality is rampant throughout the United States. A famous quote by Edmund Burke warns of this indifference “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”. Wallis, along with Gordon Brown recognize this as well. Brown eloquently states that it is no longer a lack of technology or information or expertise but a lock of “political will”.
Knowing that all I need to do is care more about something in order to affect change is a humbling fact. I am lacking nothing to begin bringing about change in the world. What is needed from me and my peers is an increased desire to cause that change. Wallis notes that what is needed may very well be a “moral imperative”. A moral imperative that convicts a generation to bring the issues of injustice to a tipping point.
There are many examples of people who, as Christian ethicists, are doing things to bring about change and justice to the world. Wallis goes through a couple of examples. One was of the Fair Trade movement, particularly in coffee. Chris Dearnley and John Sage the other is the 10000 villages shops started by Mennonites.
These may be extreme cases of people who have had extraordinary success at causing change on a big level. For some this may seem impossible to do. However, the changes will come when indifference is diminished, as Wallis puts it “it’s a matter of will”. Changes in politics don’t happen as a result of silence and indifference but from a large number of people speaking out. Reaching these numbers is possible and together we can “make possible . . . possible”.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Jotting #26 - Globalization
Prompt: What did you think of Professor M. Avramovich's lecture?
My Response:
I felt that Professor M. Avramovich had a commanding presence in the classroom. His points were well thought out and direct. He was able to communicate sometimes-complicated concepts to a somewhat uninterested crowd.
To start things off he gave us a definition of globalization: The reduction or elimination of state enforced restrictions on trade.
I appreciate the history lesson he gave us in regards to globalization. So much of the history I have learned is “what year did this happen” or “who did this”. His approach to history helped me understand how the economics of globalization developed. The book “Wealth of Nations” by Adams Smith was one that I had never heard of before but sounded as though it was a good overview of world economics. I had never paid much attention to the shift from Mercantilism to Globalization. Nor did I pay much attention to the ramifications of both methods of doing things. Whereas mercantilism encouraged exports and not imports globalization showed that each country has something that it is really good at. His example used to illustrate this point was quite effective. It would take one employee with the right tools to do the accounting for a company whereas it might take 10 people in another country to do the same amount of work without the proper training and tools. There is a balance that must be realized between imports and exports.
One of his most interesting points was when he mentioned that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war against each other. The fact that a county has a McDonald’s means that they are open to the idea of foreign influences and trade. If they have no McDonald’s they are in essence shut off from the world and not open to new ideas or reason. As a result when a problem arises it is not resolved through words and diplomacy but rather military methods.
This, of course, is not to say that McDonald’s is the savior of the modern world but instead to illustrate the fact that if a company moves beyond national borders it is as a result of a certain level of acceptance of foreign influence.
My Response:
I felt that Professor M. Avramovich had a commanding presence in the classroom. His points were well thought out and direct. He was able to communicate sometimes-complicated concepts to a somewhat uninterested crowd.
To start things off he gave us a definition of globalization: The reduction or elimination of state enforced restrictions on trade.
I appreciate the history lesson he gave us in regards to globalization. So much of the history I have learned is “what year did this happen” or “who did this”. His approach to history helped me understand how the economics of globalization developed. The book “Wealth of Nations” by Adams Smith was one that I had never heard of before but sounded as though it was a good overview of world economics. I had never paid much attention to the shift from Mercantilism to Globalization. Nor did I pay much attention to the ramifications of both methods of doing things. Whereas mercantilism encouraged exports and not imports globalization showed that each country has something that it is really good at. His example used to illustrate this point was quite effective. It would take one employee with the right tools to do the accounting for a company whereas it might take 10 people in another country to do the same amount of work without the proper training and tools. There is a balance that must be realized between imports and exports.
One of his most interesting points was when he mentioned that no two countries with a McDonalds have ever gone to war against each other. The fact that a county has a McDonald’s means that they are open to the idea of foreign influences and trade. If they have no McDonald’s they are in essence shut off from the world and not open to new ideas or reason. As a result when a problem arises it is not resolved through words and diplomacy but rather military methods.
This, of course, is not to say that McDonald’s is the savior of the modern world but instead to illustrate the fact that if a company moves beyond national borders it is as a result of a certain level of acceptance of foreign influence.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Research Paper on Biofuels Benefit.
King 1
Daniel King
North Park Dialogue II
Research Paper
April 4, 2008
Dr. Ankney
Title: Biofuels Bad Mark
Worldwide consumption of non-renewable fuels has inevitably led to a surge in the need for biofuels. This increased demand has opened up opportunities for biofuel producers to make money. In order to make biofuels you need land to grow the fuels. As a result forests are being destroyed in order to make room for these crops. In turn there is a reduction in plants that help reduce carbon levels among a host of other positive benefits. Furthermore, the economically deprived are being further strained as staple food prices increase with the competition of biofuel production. Biofuels can potentially be a good thing but not if they are continued at the current production standards and methods. In light of utilitarian ethics unregulated production and growth of bio fuels is ecologically unfriendly and socially unjust.
Fast and cheap transportation, supported by inexpensive fuel, is a vital component of both American and international economies today. Since the invention of the wheel transportation methods have continued to improve. The one remaining constant thing has been the need for a source of power to make it move. The power burden has been carried by everything from the backs of horses and oxen to the paddles and sails of ships. The most outstanding source of this power, in the world today, has been oil.
King 2
According to the Energy Information Administration “Total petroleum consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products averaged 20.7 million barrels per day in
2007” (one barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons). The Energy Information Administration has also published charts that indicate 85.7 million barrels per day were consumed worldwide in 2007. Though the consumption of oil in the United States continues to increase year-to-year it pales in comparison to the consumption of oil worldwide. According to the charts published by The Energy Information Administration worldwide consumption is up from 76.6 to 85.7 million barrels per day since the year 2000. The consumption of this oil becomes a problem when you understand the ramifications of this consumption, particularly for the United States. The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security estimates that “22 percent of the world's oil is controlled by states that sponsor terrorism and are under U.S./United Nations sanctions”. Gal Luft executive director of the institute, further states that "We are, in fact, fighting a war on terrorism and paying for both sides of the war". As the demand for oil increases those who control the sources of the oil gain more power.
Along with a decrease in the need for foreign oil the United States also hopes to reduce the greenhouse gas effect that is occurring as a result of increased carbon emissions. President Bush has repeatedly stated that we must “get off oil”. His most
King 3
recent declaration of this goal was given at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference in D.C. He recognizes the truth of the fact that by importing foreign oil we are “paying for both sides of the war” and contributing to an ever-warming climate. The gradual warming of our globe has become an increasingly
prevalent issue among leaders internationally. The threat of monumental natural disasters has expedited the efforts to limit the amount of carbon that is being pumped into the atmosphere. World news is continually bombarded with new reports detailing the latest problems that come along with a warming globe. A quick glance at the BBC world report will show a host of environmental issues being dealt with internationally. More recently there was an article titled “Atlantic Glaciers Surge to Ocean” yet another sign of global warming.
Both the hope to relieve dependence on foreign oil and a hope to curtail environmental damage have been the driving force behind the development of alternative fuels. Though there are many alternative sources of power one that has remained popular is biofuel. Biofuels in their most basic definition are a fuel (as wood or ethanol) composed of or produced from biological raw materials (Merriam-Webster). Among these biofuels, ethanol has risen to the forefront as it, in theory, relieves dependence on foreign oil and reduces carbon emissions. The United States has supported the move to ethanol by providing “exemption from federal gasoline
King 4
excise taxes, whole or partial exemption from road use (sales) taxes in nine states, a federal production tax credit, and a federal blender's credit”. (Solomon, 416) With powerful support behind them ethanol and similar biofuels have taken off. Since 1980 ethanol has been produced in the United States (Solomon 414). At the same conference mentioned earlier, the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference in D.C., president Bush proclaimed, “Since 2001, ethanol production has
quadrupled from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to an estimated 6.4 billion gallons in 2007, with the vast majority coming from corn.” With each extra ounce of ethanol produced the demand for foreign oil decreases that much more. In addition, “Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol” (Hill, 1118). These numbers are clear signals that the United States is slowly eliminating their dependence on foreign oil.
Fast and cheap transportation, supported by inexpensive fuel, will remain a vital component of both American and international economies today but, in light of utilitarianism the methods used to create the fuel are ecologically and socially unjust. Ecosystems and communities alike have experienced injustices as a result of the surge in biofuel demand. Utilitarian ethics primarily addresses the question, as is explained by Harris, “Will this action produce greater overall human well-being?” a
King 5
question that is applied to the animal world as well. Utilitarianism can be broken down into two parts; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The current biofuel situation, as is being discussed in this paper, will be examined in light of act utilitarianism in which, according to Harris, the morality of a situation is judged based on whether the act itself produces the most utility.
Biofuels can burn more effectively and put out fewer pollutants than regular gasoline as was stated earlier in the paper. The only problem is that you need a lot of it to meet the increasing demand. So much so that it is estimated that “Even dedicating all
U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand.” (Hill, 1120). This is causing ecological and social problems that will continue if not regulated properly. Ecologically it is destroying forests that are vital to sustaining a planet that can support life.
Plants are vital to life in that they convert the carbon dioxide that many living things emit into oxygen that we in turn can breath back in again. As such it is important that in attempting to reduce effects of global warming we ensure their security and safety. Without carbon consuming organisms the world would quickly become uninhabitable for life, as we know it. A scientist by the name of Phillips conducted research to determine the benefits of tropical forests and their ability to consume more carbon than they take in. His research found that
King 6
“Long-term monitoring of plots in mature humid tropical forests concentrated in South America revealed that biomass gain by tree growth exceeded losses from tree death in 38 of 50 Neotropical sites. These forest plots have accumulated 0.71 ton, plus or minus 0.34 ton, of carbon per hectare per year in recent decades. The data suggest that Neotropical forests may be a significant carbon sink, reducing the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” (439)
The forests that these research findings were conducted on are the very ones that are being taken down to provide room for more farmland. Because such a large number of crops are needed to meet demand of ethanol more farmland is needed.
The South American country of Brazil is one of many nations that are seeing biofuel demand problems. They have a long history with biofuels dating back to 1975 when the Brazilian government recognized the advantage that ethanol could provide (Carlos, 401). Among other things they had the infrastructure in place to support production. And similar to the United Stats they noticed that an alternative fuel source would mean a decreased dependence on imports of foreign oil which made up nearly half, in monetary value, of their imports at the time (Carlos, 404). However, the recent surge in demand has disrupted the balance the maintained nationally. Their
King 7
role as one of the members at the forefront of alternative, renewable resource production has brought them a host of problems.
The Amazonian rainforests are continually being logged to provide more room for cropland to grow biofuels. The deforestation has escalated to such a level in 2007 that Brazil went as far as to dispatch troops in order to help regain control. According to Jeff Tollefson Brazil has had to launch “a military-style crackdown” (134) on deforestation. Just previous to the enforcement the deforestation numbers had been down nearly 59% over the previous three years. However, the National Institute for Space Research in Sao Jose dos Campos had clear satellite imagery that depicted that
much more of the Amazonian jungles had been forested than previously thought. This halted any celebration that could have been had and turned into a stern concentrated effort to fix the problem.
The first question that should be looked at is, what utility is there in destroying the forest. The deforestation is not only putting a strain on the environment but also affecting numerous species of wildlife. The intricacies of Brazilian rainforests are still not completely known. New species are continually being found, some of which have fantastic medical benefits. The easies measurement to take is to see where
King 8
forests had been and where they are now. It is much more difficult to measure the direct effect of the deforestation on certain species and their development in the region and the ecosystem at large. It would be easy to say that logging should ultimately cease in the rainforests of Brazil but the issue is not that simple. The money they make from logging the trees in that region allows them to continue living. Considering the statistic stated above in which “dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand” the loggers seem to have fairly good job security. The loggers could care less if the land is being used for crops or for a shopping mall. The fact is the logging industry provides “jobs for 2,000 to 3,000 people” (Saul Paulo). The loggers see what they do as a job that has one major consequence, a paycheck. The problem with this arises when you the destruction that is occurring “it is believed that more than 70% of wood felled in the area is of illegal origin.” (Sau Paulo). Yet the bottom line, for
them, remains that they will get a paycheck that will help them pay for bills, education for children, food, shelter and other essentials. Putting this into a broad perspective, however, their actions have far more ramifications than simply providing their families with food and shelter. In this regard there should be a way in which the loggers can continue their methods of life along with the environment, which effects the world, to preserve its integrity. This balance will only come through regulation.
