PHL 454: Environmental Philosophy

PHL 454: Environmental Philosophy Dr Stephens Spring 2007

Tues. Thurs. 11:00 am to 12:15 pm HC 212

office: HC 116 office hours: Tues. 3:30–5 pm, Wed. 2–3 pm, Thurs. 3:30–4 pm, and by appt.

phone (with voicemail): 280-2632 email: stphns at creighton dot edu

Course Description

Examination of a variety of theoretical approaches to philosophical issues concerning individual organisms, species, ecosystems, and the biosphere. Study of aesthetic, axiological, epistemological, and ontological issues such as biocentrism, ecocentrism, deep ecology, social ecology, the concept of wilderness, future persons and obligations to them, population growth and reproductive ethics, consumerism, sustainable economies, and green political theory.

Course Requirements

Weekly @ quite short papers on assigned readings	45%
Pop quizzes on assigned readings	10%
Class participation	25%
Final paper (2000–2400 words)	20%

Required Text

Louis P. Pojman, Environmental Ethics: Theory and Application; 4th ed. (Thomson/Wadsworth, 2005) ISBN 0-534-63971-2.

Films

Silent Running (1972) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Running

An Inconvenient Truth (2006) http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006) http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

Grading Criteria

F "Failure – no credit" (below 60% average)

Extreme lack of clarity or lack of coherence of argument or expression of thought.
Disregard for the requirements of the assignment.
Irrelevant use or failure to use relevant course readings.
Submission of another's words or thoughts as if they were your own, whether in the form of plagiarism or failure to acknowledge the source of an idea.
Very poor class attendance with no participation in discussions.

D "Work of inferior quality, but passing" (60% to below 70% average)

Unclarity or incoherence of argument or expression of thought.
Failure to satisfy the requirements of the assignment.
Poor or inadequate understanding or use of relevant course readings.
Improper acknowledgment or citation of the sources of your ideas.
Poor class attendance with little or no participation in discussions.

C "Satisfactory work"

Basic clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Satisfaction of the assignment's basic requirements.
Fair or adequate understanding of the major views and theories in the relevant course readings and the arguments presented in support of those views and theories.
Minimally clear and coherent evaluation of the views and arguments in the relevant course readings.
Minimally proper acknowledgment and citation of the sources of your ideas.
Generally consistent class attendance with occasional participation in discussions.
77% to below 80% average for a C+; 70% to below 77% average for a C.

B "Noteworthy level of performance" Demonstrates all of the qualities of satisfactory work plus:

Good, above average clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Clear, logical organization of the essay's introduction, body, and conclusion.
Clear, detailed, and accurate understanding of the major views and theories in the relevant course readings and of the arguments presented in their support.
Good attempt to provide argumentative support for your evaluation of the views, theories, and arguments presented in the relevant course readings.
Regular, consistent class attendance with regular, good participation in discussions.
87% to below 90% average for a B+; 80% to below 87% average for a B.

A "Outstanding achievement and an unusual degree of intellectual initiative" Demonstrates all of the qualities of noteworthy performance plus:

Excellent, superior clarity and coherence of argument and expression of thought.
Clear, rigorous, and cogent argumentative support for your evaluation of the views, theories, and arguments presented in the relevant course readings.
Originality and creativity of interpretation, explanation, argumentation, or criticism.
Superior class attendance with consistent, excellent, and thoughtful participation in discussions.
90% average or above.

Attendance, Class Participation, and Paper Submission Policies

Punctual attendance at every class is expected. Being prepared for every class is not only expected, but vital to the success of this course. The equivalent of 2½ weeks of absences (five classes) count as excessive and will result in an AF (F due to excessive absence). Each absence lowers the class participation grade. Attendance is necessary but not sufficient for good class participation. Class participation includes your comments and questions in class and talking with (or emailing) me about course topics outside of class. Both quantity and quality of remarks count. Always bring our textbook to class so we can examine passages that we discuss.
    Each weekly 1-page paper will be graded on a 20 point scale. These short papers must be neatly printed (not hand written) and are due at the beginning of the class for which they are assigned. Should a weekly short paper be turned in after class but the same day it is due, it will be penalized two letter grade (4 points). Should a weekly paper be turned in before 11:00 am the day after it is due, it will be penalized four letter grades (8 points). Should a weekly paper be turned in after 11:00 am on the day after it is due, it will be penalized six letter grades (12 points). A weekly paper not turned in by the day after it is due will receive an automatic zero (0). When calculating final grades, I will drop the lowest score you have received on your weekly papers.
    In order to have time to grade your final papers and submit your course grades to the Registrar by the deadline, the May 1, 1:00 pm deadline is firm. The final paper will be scored on a 100 point scale. Late papers will be penalized one letter grade (10 points) for each hour after 1:00 pm they are turned in late (e.g. a paper turned in between 1:01 pm and 2:00 pm will be penalized 10 pts.; a paper turned in between 2:01 pm and 3:00 pm will be penalized 20 pts., and so forth).
    The final paper will be a thesis defense paper. In a thesis defense paper the author takes a stand on a philosophical issue pertinent to a topic in environmental philosophy. The author (student) must clearly explain what her position is after explicitly stating it in the introductory paragraph. Then, in the body of the paper, the student must justify her thesis by presenting arguments to support it. Then the student must discuss the most intelligent objections to and counterarguments against her position that she can think of. Finally she must reply to these intelligent objections and defend her thesis (which may require modifying it) in response to the counterarguments.