King 9
At a national level the increase in demand for biofuels was a great thing for many people in Brazil. Sugar-cane mill owners were suddenly operating at full capacity despite low demand for sugars worldwide. Furthermore, commuters saw a drop in fuel prices. The cars people were already driving only needed minor modifications in order to utilize the new biofuels. However, even Brazil soon faced problems with their alternative fuel production. The rate at which the biofuels were needed was not being met by the expansion and production of the crops. Markets changed and farmers grew other things. The ensuing crises required major government intervention to prevent an economic and social disaster. Fortunately government regulation was able to handle the problems. Through various stipulations and standards the Brazilian government managed to keep problems from getting out of control. This situation is now occurring at an international, worldwide, scale. The demand for biofuels is greater than ever and it will require “expansion and production” at a much larger scale. However, when looking at an international scale major regulation is much more difficult to develop and not a main idea of this paper.
Another drawback to biofuel production is the resulting elevated food prices. Though the actual production of biofuels may not directly affect food prices it will have a generalized effect to the market at large. It is a simple supply and demand relationship. If there is more land that is being dedicated to grow crops that can be turned into fuel fewer fields are being planted with crops that can support human
King 10
growth and life. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in their report on fighting world food inflation “International prices of most cereals have risen sharply over the past two years and remain at unusually high levels”. The report continued to discuss the causes for the rise in prices and cited “an increase in demand from the biofuels sector” as a contributing factor. This demand continues as the world is estimated to be expanding by about 76 million people annually (Alexandratos, 237). Though this is projected to level off in the not so distant future the fact of the matter is that it is still increasing today. When the world’s population actually levels off is when assumptions for demand of basic food needs will prove correct. Until that point food production must increase along with the population in order to supply the demand. This goal will become ever more difficult to meet as biofuels compete directly with it. The promotion of life, whether it be wild animal or a developed human, is always more important in Utilitarianism. The moment biofuel demand causes necessary food to become unaffordable to the worlds poor is when any utility that could have been found in biofuel production disappears entirely.
The problem is gaining publicity as some lawmakers demand that biofuels not be produced unless they are put under strict standards. A recent news article by Tim Hirsch in the BBC highlighted this fact with the article title “Biofuels need strict
King 11
standards”. Without such standards there will continue to be pressure put on the fragile ecosystems found in the Amazon. The European Union met in attempts to try and reach agreements among bigger nations to help stop the misuse of biofuels and search for more efficient alternatives. Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, in a speech entitled “The Biofuel Challenge” at the Biofuel Conference stated, “Biofuel policy is not ultimately an industrial policy or an agricultural policy - it is an environmental policy, driven above all by the greenest outcomes". Though this statement might encourage others it does not reach the full range of the problem. The commissioner largely ignores the other potential consequences of an increase in biofuel production and merely looks at the environmental aspect of their production and use. This has not gone unnoticed by the public however. Most recently there have been protestors that have stopped implementation of mandatory ethanol requirements in Britain. The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), in the United Kingdom, hopes to have “2.5% of fuels” sold at the pumps containing biofuels. Protestors have urged that the policy be delayed until further review can be made as to the benefits of biofuels both environmentally and whether international need for food can be met at a reasonable price along with biofuels.
King 12
Production of biofuels such as ethanol must be regulated in order to have any type of positive effect. It is only at this point that the benefits of biofuels will outweigh the drawbacks and in turn produce the greatest utility. You cannot say biofuel is good if it is contributing to the overall destruction of the world’s environment and the increased strain of daily living for the world’s poor. These activities as Harris puts it “would not promote the general welfare” (111). There is potential that the very market that is promoting the destruction of these forests could help prevent the destruction. The trade of carbon credits has been a recent phenomenon in which businesses have seen that it is beneficial, economically, to be environmentally friendly. The idea could potentially be put at a larger international scale thus promoting countries and other influential businesses to be more environmentally aware. Issues of monitoring and overall market regulation would be some of the issues that could arise as a result, but the idea would be in place to further environmental gains.
In conclusion, biofuel production in its current state is environmentally unfriendly and socially unjust. The only way in which it will become anything else, and provide the greatest amount of utility, is the introduction of stricter regulations. There are some that are on the right path and see the need for regulation and even economic reward for better regulation. However, it will take many more people and much
King 13
more time for the wider public to become aware of the issue and in turn create sweeping change. Countries like Brazil have shown that being too lax in the past with their regulations can result in environmental and social unrest. They have also shown that stepping up their enforcement of basic standards in order to keep things from getting out of control can work. Their example can be modeled and potentially implemented at a larger scale to induce the same effect. Without these regulations the biodiversity of forests and the environmental benefits of ecologically diverse ecosystems will be lost. In addition, the humans that inhabit this planet will find themselves unable to afford the food they need to live. An ecological and socially just biofuel producing world is possible but not without the help of regulations to prevent ecological destruction and social injustice.
King 14
Bibliography
"Short Term Energy Outlook." Energy Information Administration. 8 Mar. 2008. United States Government. 10 Mar. 2008.
Lindenmayer, David B. and Jerry F. Franklin. Considering Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Washington: Island Price, 2002.
Millar, Constance I., and Margaret Olwell. Restoring Diversity: Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. Ed. Donald A. Falk. Washington D.C.: Island P, 1996.
Hoogstraten, Hans Dirk Van. Deep Economy: Caring for Ecology, Humanity and Religion. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2001.
Hill, Jason, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany. "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels." Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences os 103 (2006): 15-18
Turner, Kerry, and Brendan Fisher. "Environmental Economics: to the Rich Man the Spoils." Nature 451 (2008): 1067-1068.
King 15
Schulze, Mark. "Technical and Financial Analysis of Enrichment Planting in Logging Gaps as a Potential Component of Forest Management in the Eastern Amazon." Forest Ecology & Management 255 (2008): 866-879.
Hess, M. S. "How Biodiesel Works." How Stuff Works. 2006. 1 Mar. 2008.
Barney, Jacob N., and Joseph M. Ditomaso. "Nonnative Species and Bioenergy: are We Cultivating the Next Invader?" Bioscience 58 (2008): 64-70.
McCarl, Bruce A., and Uwe A. Schneider. "U.S. Agriculture's Role in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation World: an Economic Perspective." Review of Agriculture Economics 22 (2000): 134-159.
Lee, Jae-Won, Bon-Wook Koo, Joon-Weon Choi, Don-Ha Choi, and In-Gyu Choi. "Evaluation of Waste Mushroom Logs as a Potential Biomass Resource for the Production of Bioethanol." Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): 2736-2741.
Hirsch, Tim. "Biofuels 'Need Strict Standards'" BBC News. 22 Feb. 2008. BBC. 1 Mar. 2008.
King 16
Motavalli, J. Opposing Viewpoints: Reducing Meat Consumption Will Help Conserve the Environment. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
Lou, Dobbs. "That Old Black Magic." U.S. News and World Report 138 (2005).
Luft, Gal. "Reports and Study's on Energy Security." Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. 2008. Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. 19 Mar. 2008.
Kelly, Nicholls, and Campos Stella. "Are You Driving on Blood Fuel?" Ecologist 37 (2007). 27 Feb. 2008.
Solomon, Barry, and Justin Barnes. "Grain and Cellulosic Ethanol: History, Economics, and Energy Policy." Biomass & Bioenergy 31 (2007): 416-425. 13 Mar. 2008.
Bush, George W. Address. United States Government. The Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. Washington Convention Center, Washington D.C. 5 Mar. 2008. 28 Mar. 2008
King 17
Duffy, Gary. "Troops Sent to Stem Amazon Loss." BBC News. 26 Feb. 2008. British Broadcasting Company. 18 Mar. 2008.
Harrabin, Roger. "Call for Delay to Biofuels Policy." BBC News. 24 Mar. 2008. British Broadcasting Company. 25 Mar. 2008.
Fighting Food Inflation Through Sustainable Investment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. London: European Bank, 2008. 1-16. 15 Mar. 2008
Alexandratos, Nikos. "Population and Development Review." Nature 31 (2008): 237-258. 17 Mar. 2008.
Phillips, Oliver L., Yadvinder Malhi, Niro Higuchi, William F. Laurance, Percy V. Nunez, Rodolfo M. Vazquez, Susan G. Laurance, Leandro V. Ferreira, Margaret Stern, Sandra Brown, and John Grace. "Changes in the Carbon Balance of Tropical Forests: Evidence From Long-Term Plots." Science ns 282 (1998): 439-442. 1 Apr. 2008.
King 18
“Biofuel” Def. 1a. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th Edition. 2003
De Mello, Jose, and Carlos Machodo. "Social Interests, Contextualizations and Uncertainties in Risk Assessment: the Case of Methanol as a Fuel Component in Brazil." Social Studies of Science 3 (1998): 401-421. 29 Mar. 2008.
Hill, Nelson J., D Tillman, S Polasky, and D Tiffany. "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs And." PNAS (2006): 1116-1121. 20 Mar. 2008.
Mandelson, Peter. "The Biofuel Challenge." European Commission. Biofuel Conference. Charlemagne. 5 July 2007. 2 Apr. 2008.
Tollefson, Jeff. "Brazil Goes to War Against Logging." Nature 452 (2008): 134-135. 1 Apr. 2008.
Harris, C E. Applying Moral Theories. 1st ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Company, 1986.
Daniel King
North Park Dialogue II
Research Paper
April 4, 2008
Dr. Ankney
Title: Biofuels Bad Mark
Worldwide consumption of non-renewable fuels has inevitably led to a surge in the need for biofuels. This increased demand has opened up opportunities for biofuel producers to make money. In order to make biofuels you need land to grow the fuels. As a result forests are being destroyed in order to make room for these crops. In turn there is a reduction in plants that help reduce carbon levels among a host of other positive benefits. Furthermore, the economically deprived are being further strained as staple food prices increase with the competition of biofuel production. Biofuels can potentially be a good thing but not if they are continued at the current production standards and methods. In light of utilitarian ethics unregulated production and growth of bio fuels is ecologically unfriendly and socially unjust.
Fast and cheap transportation, supported by inexpensive fuel, is a vital component of both American and international economies today. Since the invention of the wheel transportation methods have continued to improve. The one remaining constant thing has been the need for a source of power to make it move. The power burden has been carried by everything from the backs of horses and oxen to the paddles and sails of ships. The most outstanding source of this power, in the world today, has been oil.
King 2
According to the Energy Information Administration “Total petroleum consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products averaged 20.7 million barrels per day in
2007” (one barrel of petroleum is 42 gallons). The Energy Information Administration has also published charts that indicate 85.7 million barrels per day were consumed worldwide in 2007. Though the consumption of oil in the United States continues to increase year-to-year it pales in comparison to the consumption of oil worldwide. According to the charts published by The Energy Information Administration worldwide consumption is up from 76.6 to 85.7 million barrels per day since the year 2000. The consumption of this oil becomes a problem when you understand the ramifications of this consumption, particularly for the United States. The Institute for the Analysis of Global Security estimates that “22 percent of the world's oil is controlled by states that sponsor terrorism and are under U.S./United Nations sanctions”. Gal Luft executive director of the institute, further states that "We are, in fact, fighting a war on terrorism and paying for both sides of the war". As the demand for oil increases those who control the sources of the oil gain more power.