Final papers will be graded by the following criteria:

Originality and creativity. A fresh insight, a new perspective on the topic, an original argument, a creative analysis–these things will distinguish your paper as special and memorable.
Clarity and concision. Make your meaning as plain as you can. Choose words carefully, spell them correctly, and put them in graceful, grammatical, properly punctuated, complete sentences. Trim out excess verbiage. Make every word count.
Coherence and organization. Make your ideas hang together so that each one leads smoothly and logically to the next. A well reasoned thesis defense paper is well organized and to the point.
Rigor and Burden of Proof. Be logical. Construct direct, valid arguments. Avoid all informal fallacies like the plague. Provide evidence. Shoulder the burden of proof in advancing your arguments.
Evenhandedness and Principle of Charity. Include plausible criticisms of and objections to your thesis. How might an astute opponent challenge your position? Respond thoughtfully and fairly to these criticisms, objections, and challenges.

Pop Quizzes

To encourage you to keep fresh in your mind the basic content of the assigned reading so our discussions will be fruitful, I will occasionally, at the beginning of class, without prior announcement, give a small pop quiz on the reading assignment. If you are late to class or absent that day, then you miss the quiz, get a zero for it, and cannot retake it. Pop quizzes typically have ten true/false questions and count for 10 points.

Class Cancellation Procedure

A class meeting is cancelled if and only if at least two of the following conditions are met:

The student receives an email from either the instructor or the Administrative Assistant or the Chair or the Associate Chair of the Philosophy Department announcing cancellation of that class.
The student is informed orally by either the instructor or the Administrative Assistant of the Philosophy Department, or some other faculty member of the Philosophy Department;
The student sees with his or her own eyes, posted in the classroom, a sign announcing the class cancellation printed on C. U. Philosophy Dept. stationery with one signature of a faculty or staff member of the Philosophy Dept.

Each student is responsible for confirming a class cancellation and for making a good faith effort to do so. Making a phone call is an acceptable means of establishing (b), for example; (c) can be satisfied twice with two different signatures on the department stationery.

Statement on Academic Honesty and Penalties for Violations

If you plagiarize any part of a paper, then you will receive an F for the course. Students are required to produce their own original work in their papers, including all ideas, arguments, and sentences. Students may NOT work with others, and may NOT borrow from others, when writing the sentences of their papers. However, students are encouraged to discuss ideas pertaining to their papers with other students in the course and with other people not taking the course. Cheating will be punished with at minimum an F (zero) on that assignment. In cases of cheating the instructor judges to be flagrant, the punishment is an F for the course. See the Creighton College of Arts & Sciences Academic Honesty Procedures.

Schedule

Jan. 11 Introduction: On Ethics and Environmental Concerns. What Is Ethics? (1–12)

THEORY

Jan. 16	Chapter 1. Western Philosophy of Nature: The Roots of Our Ecological Situation: Readings #1–4 (14–36)
Jan. 18	Chapter 2. #6 Kant, "Rational Beings Alone Have Moral Worth; #7 Singer, "A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation" (54–65)
	Assignment: Write about 1 to 1½ half pages, single-spaced in which, for each of the three readings, you (a) state the author's thesis,
	(b) briefly outline the central argument for that thesis. Also, (c) respond to Study Questions #2 and #4 on p.65, and (d) #2 on p.72.