Along with a decrease in the need for foreign oil the United States also hopes to reduce the greenhouse gas effect that is occurring as a result of increased carbon emissions. President Bush has repeatedly stated that we must “get off oil”. His most
King 3
recent declaration of this goal was given at the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference in D.C. He recognizes the truth of the fact that by importing foreign oil we are “paying for both sides of the war” and contributing to an ever-warming climate. The gradual warming of our globe has become an increasingly
prevalent issue among leaders internationally. The threat of monumental natural disasters has expedited the efforts to limit the amount of carbon that is being pumped into the atmosphere. World news is continually bombarded with new reports detailing the latest problems that come along with a warming globe. A quick glance at the BBC world report will show a host of environmental issues being dealt with internationally. More recently there was an article titled “Atlantic Glaciers Surge to Ocean” yet another sign of global warming.
Both the hope to relieve dependence on foreign oil and a hope to curtail environmental damage have been the driving force behind the development of alternative fuels. Though there are many alternative sources of power one that has remained popular is biofuel. Biofuels in their most basic definition are a fuel (as wood or ethanol) composed of or produced from biological raw materials (Merriam-Webster). Among these biofuels, ethanol has risen to the forefront as it, in theory, relieves dependence on foreign oil and reduces carbon emissions. The United States has supported the move to ethanol by providing “exemption from federal gasoline
King 4
excise taxes, whole or partial exemption from road use (sales) taxes in nine states, a federal production tax credit, and a federal blender's credit”. (Solomon, 416) With powerful support behind them ethanol and similar biofuels have taken off. Since 1980 ethanol has been produced in the United States (Solomon 414). At the same conference mentioned earlier, the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference in D.C., president Bush proclaimed, “Since 2001, ethanol production has
quadrupled from 1.6 billion gallons in 2000 to an estimated 6.4 billion gallons in 2007, with the vast majority coming from corn.” With each extra ounce of ethanol produced the demand for foreign oil decreases that much more. In addition, “Relative to the fossil fuels they displace, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol” (Hill, 1118). These numbers are clear signals that the United States is slowly eliminating their dependence on foreign oil.
Fast and cheap transportation, supported by inexpensive fuel, will remain a vital component of both American and international economies today but, in light of utilitarianism the methods used to create the fuel are ecologically and socially unjust. Ecosystems and communities alike have experienced injustices as a result of the surge in biofuel demand. Utilitarian ethics primarily addresses the question, as is explained by Harris, “Will this action produce greater overall human well-being?” a
King 5
question that is applied to the animal world as well. Utilitarianism can be broken down into two parts; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The current biofuel situation, as is being discussed in this paper, will be examined in light of act utilitarianism in which, according to Harris, the morality of a situation is judged based on whether the act itself produces the most utility.
Biofuels can burn more effectively and put out fewer pollutants than regular gasoline as was stated earlier in the paper. The only problem is that you need a lot of it to meet the increasing demand. So much so that it is estimated that “Even dedicating all
U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand.” (Hill, 1120). This is causing ecological and social problems that will continue if not regulated properly. Ecologically it is destroying forests that are vital to sustaining a planet that can support life.
Plants are vital to life in that they convert the carbon dioxide that many living things emit into oxygen that we in turn can breath back in again. As such it is important that in attempting to reduce effects of global warming we ensure their security and safety. Without carbon consuming organisms the world would quickly become uninhabitable for life, as we know it. A scientist by the name of Phillips conducted research to determine the benefits of tropical forests and their ability to consume more carbon than they take in. His research found that
King 6
“Long-term monitoring of plots in mature humid tropical forests concentrated in South America revealed that biomass gain by tree growth exceeded losses from tree death in 38 of 50 Neotropical sites. These forest plots have accumulated 0.71 ton, plus or minus 0.34 ton, of carbon per hectare per year in recent decades. The data suggest that Neotropical forests may be a significant carbon sink, reducing the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.” (439)
The forests that these research findings were conducted on are the very ones that are being taken down to provide room for more farmland. Because such a large number of crops are needed to meet demand of ethanol more farmland is needed.
The South American country of Brazil is one of many nations that are seeing biofuel demand problems. They have a long history with biofuels dating back to 1975 when the Brazilian government recognized the advantage that ethanol could provide (Carlos, 401). Among other things they had the infrastructure in place to support production. And similar to the United Stats they noticed that an alternative fuel source would mean a decreased dependence on imports of foreign oil which made up nearly half, in monetary value, of their imports at the time (Carlos, 404). However, the recent surge in demand has disrupted the balance the maintained nationally. Their
King 7
role as one of the members at the forefront of alternative, renewable resource production has brought them a host of problems.
The Amazonian rainforests are continually being logged to provide more room for cropland to grow biofuels. The deforestation has escalated to such a level in 2007 that Brazil went as far as to dispatch troops in order to help regain control. According to Jeff Tollefson Brazil has had to launch “a military-style crackdown” (134) on deforestation. Just previous to the enforcement the deforestation numbers had been down nearly 59% over the previous three years. However, the National Institute for Space Research in Sao Jose dos Campos had clear satellite imagery that depicted that
much more of the Amazonian jungles had been forested than previously thought. This halted any celebration that could have been had and turned into a stern concentrated effort to fix the problem.
The first question that should be looked at is, what utility is there in destroying the forest. The deforestation is not only putting a strain on the environment but also affecting numerous species of wildlife. The intricacies of Brazilian rainforests are still not completely known. New species are continually being found, some of which have fantastic medical benefits. The easies measurement to take is to see where
King 8
forests had been and where they are now. It is much more difficult to measure the direct effect of the deforestation on certain species and their development in the region and the ecosystem at large. It would be easy to say that logging should ultimately cease in the rainforests of Brazil but the issue is not that simple. The money they make from logging the trees in that region allows them to continue living. Considering the statistic stated above in which “dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to biofuels would meet only 12% of gasoline demand and 6% of diesel demand” the loggers seem to have fairly good job security. The loggers could care less if the land is being used for crops or for a shopping mall. The fact is the logging industry provides “jobs for 2,000 to 3,000 people” (Saul Paulo). The loggers see what they do as a job that has one major consequence, a paycheck. The problem with this arises when you the destruction that is occurring “it is believed that more than 70% of wood felled in the area is of illegal origin.” (Sau Paulo). Yet the bottom line, for
them, remains that they will get a paycheck that will help them pay for bills, education for children, food, shelter and other essentials. Putting this into a broad perspective, however, their actions have far more ramifications than simply providing their families with food and shelter. In this regard there should be a way in which the loggers can continue their methods of life along with the environment, which effects the world, to preserve its integrity. This balance will only come through regulation.
King 9
At a national level the increase in demand for biofuels was a great thing for many people in Brazil. Sugar-cane mill owners were suddenly operating at full capacity despite low demand for sugars worldwide. Furthermore, commuters saw a drop in fuel prices. The cars people were already driving only needed minor modifications in order to utilize the new biofuels. However, even Brazil soon faced problems with their alternative fuel production. The rate at which the biofuels were needed was not being met by the expansion and production of the crops. Markets changed and farmers grew other things. The ensuing crises required major government intervention to prevent an economic and social disaster. Fortunately government regulation was able to handle the problems. Through various stipulations and standards the Brazilian government managed to keep problems from getting out of control. This situation is now occurring at an international, worldwide, scale. The demand for biofuels is greater than ever and it will require “expansion and production” at a much larger scale. However, when looking at an international scale major regulation is much more difficult to develop and not a main idea of this paper.
Another drawback to biofuel production is the resulting elevated food prices. Though the actual production of biofuels may not directly affect food prices it will have a generalized effect to the market at large. It is a simple supply and demand relationship. If there is more land that is being dedicated to grow crops that can be turned into fuel fewer fields are being planted with crops that can support human
King 10
growth and life. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations in their report on fighting world food inflation “International prices of most cereals have risen sharply over the past two years and remain at unusually high levels”. The report continued to discuss the causes for the rise in prices and cited “an increase in demand from the biofuels sector” as a contributing factor. This demand continues as the world is estimated to be expanding by about 76 million people annually (Alexandratos, 237). Though this is projected to level off in the not so distant future the fact of the matter is that it is still increasing today. When the world’s population actually levels off is when assumptions for demand of basic food needs will prove correct. Until that point food production must increase along with the population in order to supply the demand. This goal will become ever more difficult to meet as biofuels compete directly with it. The promotion of life, whether it be wild animal or a developed human, is always more important in Utilitarianism. The moment biofuel demand causes necessary food to become unaffordable to the worlds poor is when any utility that could have been found in biofuel production disappears entirely.
The problem is gaining publicity as some lawmakers demand that biofuels not be produced unless they are put under strict standards. A recent news article by Tim Hirsch in the BBC highlighted this fact with the article title “Biofuels need strict
King 11
standards”. Without such standards there will continue to be pressure put on the fragile ecosystems found in the Amazon. The European Union met in attempts to try and reach agreements among bigger nations to help stop the misuse of biofuels and search for more efficient alternatives. Peter Mandelson, the EU Trade Commissioner, in a speech entitled “The Biofuel Challenge” at the Biofuel Conference stated, “Biofuel policy is not ultimately an industrial policy or an agricultural policy - it is an environmental policy, driven above all by the greenest outcomes". Though this statement might encourage others it does not reach the full range of the problem. The commissioner largely ignores the other potential consequences of an increase in biofuel production and merely looks at the environmental aspect of their production and use. This has not gone unnoticed by the public however. Most recently there have been protestors that have stopped implementation of mandatory ethanol requirements in Britain. The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation (RTFO), in the United Kingdom, hopes to have “2.5% of fuels” sold at the pumps containing biofuels. Protestors have urged that the policy be delayed until further review can be made as to the benefits of biofuels both environmentally and whether international need for food can be met at a reasonable price along with biofuels.
King 12
Production of biofuels such as ethanol must be regulated in order to have any type of positive effect. It is only at this point that the benefits of biofuels will outweigh the drawbacks and in turn produce the greatest utility. You cannot say biofuel is good if it is contributing to the overall destruction of the world’s environment and the increased strain of daily living for the world’s poor. These activities as Harris puts it “would not promote the general welfare” (111). There is potential that the very market that is promoting the destruction of these forests could help prevent the destruction. The trade of carbon credits has been a recent phenomenon in which businesses have seen that it is beneficial, economically, to be environmentally friendly. The idea could potentially be put at a larger international scale thus promoting countries and other influential businesses to be more environmentally aware. Issues of monitoring and overall market regulation would be some of the issues that could arise as a result, but the idea would be in place to further environmental gains.
In conclusion, biofuel production in its current state is environmentally unfriendly and socially unjust. The only way in which it will become anything else, and provide the greatest amount of utility, is the introduction of stricter regulations. There are some that are on the right path and see the need for regulation and even economic reward for better regulation. However, it will take many more people and much
King 13
more time for the wider public to become aware of the issue and in turn create sweeping change. Countries like Brazil have shown that being too lax in the past with their regulations can result in environmental and social unrest. They have also shown that stepping up their enforcement of basic standards in order to keep things from getting out of control can work. Their example can be modeled and potentially implemented at a larger scale to induce the same effect. Without these regulations the biodiversity of forests and the environmental benefits of ecologically diverse ecosystems will be lost. In addition, the humans that inhabit this planet will find themselves unable to afford the food they need to live. An ecological and socially just biofuel producing world is possible but not without the help of regulations to prevent ecological destruction and social injustice.
King 14
Bibliography
"Short Term Energy Outlook." Energy Information Administration. 8 Mar. 2008. United States Government. 10 Mar. 2008
Lindenmayer, David B. and Jerry F. Franklin. Considering Forest Biodiversity: A Comprehensive Multiscaled Approach. Washington: Island Price, 2002.
Millar, Constance I., and Margaret Olwell. Restoring Diversity: Reintroduction of Endangered Plants. Ed. Donald A. Falk. Washington D.C.: Island P, 1996.
Hoogstraten, Hans Dirk Van. Deep Economy: Caring for Ecology, Humanity and Religion. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co., 2001.
Hill, Jason, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany. "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels." Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences os 103 (2006): 15-18
Turner, Kerry, and Brendan Fisher. "Environmental Economics: to the Rich Man the Spoils." Nature 451 (2008): 1067-1068.
King 15
Schulze, Mark. "Technical and Financial Analysis of Enrichment Planting in Logging Gaps as a Potential Component of Forest Management in the Eastern Amazon." Forest Ecology & Management 255 (2008): 866-879.
Hess, M. S. "How Biodiesel Works." How Stuff Works. 2006. 1 Mar. 2008
Barney, Jacob N., and Joseph M. Ditomaso. "Nonnative Species and Bioenergy: are We Cultivating the Next Invader?" Bioscience 58 (2008): 64-70.
McCarl, Bruce A., and Uwe A. Schneider. "U.S. Agriculture's Role in Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation World: an Economic Perspective." Review of Agriculture Economics 22 (2000): 134-159.
Lee, Jae-Won, Bon-Wook Koo, Joon-Weon Choi, Don-Ha Choi, and In-Gyu Choi. "Evaluation of Waste Mushroom Logs as a Potential Biomass Resource for the Production of Bioethanol." Bioresource Technology 99 (2008): 2736-2741.
Hirsch, Tim. "Biofuels 'Need Strict Standards'" BBC News. 22 Feb. 2008. BBC. 1 Mar. 2008
King 16
Motavalli, J. Opposing Viewpoints: Reducing Meat Consumption Will Help Conserve the Environment. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2006.
Lou, Dobbs. "That Old Black Magic." U.S. News and World Report 138 (2005).
Luft, Gal. "Reports and Study's on Energy Security." Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. 2008. Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. 19 Mar. 2008
Kelly, Nicholls, and Campos Stella. "Are You Driving on Blood Fuel?" Ecologist 37 (2007). 27 Feb. 2008.
Solomon, Barry, and Justin Barnes. "Grain and Cellulosic Ethanol: History, Economics, and Energy Policy." Biomass & Bioenergy 31 (2007): 416-425. 13 Mar. 2008.
Bush, George W. Address. United States Government. The Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. Washington Convention Center, Washington D.C. 5 Mar. 2008. 28 Mar. 2008
King 17
Duffy, Gary. "Troops Sent to Stem Amazon Loss." BBC News. 26 Feb. 2008. British Broadcasting Company. 18 Mar. 2008
Harrabin, Roger. "Call for Delay to Biofuels Policy." BBC News. 24 Mar. 2008. British Broadcasting Company. 25 Mar. 2008
Fighting Food Inflation Through Sustainable Investment. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. London: European Bank, 2008. 1-16. 15 Mar. 2008
Alexandratos, Nikos. "Population and Development Review." Nature 31 (2008): 237-258. 17 Mar. 2008.
Phillips, Oliver L., Yadvinder Malhi, Niro Higuchi, William F. Laurance, Percy V. Nunez, Rodolfo M. Vazquez, Susan G. Laurance, Leandro V. Ferreira, Margaret Stern, Sandra Brown, and John Grace. "Changes in the Carbon Balance of Tropical Forests: Evidence From Long-Term Plots." Science ns 282 (1998): 439-442. 1 Apr. 2008.
King 18
“Biofuel” Def. 1a. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 11th Edition. 2003
De Mello, Jose, and Carlos Machodo. "Social Interests, Contextualizations and Uncertainties in Risk Assessment: the Case of Methanol as a Fuel Component in Brazil." Social Studies of Science 3 (1998): 401-421. 29 Mar. 2008.
Hill, Nelson J., D Tillman, S Polasky, and D Tiffany. "Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs And." PNAS (2006): 1116-1121. 20 Mar. 2008.
Mandelson, Peter. "The Biofuel Challenge." European Commission. Biofuel Conference. Charlemagne. 5 July 2007. 2 Apr. 2008
Tollefson, Jeff. "Brazil Goes to War Against Logging." Nature 452 (2008): 134-135. 1 Apr. 2008.
Harris, C E. Applying Moral Theories. 1st ed. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Company, 1986.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Jotting #25 - Manietes article analysis. "In Search of Consumptive Resistance"
Prompt: Analyze Manieties structure.
My response: Outline major arguments. Look at smaller arguments and tell how they worked together to support the larger points. Look at the details he used to support the arguments that he is making.
Manietes is doing “reconnaissance” in order to help the reader understand the movement. To best do this he will be discussing what is being said about the movement and why these things are being said. Whether the reasons for the voluntary simplicity movement are good or bad, Manietes overarching goal is to develop an argument as to why the voluntary simplicity movement is here to stay.
Sustainable development is the buzz phrase in contemporary environmentalism today. It is the goal to which the contemporary environmentalists strive. This does not deal with the issue of consumption, however. This over consumption is spread to the entire world causing a “tyranny of expectations”. Manietes supports this by mentioning the fact that the middle class is gauging its wealth against the top 10%. Furthermore, consumption is glamorized internationally with shows such as “Melrose Place”. If these standards of living were to come even partly true, Manietes points out, among other things, “mainstream environmentalism stalls out”.
Result of the aforementioned things according to Manietes “simplistic moralizing about consumption that little advances the intellectual analysis or collective action necessary for taking on the consumption question.” Going on down the line, results of this are: “Rhetorical lambasting of advertising, condemnation of the immorality of over consumption, and a rosy-eyed, apolitical romantacization of the joys of simple living.”
Manietes then shifts his focus to the VSM. The VSM is viewed as exclusively American even though it is not. Americans wish to get their lives back and that is their reason for VSM. It is not out of a deep concern for the environment or a desire to bring about equality worldwide but simply be get a balance and stress free life.
VSM is not new, Manietes uses the words of Vanderbilt to critique the VSM in that it assumes people are living lives that need simplification. Those who are volunteer simplicists only got to that point because they were at one point in time, wealthy enough to afford to be voluntarily simplifiers. In addition they are oblivious to the fact that there are those who are involuntary simplicists. Finally, Manietes states, the VSM is for real. Proponents of the VSM have options, unlike those who are involuntary simplicists. VSM is also used to sell things.
The answer is to go for a consumptive resistance. Manietes uses the language of “Consumptive angle” – new call for sustainability. Manietes is convinced that voluntary simplicity would cause an unnecessary burden on the backs of the bottom 20%. VSM fails to look at the broader institutional dynamics. Manietes suggests that the powerful whose power is vast be held more accountable of the fact that they are large contributors to the reason that the masses consume so much.
My response: Outline major arguments. Look at smaller arguments and tell how they worked together to support the larger points. Look at the details he used to support the arguments that he is making.
Manietes is doing “reconnaissance” in order to help the reader understand the movement. To best do this he will be discussing what is being said about the movement and why these things are being said. Whether the reasons for the voluntary simplicity movement are good or bad, Manietes overarching goal is to develop an argument as to why the voluntary simplicity movement is here to stay.
Sustainable development is the buzz phrase in contemporary environmentalism today. It is the goal to which the contemporary environmentalists strive. This does not deal with the issue of consumption, however. This over consumption is spread to the entire world causing a “tyranny of expectations”. Manietes supports this by mentioning the fact that the middle class is gauging its wealth against the top 10%. Furthermore, consumption is glamorized internationally with shows such as “Melrose Place”. If these standards of living were to come even partly true, Manietes points out, among other things, “mainstream environmentalism stalls out”.
Result of the aforementioned things according to Manietes “simplistic moralizing about consumption that little advances the intellectual analysis or collective action necessary for taking on the consumption question.” Going on down the line, results of this are: “Rhetorical lambasting of advertising, condemnation of the immorality of over consumption, and a rosy-eyed, apolitical romantacization of the joys of simple living.”
Manietes then shifts his focus to the VSM. The VSM is viewed as exclusively American even though it is not. Americans wish to get their lives back and that is their reason for VSM. It is not out of a deep concern for the environment or a desire to bring about equality worldwide but simply be get a balance and stress free life.
VSM is not new, Manietes uses the words of Vanderbilt to critique the VSM in that it assumes people are living lives that need simplification. Those who are volunteer simplicists only got to that point because they were at one point in time, wealthy enough to afford to be voluntarily simplifiers. In addition they are oblivious to the fact that there are those who are involuntary simplicists. Finally, Manietes states, the VSM is for real. Proponents of the VSM have options, unlike those who are involuntary simplicists. VSM is also used to sell things.
The answer is to go for a consumptive resistance. Manietes uses the language of “Consumptive angle” – new call for sustainability. Manietes is convinced that voluntary simplicity would cause an unnecessary burden on the backs of the bottom 20%. VSM fails to look at the broader institutional dynamics. Manietes suggests that the powerful whose power is vast be held more accountable of the fact that they are large contributors to the reason that the masses consume so much.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Jotting #24 - Gap's Red Campaign
Jotting #24 - Prompt: In light of the readings, comment on Gap’s RED campaign. Have you ever purchased a product because it made you feel countercultural?
My Response: Gap’s RED campaign has all the hype of being a wonderful thing. When looking at the face of the campaign there is little I could personally argue with. However, it is not enough to simply look at the face of the campaign. When looking at what RED signifies to Americans as consumers it becomes a bit more disheartening. It does not cause consumers to change anything but merely shift their practices. It resonates with the words of Kilbourne stating that people are not concerned with changing their behavior but simply doing something to fix the problem, after the fact. Kilbourne uses several examples to illustrate this such as “If you drink so much you wake up with a hangover . . . take an Alka-Seltzer, don’t worry about your drinking”. In sense this is what is going on with the RED campaign. Their campaign could be summarized as “If you over consume and ignore the depravity of others . . . buy our product feel good about your purchase, don’t worry about the injustice of those foreign diseases.”
However, the utilitarian comes out in me when I look at the situation from a view of its overall utility. The Gap Corporation is in fact channeling money to help bring about social justice. This is better than doing something such as increasing the paycheck of the CEO. By sending money to those infected by AIDS they are helping preserve life and improve the quality of that life. The effects of the campaign can be positive and beneficial to the state of those who are adversely affected by AIDS in Africa.
As far as purchasing products in order to feel countercultural I must admit that I have done this. My counterculture stand has come, not in the form of different shoes, but in different types of food. I have intentionally bought more expensive drinks because I knew I was supporting a smaller business. I find that I feel better about purchasing and consuming a drink such as that then someone else.
My Response: Gap’s RED campaign has all the hype of being a wonderful thing. When looking at the face of the campaign there is little I could personally argue with. However, it is not enough to simply look at the face of the campaign. When looking at what RED signifies to Americans as consumers it becomes a bit more disheartening. It does not cause consumers to change anything but merely shift their practices. It resonates with the words of Kilbourne stating that people are not concerned with changing their behavior but simply doing something to fix the problem, after the fact. Kilbourne uses several examples to illustrate this such as “If you drink so much you wake up with a hangover . . . take an Alka-Seltzer, don’t worry about your drinking”. In sense this is what is going on with the RED campaign. Their campaign could be summarized as “If you over consume and ignore the depravity of others . . . buy our product feel good about your purchase, don’t worry about the injustice of those foreign diseases.”
However, the utilitarian comes out in me when I look at the situation from a view of its overall utility. The Gap Corporation is in fact channeling money to help bring about social justice. This is better than doing something such as increasing the paycheck of the CEO. By sending money to those infected by AIDS they are helping preserve life and improve the quality of that life. The effects of the campaign can be positive and beneficial to the state of those who are adversely affected by AIDS in Africa.
As far as purchasing products in order to feel countercultural I must admit that I have done this. My counterculture stand has come, not in the form of different shoes, but in different types of food. I have intentionally bought more expensive drinks because I knew I was supporting a smaller business. I find that I feel better about purchasing and consuming a drink such as that then someone else.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Jotting #23 - Voluntary Simplicity
Jotting #23: How have your impressions of the Voluntary Simplicity changed after reading this article (Maniates essay, “In Search of Consumptive Resistance,” pp. 199-235)
“Value moderation over excess, spiritual development over material consumption, cooperation over competition, and nature over technology”
-Rich Hayes on the voluntary simplicity movement
This is a little bit of a snapshot that I hope my life entails. I find that Hayes has succinctly summed up how I hope to live out my life. The ways in which it manifests itself will of course, be different. But that is what the journey is about, figuring out how living in this manner will display itself. As Andrews puts it those who believe in the Voluntary simplicity movement are “returning to the good life.” A live that is moderated, lived in cooperation with others and with a connection to nature. Above all these, for me, I find that spiritual development is much more important than material consumption. The practice of voluntary simplicity would, in large part, be in hopes to pursue and further my spiritual development as a Christian.