Jan. 23	Chapter 2. #8 Regan, "The... Case for Animal Rights"; #9 Warren, "A Critique of Regan's Animal Rights Theory" (65–78)
Jan. 25	Chapter 3. #11 Rolston, "Naturalizing Values: Organisms and Species"; #12 Hettinger, "Comments on Rolston..." (85–102)
	Assignment: Write about 1 page, single-spaced in which, for both readings, you (a) state the thesis, and (b) briefly outline the argument for that thesis.

Jan. 30 Chapter 3. #13 J. S. Mill, "Nature"; #15 Paul Taylor, "Biocentric Egalitarianism" (103–110, 117–131)

Feb. 1 Chapter 3. #16 Goodpaster, "On Being Morally Considerable"; #17 Leopold, "The Land Ethic" (131–148)

Feb. 6	Chapter 3. #18 Callicott, "The Conceptual Foundations of the Land Ethic" (149–160)
Feb. 8	Chapter 3. #22 Naess, "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecological Movement";
	#23 Naess, "Ecosophy T: Deep Versus Shallow Ecology" (188–200)
	Assignment: Write one paragraph in which you explain Naess' criticisms of "Shallow Ecology" and state the basic tenets of Ecosophy T.

Feb. 13 Chapter 3. #24 Devall & Sessions, "Deep Ecology"; #25 Watson, "A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics" (200–212)

Feb. 15 Chapter 3. #26 Bookchin, "Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology" (212–222)
Assignment: Write one single-spaced page in which you (a) write out completely and (b) answer Study Questions #1 and #3 on p.222.

Feb. 20	Chapter 4. Preservation of Species, Nature, and Natural Objects: #29 Meadows, "Biodiversity: The Key to Saving Life on
	Earth"; Lizzie leads on #30 Russow, "Why Do Species Matter?" (237–248)
Feb. 22	Chapter 4. Sarah leads on #31 Gould, "The Golden Rule"; Kevin leads on #33 Elliot, "Faking Nature" (248–253, 266–273)

Feb. 27	Chapter 4. #32 Krieger, "What's Wrong with Plastic Trees?" (254–266);
	7:15–8:50 pm in HC 212 screening of Silent Running (1972)
March 1	class cancelled by snowstorm

SPRING RECESS

Obligations to Future Generations

March 13 Chapter 6. #40 Heilbronner, "What Has Posterity Ever Done for Me?"; #41 Hardin, "Who Cares for Posterity?" (320–330)

March 15 Chapter 6. #43 Parfit, "Energy Policy and the Further Future: The Identity Problem" (337–345)
Assignment: Write one single-spaced page in which you (a) carefully describe Parfit's argument and (b) evaluate it.

PRACTICE

March 20	Chapter 7. Population: General Consideration: Readings #44 McKibben, "A Special Moment in History: The Challenge of
	Overpopulation and Overconsumption; #49 Wolf, "Population and the Environment" (348–364, 402–410)
March 22	Chapter 7. #48 LaFollette, "Licensing Parents" (395–401)

March 27	Chapter 8. Population and World Hunger: #52 Engel, "Hunger, Duty, and Ecology: On What We Owe Starving Humans"
	(426–441)
March 29	Chapter 8. #54 Coffin, "The World Food Supply: The Damage Done by Cattle-Raising" (448–452)
	Read http://goveg.com/environment-globalwarming.asp ; http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html ; http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm ; http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817&page=1

April 3    #82 Brown, Flavin, & Postel, "A Vision of a Sustainable World"; #81 Foreman, "Strategic Monkeywrenching" (667–677)
April 5    #75 Gore, "Dysfunctional Society" (613–624)
                Assignment: Write one single-spaced page in which you (a) carefully describe Gore's argument and (b) evaluate it.

April 10 7:15–9:00 pm in HC 212 screening of An Inconvenient Truth (2006)

April 12 Read photocopied stories on climate change from The New York Times; discussion of An Inconvenient Truth
Assignment: Write the first 2–3 paragraphs of your paper. About one (1) double-spaced page in length is fine.

April 17 7:15–8:50 pm in HC 212 screening of Who Killed the Electric Car? (2006)

April 19 Discussion of Who Killed the Electric Car?

April 24 Chapter 14. #76. Westra, "Environmental Risks, Rights, and the Failure of Liberal Democracy: Some Possible Remedies" (624–639)

April 26 Paper presentations (informal) and discussions

Final Paper DUE May 1, 1:00 pm

* The instructor reserves the right, at his discretion, to make minor changes to this syllabus during the course including due dates, assignments, and requirements.

Last modified 23 April 2007, 4:15 pm