Maniates comments of voluntary simplicity are intriguing to me. In particular I found one of his quotes rang true with me particularly well. In regards to spending time in the woods “it allows you to observe the unnecessary complexity in life.” The area in which I grew up had a tremendous amount of natural beauty that allowed me to continually observe the “unnecessary complexity of life”. So much so in fact that coming to the city I found myself overwhelmingly distracted by all the new options that opened up to me. It requires a great amount of discipline to be able to observe unnecessary complexity of life while in the midst of complexity. Until recently I had convinced myself that it was impossible. However, its impossibility is only made valid by my personal feelings as to how it should be done. Nonetheless, my life in a complex city has further inspired me to desire to live more simply in my life and not be wrapped up in keeping up with the top 10% of America (as Maniates notes).
I found Andrews observation of the Voluntary Simplicity Movement interesting. When looking at my personal thoughts to the Voluntary Simplicity Movement I recognize it’s “self-help” qualities. Her call to have the movement “take the next step” is appropriate and necessary. If it remains a self-help movement then it will move and stop. The movement will cease whenever it has lost momentum and people will forget about it.
“Value moderation over excess, spiritual development over material consumption, cooperation over competition, and nature over technology”
-Rich Hayes on the voluntary simplicity movement
This is a little bit of a snapshot that I hope my life entails. I find that Hayes has succinctly summed up how I hope to live out my life. The ways in which it manifests itself will of course, be different. But that is what the journey is about, figuring out how living in this manner will display itself. As Andrews puts it those who believe in the Voluntary simplicity movement are “returning to the good life.” A live that is moderated, lived in cooperation with others and with a connection to nature. Above all these, for me, I find that spiritual development is much more important than material consumption. The practice of voluntary simplicity would, in large part, be in hopes to pursue and further my spiritual development as a Christian.
Maniates comments of voluntary simplicity are intriguing to me. In particular I found one of his quotes rang true with me particularly well. In regards to spending time in the woods “it allows you to observe the unnecessary complexity in life.” The area in which I grew up had a tremendous amount of natural beauty that allowed me to continually observe the “unnecessary complexity of life”. So much so in fact that coming to the city I found myself overwhelmingly distracted by all the new options that opened up to me. It requires a great amount of discipline to be able to observe unnecessary complexity of life while in the midst of complexity. Until recently I had convinced myself that it was impossible. However, its impossibility is only made valid by my personal feelings as to how it should be done. Nonetheless, my life in a complex city has further inspired me to desire to live more simply in my life and not be wrapped up in keeping up with the top 10% of America (as Maniates notes).
I found Andrews observation of the Voluntary Simplicity Movement interesting. When looking at my personal thoughts to the Voluntary Simplicity Movement I recognize it’s “self-help” qualities. Her call to have the movement “take the next step” is appropriate and necessary. If it remains a self-help movement then it will move and stop. The movement will cease whenever it has lost momentum and people will forget about it.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Jotting #22 Voluntary Simplicity
Prompt: React to Elgin’s ideas. How appealing do you find the Voluntary Simplicity Movement? Do you feel as if you could implement these ideas?
My Response: In short I find the Voluntary Simplicity Movement intriguing and I feel that I could implement these ideas. However, in honest self reflection I do not believe that I would want to implement the movements ideas for too long, or at least not all of them. It is hard to say no to a movement that promotes itself as “not self-denying but life-affirming”.
The simplicity moment had components that, in my mind, have not been equated with simplicity. So often possessions are the focus of a simple lifestyle. However, Elgin makes it clear that there can be simplicity in communication. The part of the analysis of communication simplification, in reference to silence, spoke to me. Our methods of communicating with one another can become so cluttered and redundant that they lose their significance and power.
I have never considered myself a very consumeristic person. However, I have found that I value having high quality things. There may not be many of a certain thing but they sure are good. I consider myself an informed consumer. I am not entirely taken over by the newest thing but if the newest thing happens to be the best thing for my life at that point than I will give consideration to buy it. For example, I spend a lot of time on my feet. As such I feel it is important to have good shoes. Good shoes support my back and in turn allow me to function better. Some would consider buying $100 dollar shoes out of the question, but when you are considering your overall health it becomes much more important to have what will make you most comfortable.
Despite which side you fall on I believe Elgins words ring true in that there must be balance. In a balanced simplicity our lives become “clearer, more direct, less pretentious, and less complicate”. The issue then becomes what is the best way in which we can achieve that balance. A balance in which you are the most in touch with the life you were meant to live.
My Response: In short I find the Voluntary Simplicity Movement intriguing and I feel that I could implement these ideas. However, in honest self reflection I do not believe that I would want to implement the movements ideas for too long, or at least not all of them. It is hard to say no to a movement that promotes itself as “not self-denying but life-affirming”.
The simplicity moment had components that, in my mind, have not been equated with simplicity. So often possessions are the focus of a simple lifestyle. However, Elgin makes it clear that there can be simplicity in communication. The part of the analysis of communication simplification, in reference to silence, spoke to me. Our methods of communicating with one another can become so cluttered and redundant that they lose their significance and power.
I have never considered myself a very consumeristic person. However, I have found that I value having high quality things. There may not be many of a certain thing but they sure are good. I consider myself an informed consumer. I am not entirely taken over by the newest thing but if the newest thing happens to be the best thing for my life at that point than I will give consideration to buy it. For example, I spend a lot of time on my feet. As such I feel it is important to have good shoes. Good shoes support my back and in turn allow me to function better. Some would consider buying $100 dollar shoes out of the question, but when you are considering your overall health it becomes much more important to have what will make you most comfortable.
Despite which side you fall on I believe Elgins words ring true in that there must be balance. In a balanced simplicity our lives become “clearer, more direct, less pretentious, and less complicate”. The issue then becomes what is the best way in which we can achieve that balance. A balance in which you are the most in touch with the life you were meant to live.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Jotting #21 Consumption and Advertising
Prompt: Discuss the ideas that Kilbourne (Can't Buy My Love) and Levine (Not Buying It) share. How does consumption and advertising help shape Levine’s sense of self?
My Response: Both Kilbourne and Levine share many different ideas. One in particular that seemed evident in both authors’ articles was the idea of brand loyalty. Levine went into detail about her smart wool socks and how wonderful they were. In fact she couldn’t even go outside skiing because she could not find those socks. If she could not wear those socks nothing else could go on. On the same note Kilbourne discusses the fact that advertising companies start young in their campaigns towards young children. The Turner Cartoon Network estimates that kids influence “over $130 billion of their parents spending annually”. This young target audience, if hit right on, will develop brand loyalty and an addiction to consumption that is exhibited by Levine and her wool socks. Levine’s addiction to consumption is further seen as she mentions after looking at 10-15$ handbags that she would “love one of those handbags”.
Just as Levine explains that possession gives a “flicker of warmth” that quickly cools so too does Kilbourne, if not directly, touch on the fact that ads are quick little blurbs intended to peek your interest. These ads provide no extensive satisfaction but merely make the desire more pressing.
The sharing of ideas between Kilbourne and Levine is most prominent as Levine sums up what she feels is the job of the consumer culture: “The job of consumer culture . . . is to blur the line between need and want.”
It is seen throughout these introductory pages that consumption and advertising has shaped Levine’s sense of self. She is continually faced with things that she feels would be wonderful to have. Expectations rise, she explains using Plato’s words, just as the sea is pulled by the moon. No person is immune from advertising and consumption and she see herself being affected by it in her everyday life. From her smart wool socks to the pretty handbags, she wants these things so much that it becomes difficult to determine between desire and need.
My Response: Both Kilbourne and Levine share many different ideas. One in particular that seemed evident in both authors’ articles was the idea of brand loyalty. Levine went into detail about her smart wool socks and how wonderful they were. In fact she couldn’t even go outside skiing because she could not find those socks. If she could not wear those socks nothing else could go on. On the same note Kilbourne discusses the fact that advertising companies start young in their campaigns towards young children. The Turner Cartoon Network estimates that kids influence “over $130 billion of their parents spending annually”. This young target audience, if hit right on, will develop brand loyalty and an addiction to consumption that is exhibited by Levine and her wool socks. Levine’s addiction to consumption is further seen as she mentions after looking at 10-15$ handbags that she would “love one of those handbags”.
Just as Levine explains that possession gives a “flicker of warmth” that quickly cools so too does Kilbourne, if not directly, touch on the fact that ads are quick little blurbs intended to peek your interest. These ads provide no extensive satisfaction but merely make the desire more pressing.
The sharing of ideas between Kilbourne and Levine is most prominent as Levine sums up what she feels is the job of the consumer culture: “The job of consumer culture . . . is to blur the line between need and want.”
It is seen throughout these introductory pages that consumption and advertising has shaped Levine’s sense of self. She is continually faced with things that she feels would be wonderful to have. Expectations rise, she explains using Plato’s words, just as the sea is pulled by the moon. No person is immune from advertising and consumption and she see herself being affected by it in her everyday life. From her smart wool socks to the pretty handbags, she wants these things so much that it becomes difficult to determine between desire and need.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jotting #15 Virtue Ethics Summary
Question/Prompt: Summarize either Virtue Ethics or the Ethics of Care.
My answer/response: Simply defined virtue is “the quality of a thing which enables it to perform its’ function well”. Taken a step further, moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” In addition it is important to know that character is “the enduring state of ones person moral identity”.
Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom went through different aspects of virtue theory. It is not a new idea although there are modern applications. To understand virtue ethics more completely it is important to have an understanding of how it has been described in the past and how it is applied and carried out today. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom began his summary by describing the “Spheres of the Moral Life”. These spheres included; forming the moral conscious, making moral decisions and forming moral identity.
The situations which virtue ethics apply to have changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics in Ancient Greece was founded in human nature. The virtue ethics fell into the following categories: Eudemonia Рhuman flourishing, Ethos Рcharacter, Ar̻te Рvirtue, excellence AND Ethos Рhabituation.
The main question that is being asked in trying to figure out a lifestyle by which to live is “What is the best possible life for all human beings?” This question is quickly followed by “What does the life of one who is truly, and deeply, happy look like?”
A virtue ethicist would argue that a life of virtue would result in a life that was truly and deeply happy. To know what happiness is we can look to the wisdom of both an ancient and modern philosopher. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Aristotle). Stanley Hauerwas would say “Happiness is not so much the end, but the way.”
These quotes give excellent insight into what a truly happy life would be like. But these quotes are based on a set of virtues that should be carried out in everyday life. The following list of virtues are things that should be found in a person who is living a happy life: wisdom, courage, compassion, humility, purity, patience, faith, prudence, justice, mercy, simplicity, gentleness, piety, hope, temperance, generosity, gratitude, tolerance, humor, loyalty, love. (virtues in italics are associated with Greek thought, words in bold are associated with Christian thought).
It would drive you crazy trying to remember to do each of these things everyday through your typical routines. These virtues come about as a result of practice as was stated earlier moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” This is what someone who desires to be happy should strive after.
My answer/response: Simply defined virtue is “the quality of a thing which enables it to perform its’ function well”. Taken a step further, moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” In addition it is important to know that character is “the enduring state of ones person moral identity”.
Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom went through different aspects of virtue theory. It is not a new idea although there are modern applications. To understand virtue ethics more completely it is important to have an understanding of how it has been described in the past and how it is applied and carried out today. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom began his summary by describing the “Spheres of the Moral Life”. These spheres included; forming the moral conscious, making moral decisions and forming moral identity.
The situations which virtue ethics apply to have changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics in Ancient Greece was founded in human nature. The virtue ethics fell into the following categories: Eudemonia Рhuman flourishing, Ethos Рcharacter, Ar̻te Рvirtue, excellence AND Ethos Рhabituation.
The main question that is being asked in trying to figure out a lifestyle by which to live is “What is the best possible life for all human beings?” This question is quickly followed by “What does the life of one who is truly, and deeply, happy look like?”
A virtue ethicist would argue that a life of virtue would result in a life that was truly and deeply happy. To know what happiness is we can look to the wisdom of both an ancient and modern philosopher. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Aristotle). Stanley Hauerwas would say “Happiness is not so much the end, but the way.”
These quotes give excellent insight into what a truly happy life would be like. But these quotes are based on a set of virtues that should be carried out in everyday life. The following list of virtues are things that should be found in a person who is living a happy life: wisdom, courage, compassion, humility, purity, patience, faith, prudence, justice, mercy, simplicity, gentleness, piety, hope, temperance, generosity, gratitude, tolerance, humor, loyalty, love. (virtues in italics are associated with Greek thought, words in bold are associated with Christian thought).
It would drive you crazy trying to remember to do each of these things everyday through your typical routines. These virtues come about as a result of practice as was stated earlier moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” This is what someone who desires to be happy should strive after.
Jotting #14 Applying Virtue Ethics
Question/Prompt: Evaluate case #20, page 235 of HARRIS, as a virtue ethicist or care ethicist would.
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Jotting #13 Utilitarianism and Consumption
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism to the approach taken by the author of the sweater essay.
My Answer/Response:
In comparing anything with Utilitarianism you must first state what Utilitarianism is. Using R.J. Snell’s lecture I will be evaluating the sweater essay and the elements of utility. Snell gave three points that give a good general idea of what Utilitarianism is.
-Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
The sweater is not an easy purchase to make for Tennant. She is obviously struggling with the purchase of the sweater. In some regards you could say that the only reason she is having any hesitation is because of the large price-tag that the sweater has with it. However, it becomes evident in the entirety of the article that she is conscious of her small purchases too. She mentions her consumption of cage free chickens and eggs as well as the consumption of fairly traded coffee. From the evidence presented in the article she is a well educated consumer. She can not simply say she will buy things based on a single rule she has concocted in her head. As a result she breaks it down into parts trying to weigh her options in some sort of “hedonic calculus” trying to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. As she goes through the different bonuses that could be found she checks it off as either beneficial or not. She is judging her actions based on the virtue of the consequences. At this point it would be easy to label her as a Utilitarian. However, the article finishes by stating that she did not in fact buy the sweater.
In the final paragraphs of the article we find Tennant struggling with the decision of whether or not to buy the sweater on a new level. She progressed from the Hedonic calculus of Utilitarianism to a more internal struggle of conceit. She recognized in her informed state that she was in danger of becoming conceited. This approach is not Utilitarian. If she had remained with her original assessment of the situation she would have been maximizing her pleasure. She could have had a fine time thinking about all of the benevolent results her purchase incurred. But the seeds of hesitancy were evident in the way she prolonged the virtue calculations. This hesitancy and deliberation is not a maximization of happiness and therefore cannot be viewed as a utilitarian method of approaching the issue.
Noticing the utility in certain situations is almost unavoidable. Most humans, particularly my American acquaintances, live life based on the utility of the situation. Though there was evidence of utilitarianistic tendencies in Tennant, it is safe to say that she is not in fact a Utilitarian.
My Answer/Response:
In comparing anything with Utilitarianism you must first state what Utilitarianism is. Using R.J. Snell’s lecture I will be evaluating the sweater essay and the elements of utility. Snell gave three points that give a good general idea of what Utilitarianism is.
-Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
The sweater is not an easy purchase to make for Tennant. She is obviously struggling with the purchase of the sweater. In some regards you could say that the only reason she is having any hesitation is because of the large price-tag that the sweater has with it. However, it becomes evident in the entirety of the article that she is conscious of her small purchases too. She mentions her consumption of cage free chickens and eggs as well as the consumption of fairly traded coffee. From the evidence presented in the article she is a well educated consumer. She can not simply say she will buy things based on a single rule she has concocted in her head. As a result she breaks it down into parts trying to weigh her options in some sort of “hedonic calculus” trying to decide if the pros outweigh the cons. As she goes through the different bonuses that could be found she checks it off as either beneficial or not. She is judging her actions based on the virtue of the consequences. At this point it would be easy to label her as a Utilitarian. However, the article finishes by stating that she did not in fact buy the sweater.
In the final paragraphs of the article we find Tennant struggling with the decision of whether or not to buy the sweater on a new level. She progressed from the Hedonic calculus of Utilitarianism to a more internal struggle of conceit. She recognized in her informed state that she was in danger of becoming conceited. This approach is not Utilitarian. If she had remained with her original assessment of the situation she would have been maximizing her pleasure. She could have had a fine time thinking about all of the benevolent results her purchase incurred. But the seeds of hesitancy were evident in the way she prolonged the virtue calculations. This hesitancy and deliberation is not a maximization of happiness and therefore cannot be viewed as a utilitarian method of approaching the issue.
Noticing the utility in certain situations is almost unavoidable. Most humans, particularly my American acquaintances, live life based on the utility of the situation. Though there was evidence of utilitarianistic tendencies in Tennant, it is safe to say that she is not in fact a Utilitarian.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Jotting #12 Utilitarianism vs. Natural Law
Question/Prompt: Compare Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Be sure to include evidence from HARRIS and Dr. Snell.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
My Answer: The natural law outlines four natural inclinations of humans. This inclinations, as outlined by Harris are as follows; preserve ones life, produce children, be a part of a social group and develop ones uniquely human intellectual facilities. There is a checklist that Harris has developed in order to help apply the Natural law to certain situations. The first part of the checklist is to determine if an action agrees with the “natural inclinations” as mentioned above. From there it goes on to discuss forfeiture and the application of double effect. The final step of the process is to “make a final decision on the morality of the action”. In his lecture Snell explained that much of the natural law is based on a primary precept. This primary precept is “naturally operative and known to all human beings, do good and avoid evil”.
The Utilitarian has a different approach to the issues faced in life. First of all there are two different types of Utilitarianism as outlined by both Snell and Harris, “rule” and “applying act”. Harris provides a checklist for these as well but Snell provides a good overall description of utilitarianism as a whole. He outlines the definition in three points. -Actions are judged right or wrong solely in virtue of their consequences.
-In assigning consequences, the only thing that matters is maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
-No ones happiness or unhappiness is more important than anyone else’s since everyone can experience happiness and unhappiness.
Based on what I have read from Harris and heard from Snell there are many conflicts between the two school’s of thought. Also, it seems to me that the Utilitarian way of thinking is quite pervasive in my world today. The natural law tends to feel a bit outdated as Snell mentioned in his lecture. However, the utilitarian way of thinking is more friendly to living a lifestyle of doing anything you want. It is easy to justify buying a shirt made from a sweatshop because you can say that it provided the maker with income and you with a shirt. It also seems to be an easier way to live as you are better equipped to know what is painful and what gives you pleasure.
One of the major conflicts I see with the two schools of thought are with life. Natural law advocates that no life is taken. However, as an example, there are instances in which if a mother may need to abort her baby in order to preserve her own. It is much easier for a Utilitarian to justify the abortion than a natural law theorist. The contrasts go on between the two theories but nonetheless they are still used to justify and explain human behaviors and decisions in the world today.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jotting #11 - Utalitarianism
NOTE: Jotting#9 and 10 have been skipped on purpose. In case you are curious this is what they were on.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
- Jotting #9: Pick one of the questions at the end of The Hummer Case and give it an honest answer. (basically I ranted about the drawbacks of a Hummer)
- Jotting #10 What aspect of consumption would you like to focus on in your research paper? Use class readings and discussions and the Brain Teasers listed above to come up with a solid topic.
Question/Prompt: How would a Utilitarian ethicist approach the questions raised in Who Killed the Electric Car/ The Hummer topic discussed last week?
My Response:
There are different sides you can take on the issue of “Who Killed the Electric Car” and “The Hummer Topic”. If issues such as these were blatantly obvious then reaching a ubiquitous solution would not be as big a problem. However, there are points to be made by both sides which merit some consideration. I will look at both issues in light of utilitarianism.
The electric car was created for a number of reasons, one of them being to preserve the deteriorating environment. The preservation of the environment is an important step in protecting and furthering all life on the planet, humans and non. Thus when the EV’s where discontinued it was in violation of what a utilitarian would reason is right to do. As a result of the EV’s being discontinued the development of vehicles that do less harm to the environment are ignored and gas powered vehicles, which produce greater harm to the environment are allowed to continue.
The next issue is the Hummer. It is not as easy to determine that owning a hummer is explicitly bad. A hummer can be used to protect and provide safe transportation for not only troops but those who desire to keep their cargo as safe as possible. The Hummer vehicle is well built and able to withstand “punishment” from foreign objects whether they be bullets, out-of-control-cars or massive potholes. In this sense it is affecting the passengers who in turn provide “units of utility”. However, as was given by example in Harris book the number of people affected multiplied by the “Units of Utility per person” is overshadowed by its detrimental effects to the environment. As was outlined in the article we read about the Hummer there is very little environmentally friendly about the Hummer. The amount of gas the Hummer consumes expedites the environmental degradation process. Furthermore it is debatable whether buying a Hummer to keep your family safe on slippery roads is entirely necessary. It is more permissible from a utilitarianistic perspective to operate a hummer for military purposes than it is to keep your children safe. Nevertheless it has a high number of people it will effect in the long run making it a bad thing both in people effected and in “units of utility”.
In conclusion both the destruction of the EV’s and the purchasing of Hummers by homeowners is not permissible. A utilitarian “judges a rule by its consequences” and the consequences of these things have grave effects on not only human life but all life on earth.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Consumption Philosophy - Final Draft
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got” and I lived my life in accordance with it. But the consumer mindset, in which happiness becomes equated with how much you own, still has its hold. It is not until recently that I realized the sayings inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice, we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay. But being thankful is not the most pressing issue that an irresponsible consumer lifestyle presents. If a thankful mindset was all that was needed to justify consumption it would not be an issue. However, there are huge ramifications for consuming outside of ones means. Not only are there environmental and globalization problems but also local issues. It would be easy to say that consuming beyond your means is a bad thing but at the same time it is what has brought us into the modern age. The consumption of many powers the economy upon which we rely.
It is in this paradoxical situation that I find myself both clinging to “Be thankful for what I’ve got” as a means to justify buying more and on the other hand idealizing about living an even more simplistic lifestyle in which I do not merely buy and give thanks. Thus my consumption philosophy remains ever changing. I operate in an un-convicted state buying what I want and passively judging those that I feel consume too much.
UPDATE (2/14/08): I got an A- on this paper
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice, we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay. But being thankful is not the most pressing issue that an irresponsible consumer lifestyle presents. If a thankful mindset was all that was needed to justify consumption it would not be an issue. However, there are huge ramifications for consuming outside of ones means. Not only are there environmental and globalization problems but also local issues. It would be easy to say that consuming beyond your means is a bad thing but at the same time it is what has brought us into the modern age. The consumption of many powers the economy upon which we rely.
It is in this paradoxical situation that I find myself both clinging to “Be thankful for what I’ve got” as a means to justify buying more and on the other hand idealizing about living an even more simplistic lifestyle in which I do not merely buy and give thanks. Thus my consumption philosophy remains ever changing. I operate in an un-convicted state buying what I want and passively judging those that I feel consume too much.
UPDATE (2/14/08): I got an A- on this paper
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Jotting #8 - Natural Law Applied
Question/Prompt: Apply natural law ethics to the situation which Durning describes.
My response: During’s main point in his article is that there is an over consumption of natural resources by consumers, specifically Americans. In order to apply the first point of Harris’s checklist the four fundamental values should be described: biological (preserve life, protect young), procreation, pursuit of knowledge, sociability.
In the comparison of During with Harris’ checklist we can determine that the action, reducing over consumption, is in accord with the biological inclinations of the natural law. Reducing our consumption to levels that are sustainable globally is a good thing for life everywhere. He does not say that we should kill off extra people in order to decrease the overall demands on the earth but rather a better use of resources available.
The area of forfeiture is more complicated. It is possible to consider those who consume too many resources as causing the eventual death of others; whether it is directly, through sweat shop labor or indirectly, through eventual environmental damage. If you consider their actions as causing death then by the qualifying principle of forfeiture their life is no longer valuable. This of course is a highly controversial view but the reasoning can be skewed to appear this way.
However, saying that consumerism is completely bad and leads to death is not entirely correct. According to During “once people join the consumer class, their impact ceases to grow as quickly because their attention tends to switch to high-value, low-resource goods and services.” (p563 8th ed.) Therefore those who feel that a completely “non-consumer” lifestyle is the only answer are not entirely right. There is a potential that consuming can be controlled in such a way that all humans can enjoy a certain standard of living that is both sustainable and fair.
The statistics presented in During’s piece illustrate that there is a wide gap between the poorest and the richest. The rich are consuming resources at a rate that is not possible for all to achieve. It is these people that could fall into the category of forfeiture in that their actions could potentially be causing the death of others. There are some however, that are consuming at a rate that the entire world could potentially survive at. It is this group that would ideally be the norm. However, there is the final group that are consuming nearly no resources relative to the wealthier people.
My response: During’s main point in his article is that there is an over consumption of natural resources by consumers, specifically Americans. In order to apply the first point of Harris’s checklist the four fundamental values should be described: biological (preserve life, protect young), procreation, pursuit of knowledge, sociability.
In the comparison of During with Harris’ checklist we can determine that the action, reducing over consumption, is in accord with the biological inclinations of the natural law. Reducing our consumption to levels that are sustainable globally is a good thing for life everywhere. He does not say that we should kill off extra people in order to decrease the overall demands on the earth but rather a better use of resources available.
The area of forfeiture is more complicated. It is possible to consider those who consume too many resources as causing the eventual death of others; whether it is directly, through sweat shop labor or indirectly, through eventual environmental damage. If you consider their actions as causing death then by the qualifying principle of forfeiture their life is no longer valuable. This of course is a highly controversial view but the reasoning can be skewed to appear this way.
However, saying that consumerism is completely bad and leads to death is not entirely correct. According to During “once people join the consumer class, their impact ceases to grow as quickly because their attention tends to switch to high-value, low-resource goods and services.” (p563 8th ed.) Therefore those who feel that a completely “non-consumer” lifestyle is the only answer are not entirely right. There is a potential that consuming can be controlled in such a way that all humans can enjoy a certain standard of living that is both sustainable and fair.
The statistics presented in During’s piece illustrate that there is a wide gap between the poorest and the richest. The rich are consuming resources at a rate that is not possible for all to achieve. It is these people that could fall into the category of forfeiture in that their actions could potentially be causing the death of others. There are some however, that are consuming at a rate that the entire world could potentially survive at. It is this group that would ideally be the norm. However, there is the final group that are consuming nearly no resources relative to the wealthier people.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Jotting #7 Personal Summary of Natural Law
The Question/Prompt: Summarize Natural Law in your words, but quoting HARRIS and Dr. Snell’s lecture.
My Answer: Dr. Snell began his lecture with the problem. We can not get along. Typically the only reconciliation between two groups of people with conflicting ideas is force. For example, Snell explained, one candidate believes they have the best capabilities of running the country. Of course all of the candidates believe this and as a result the only way for any of them to win is have the force of the vote. This is a general example of the way one persons thoughts prevail over another. But whose ideas are truly right? It is after asking this question you must examine what natural law is.
Both Harris and Snell set out to describe what the natural law is about. Both emphasized the importance of not confusing it with the laws of nature. In turn they both came to a relatively similar basic generalization in that the natural law is applied to all regardless of sex or race.
In Harris’ book he wades through what the natural law is. He discusses where the argument for the natural law is strong and where it is weak. The natural law has biological and “characteristically human values” elements to it. By keeping in accordance with the aforemention categories, natural law promotes what those categories outline.
Snell’s descriptions were similar in that there are certain “natural inclinations” that we tends towards. These inclinations include but are not limited to self preservation and procreation. Furthermore we are beings that follow the law not out of “irrational habit, but by reason”.
My personal summary combined with the information presented in both Snell’s lecture and Harris’ book is that the natural law is an attempt at explain the things that govern human behaviour. It is a set of certain principles that have been brought out objectively and apply to all humans.
My Answer: Dr. Snell began his lecture with the problem. We can not get along. Typically the only reconciliation between two groups of people with conflicting ideas is force. For example, Snell explained, one candidate believes they have the best capabilities of running the country. Of course all of the candidates believe this and as a result the only way for any of them to win is have the force of the vote. This is a general example of the way one persons thoughts prevail over another. But whose ideas are truly right? It is after asking this question you must examine what natural law is.
Both Harris and Snell set out to describe what the natural law is about. Both emphasized the importance of not confusing it with the laws of nature. In turn they both came to a relatively similar basic generalization in that the natural law is applied to all regardless of sex or race.
In Harris’ book he wades through what the natural law is. He discusses where the argument for the natural law is strong and where it is weak. The natural law has biological and “characteristically human values” elements to it. By keeping in accordance with the aforemention categories, natural law promotes what those categories outline.
Snell’s descriptions were similar in that there are certain “natural inclinations” that we tends towards. These inclinations include but are not limited to self preservation and procreation. Furthermore we are beings that follow the law not out of “irrational habit, but by reason”.
My personal summary combined with the information presented in both Snell’s lecture and Harris’ book is that the natural law is an attempt at explain the things that govern human behaviour. It is a set of certain principles that have been brought out objectively and apply to all humans.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Paper 1 - Consumption Philosophy
-Our assignment is to discuss our consumption philosophy.
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Does life in America require different basic needs as opposed to life in Jamaica? Is it ever okay to make a purchase that is not necessary to live? Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got.” By these words I lived my life only to realize their inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy games many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay.
Here I am now, a Junior in college and only now am I reflecting on the reasons for my consumeristic behavior. I am a grateful person but have never truly put honest reflection into the fact that I can be thankful for things that I do not need. In honest reflection I recognize that I have lived a simple life. Not as simple as some but not as product filled as others. But living a simple life is something that was a consequence of being thankful for what I had. It has become ever more evident that the simplicity in which I have existed is not necessarily a result of moral superiority but a lack of appetite and exposure to things that I wanted.
Throughout my life I have been cared for. I have never been without the things that I need. Never have I had to wonder where I was going to sleep nor have I experienced a day in which I would go to bed on an empty stomach. As a result I have essentially taken for granted the fact that I can get a clean drink of water when I want it. This in turn has skewed my view as to what is necessary for me to live. Does life in America require different basic needs as opposed to life in Jamaica? Is it ever okay to make a purchase that is not necessary to live? Early on in my life I was taught a vivid lesson, “Be thankful for what you’ve got.” By these words I lived my life only to realize their inability to address the heart of consumption. Thankfulness for the things you have is not an excuse for consumption of the things you want.
Thankfulness, the word would always come back to me whenever I started complaining that I did not have something more or something cooler than what I already had. It was hard for me to understand why if my friend had a certain toy or got to go on a certain trip why I in turn could not. A specific incident that is forever etched in my mind illustrates this point. When I was about 9 years old I received an invitation for a play date at my friend Jeffrey Lacroix’s house. I was excited for this trip to his house and the anticipation only grew when he told me that he had a Nintendo gaming system. I spent an entire Saturday afternoon at his house and except for the snack breaks we were gaming the entire time. Soon the time for me to go drew near. I heard my mother’s car creep into the driveway like a rain cloud creeping between the sun and the earth. I knew my time with this precious gaming console was coming to an end but I could due nothing about it. Then, the words that I hoped I would never hear rang out, “Dan, its time to go home.” I remember the game was Mario and that I was in the middle of the desert. I was so attached to this little digital figure that the thought of leaving him without someone to control him and help him through all of the perilous levels was inhumane. But nonetheless, all of Mario’s lives were lost and I was forced to go.
I do not remember much of the ride home. All that consumed my mind was that I needed one of those glorious gaming systems. Unfortunately, my mother did not recognize that apparent need. Her exact words escape my memory but I know it was something to the effect of “Be thankful for what you’ve got”. The wisdom of my mother’s words were not as apparent to me then as they are now but even today I see problems with her advice. Nevertheless, she succeeded in making me appreciate some of the things that I did have at home but she did not however, completely eradicate my desire for a gaming system. The result of that car ride home is the basis of the framework that I use today in my attitude towards consumerism.
As life went on, from that nine-year-old year, I continued to acquire more and more things. Whether they were gifts or things that I bought my possessions kept increasing. Until only recently have I realized that the words “Be thankful for what you’ve got” are flawed in the face of consumerism. My actions have not been perfect since I was nine but more often than not I was able to see that I was blessed and in turn was thankful for the things that I did have. But an appreciation of the things I had in no way addressed whether or not I should have those things in the first place.
My dream of owning a gaming console came true my sophomore year of high school. The Nintendo 64 came out and it was the hot gift of the year. As a side note this, of course, meant that the price of the Super Nintendo was going down. My mother would go out shopping in late December (pre Christmas) and would come home with bags full of things. We never knew what was in the bags until Christmas day but we did know what stores she had been to based on the logos of the bags she was carrying. One day she came home with a Gamestop bag in her hand and I hoped that behind that opaque plastic was the coveted Nintendo 64.
After an eternity of waiting Christmas day finally came. I tore through all of the gifts that were labeled with my name thanking my parents for each one and quickly moving on to the next one hoping it would be “the gift”. I came to the end of my presents and had not found any containing the gift I was hoping for. I quickly glanced around at my siblings gifts and noticed none of them had anything resembling Nintendo 64. Suddenly my parents brought in one final “family gift”. The gift was meant to be shared among all of us. It could only be one thing. I quickly dove towards the package and attacked it frantically as my siblings quickly joined in helping me tear the paper to shreds in order to expose the gift lying beneath. Sure enough, there it was, the first console any of us were to ever own, the Super Nintendo. Though we were not as pleased as we would have been had it been a Nintendo 64 we knew it would still be fun. We all knew that we should be thankful for the Super Nintendo even if it was not the Nintendo 64 we had hoped for.
It was on this day that I can look back and realize that being “thankful for what you’ve got” may not be the best philosophy in addressing consumerism. I now owned, along with my older brother, older sister and younger sister, a Super Nintendo. It was a great little machine and though we were disappointed with it at first we soon realized the benefit of this console. While our friends only had two or three games for their N64’s we could rent and even buy games many more games for low prices. So, yes, we were not just being nice we were actually thankful for the gift we had received. However, it was thankfulness for something we did not in the least bit need.
Looking back on this incident it becomes blatantly obvious that being thankful, though a worthy mindset and admirable disposition, does not justify consumerist behavior. Yet, as mentioned before it is only until recently that I have realized the breakdown in the advice my parents had given me since I was a small child. Consequently, it has largely been the way I have viewed my consumption. There are exceptions and circumstances in which this does not hold true but more or less I have held on to these words. As long as I was thankful for a purchase or a gift it was okay.
Here I am now, a Junior in college and only now am I reflecting on the reasons for my consumeristic behavior. I am a grateful person but have never truly put honest reflection into the fact that I can be thankful for things that I do not need. In honest reflection I recognize that I have lived a simple life. Not as simple as some but not as product filled as others. But living a simple life is something that was a consequence of being thankful for what I had. It has become ever more evident that the simplicity in which I have existed is not necessarily a result of moral superiority but a lack of appetite and exposure to things that I wanted.
Jotting #6 - Conflict in Consumerism
Prompting: Try, in De Montaigne's sense of the word, any current issue (the war in iraq, using cell phones in cars, or genetic engineering, for examples) Suspend Judgment and ask "what do I know?" Play around, and take all sides.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
My response: It is all to easy for me to disregard challenges and take the easy way out of situations. There are numerous head and heart challenges that I am presented with but rarely do I take on these challenges. More often than not I find myself justifying my thoughts and my apathy towards the subject. However as Harris states “Critical reflection is an essential component of being a morally responsible person.” As a result of the glaring truth of this statement it is with some hesitancy that I approach the issue of consumerism.
In reading Harris I find that the issue of consumerism, in my mind, is a conflict problem. In this situation there are “two or more relevant moral demands, both of which cannot be complied within a particular situation.”
I would like to write consumerism off as a terrible thing and something that should be frowned upon. However, the fact of the matter is that we must consume, I know this. If everyone for all of time live conservative lifestyles never pushing for more than we would have never progressed into the modern age. The effects of consumerism stimulate economies. A stimulated economy can in turn result in advancements in science and technology.
Though consumerism can cause positive results it must not go unchecked. Those who live well beyond there means are leaving, among other things, an ecological footprint that may not be able to be reversed. On the other hand it is not easy to say to that person what their specific “means” are.
The question can not be answered simply. This fact was brought up by Harris when he states that sometimes we need to “find a middle way that appeals to both sides”. The “middle way”, as he calls it, is not always agreed upon. The middle way for some is much better off than the middle way for others. The development of a universal “middle way” in turns of consumerism may never be achieved due to the mentality that “if I can and want to, I will”. The power that money makes people feel can be a powerful thing, be it for good or bad.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Jotting #5 - Happiness, Important Life, What is Right?
Question: Express in one sentence one of your guidelines for living: how to be happy, what is important in life, what is right. Now illustrate your sentence with three specific examples. To be more fully honest, also consider a competing idea or objection someone might have to your philosophy.
My Response: One of my guidelines is to never get stuck in one spot but continually travel the road of a bigger purpose. I view life as a road I am on. Being a Christian I am part of something bigger than myself. As I have gone through life I have gone through many different parts of that path. Elementary school was a host of different scenes along that path. In turn Middle school another bunch of scenes came as I progressed towards something bigger. Now as I am in college I see another set of scenery. This may be the best that I have scene yet. But the fact of the matter is there is more scenery to come. It makes me happy to see new scenery and I feel that it is what is important.
Life was meant to be lived with other people. It is right to be aware of what there problems are and what they need. There is a lot of emphasis put on making yourself better than other people. It is good to look outside yourself and not be focused on what would get you more possessions and status. Many people will see certain scenery and will lose motivation to move on. They will stay at that scene and build on it. They’ll make it more “beautiful” and will never progress.
On the other hand there is the life that focuses on self improvement and development. Going back to the previous analogy we see that you must be well in order to anything. Looking out for yourself does in fact have its place. There is a certain element of life in which you must be able to hold yourself together. You have nothing to offer to other people if you are not okay.
However, it should never be to the point that you are neglecting those around you.
My Response: One of my guidelines is to never get stuck in one spot but continually travel the road of a bigger purpose. I view life as a road I am on. Being a Christian I am part of something bigger than myself. As I have gone through life I have gone through many different parts of that path. Elementary school was a host of different scenes along that path. In turn Middle school another bunch of scenes came as I progressed towards something bigger. Now as I am in college I see another set of scenery. This may be the best that I have scene yet. But the fact of the matter is there is more scenery to come. It makes me happy to see new scenery and I feel that it is what is important.
Life was meant to be lived with other people. It is right to be aware of what there problems are and what they need. There is a lot of emphasis put on making yourself better than other people. It is good to look outside yourself and not be focused on what would get you more possessions and status. Many people will see certain scenery and will lose motivation to move on. They will stay at that scene and build on it. They’ll make it more “beautiful” and will never progress.
On the other hand there is the life that focuses on self improvement and development. Going back to the previous analogy we see that you must be well in order to anything. Looking out for yourself does in fact have its place. There is a certain element of life in which you must be able to hold yourself together. You have nothing to offer to other people if you are not okay.
However, it should never be to the point that you are neglecting those around you.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Jotting #4 - Relative Ideas or Objective?
Question: Are your ideas about consumption and the environment relative or objective? Use examples from HARRIS to support your ideas.
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
My Answer: The issue of environment is one that I have more than average interest in. Growing up in a rural part of New Hampshire I have been exposed to woods and farmland my entire life. As such I recognize the need to preserve it. On the other hand I have also come to the realization that the need for wood and wood products will be around for many years to come. In regards to the environment I believe that my views are objective. In looking at the situation of the Tongass forest we see that there the possibility to harvest trees in order to fulfill the demand for wood and wood products. Ideally it may be the best option to remain out of the forest. However, that does not address the fact that the demand for wood products still remains. The Tongass can be forested in an appropriate manner. If the process is regulated that land can provide the same amount of lumber year after year without major disruptions to the natural habitat. If the lands were locked up and not allowed to be forested the demand would translate to another country where sustainable practices may not even be a consideration when going into a forest. The question of ethical relativism becomes more difficult for me when moving into other topics. For instance, “We hunt whales in order to preserve our heritage and survive economically. I do not hunt whales because there is no need for me to.” A similar worded statement is posed by Harris when discussing “Weak Arguments for Moral Relativism”. Before reading Harris I would have said that it is relative. However, Harris points out “the mere fact of disagreement over moral principles does not prove the truth of moral relativism”. This in turn sparked new questions in my head as I realized that I do not have a good grasp whether or not morals are relative. The fact that whale populations are low in population means that there should be a reduction in the number of whales killed every year. If the whales are killed all together than the whale hunters will have nothing left to hunt. In that sense my stance is objective. Life begets life and therefore there must be whales around in order for more whales to be born. However, the question of whether or not the whales should be hunted at all is another question all together. Whether my answer would be morally relative or not I do not know. “The arguments we have just given do not prove that moral skepticism is false, although they do cast doubt on the more radical versions of moral skepticism.”
Monday, January 21, 2008
Jotting #3 - Why Study Ethics
Assignment: Explain why we at North Park want to study ethics, giving at least one idea and at least three supporting details, particularly evidence from Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom's lecture.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
My Response: Knowledge can be attained through many different avenues. There are numerous colleges and countless online courses that will teach you essentially anything you want to know. Sites such as Wikipedia give a tasty appetizer to humans giving them access to over 7 million articles (2 million of which are in English) of just about anything they would want to know about. But simply knowing how many feet are in a mile or what organism causes cavities in your mouth will not benefit you unless you know how to appropriately apply that knowledge. This, in turn, is why an ethics course at a University such as North Park is important. As mentioned before there are so many sources of information in the world today that it may be more prudent to save your money from tuition costs and discover the knowledge you seek in other ways. In fact, it may even produce better results for someone who is a business major to work there way up in a company and know how it works instead of taking classes at a 4 year college or university. However, these alternative methods of education do not directly address the issue of ethics; “the study of how to live a good life and choose right actions”. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom made it quite clear that one of the most basic questions of ethics is “Should I . . . “. The question of “should I” readily takes a back seat in the mind of someone who has just realized that they can make a handsome profit off of selling endangered turtle eggs for gourmet soup. An argument of this nature can not simply be answered by saying “Oh, those poor defenseless turtles”. There is often more to the story than what is first believed. In understanding the ethics of the situation it is important to realize what ethics is not. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom outlined three details to understanding what ethic is not. First of all it is not sentimentality. You can not “feel bad” for the turtles and in turn reach the conclusion that it is ethically wrong. Furthermore it is not moralizing. Simply because you may have grown up believing that the destruction of endangered species is wrong, does not make your argument that much more valid. Finally, Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom states Ethics is not politics, “legality is not the same as morality”.
It is important to study Ethics at North Park because without it we simply become another means of attaining information. Without asking the question of “should I” the world becomes, to say the least, an altogether unfriendly place. There are no easy answers to ethics questions but avoiding the topic altogether is even worse. The education that one receives must not be void of asking the question “Should I”. Furthermore, it must be understood how to appropriately address the fullness of the situation without including sentimentality, moralization and politics.
Jotting #2
I did not do jotting number 2.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
The assignment was: Complete Ideas and Details Exercise 10 page 35.
Jotting #1
Assignment: Pick one of the topics in the book Contemporary Moral Problems intro and dcide which are the factual, conceptual and moral issues.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
My Jotting: This reading began with factual statements. There were several instances were there was information directly taken from sources that have recorded data in regards to the authors topic. It appears that the author is picking and choosing select statistics to make an argument. You see the authors conceptual argument come into play when she illustrates the amount of money consumers spend on seemingly unnecessary purchases such as SUV’s and H2’s.
Finally the moral question comes into play towards the end of the passage. The author questions what is most important. Is the logger who must support her family most important, or is the beauty of the earth more significant.
This passage was interesting to me as I have an interest in the outdoors and conserving lands. Recently my Grandmother put 273 acres of her land into conservation. This conservation process posed many issues to her and the family. Each of her 5 children felt that they were entitled to at least a tiny piece of the land. In the months that followed there were discussions that debated some of the issues presented in the introduction of Contemporary Moral Problems.
In terms of forestry I feel there is too much hype brought to the dangers of harvesting trees. However, when people read about the evil people that cut them down they equate tree cutting with evil. The reality is, we need trees and the products which they in turn produce.
In my experience in the Northeastern part of the United States peoples fear of losing forests has been a bad thing. As a result of urban sprawl and subsequent developments forestable land is being diminished. Many people will buy 5 acre lots and not touch any of the wood/trees on it. The demand for wood products is not decreasing. In turn the demand for these wood products is pushed overseas. So, while the Northeast is undergoing one of the greatest reforastizations known to man somewhere else in the world is being decimated by the demand created.
It would be much more prudent to open up these forestable plots. The demand for the wood products could be met using sustainable foresting practices. This has other beneficial effects as it does not as adversely effect the ecosystem around the harvesting area.
Many American consumers have been so far removed from the actual demand that their consumerism causes that they do not see any problems with it. I like Callicott’s suggestion in that we belong to three different moral communities. The three communities that he describes should live in balance with each other. The logger that is cutting trees in order to feed her family can do it in a sustainable and in a responsible manner. This will allow for the biotic community as a whole to continue to function properly.
The preservation of our natural world is more important than the fact that if it is gone we have destroyed beauty. There are many species and other animals that are beneficial and life saving to us as humans. For instance tree frogs that undergo freezing during the winter months. By studying these frogs we are in turn able to develop better methods of transporting organs. If we destroy and underappreciate the natural world we are eliminating a valuable resource which we can continually learn from.
Jottings
As part of Dr. Rachelle Ankney's dialogue class we are required to do jottings. They are "freely written responses" to various readings and lectures. They are not necessarily graded on spelling and grammer or even organization. They are essentially used to see that we are thinking and doing the assigned work. "Jottings" will most likely make up the majority of this blog.
Welcome to North Park Dialogue
According to North Park University's website
Many people would have a hard time believing that the above statement is true but it doesn't really matter because North Park students have to take it anyway. Be that as it may,
I am a student at North Park and am currently enrolled in NPD2000-16: Simplicity, Consumption, and Ethics. The professor is Dr. Rachelle Ankney.
My intentions with publishing to this blog is to allow what I write as assignments for the class to not go wasted. I feel that if I spend my time writing something it is better to allow it to be read by whoever is interested rather than let it sit in some folder deep in the recesses of my computer.
Enjoy and take it for what it's worth.
The North Park Dialogue is a three course sequence in which students encounter life's great questions in the context of their academic lives. While the courses will be centered on life's great questions, these courses will also help develop a student's writing, listening, speaking and interpersonal skills, introduce them to some of the monuments of world culture and to some of the techniques of inquiry and analysis needed for a life of significance and service.
Many people would have a hard time believing that the above statement is true but it doesn't really matter because North Park students have to take it anyway. Be that as it may,
I am a student at North Park and am currently enrolled in NPD2000-16: Simplicity, Consumption, and Ethics. The professor is Dr. Rachelle Ankney.
My intentions with publishing to this blog is to allow what I write as assignments for the class to not go wasted. I feel that if I spend my time writing something it is better to allow it to be read by whoever is interested rather than let it sit in some folder deep in the recesses of my computer.
Enjoy and take it for what it's worth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)