Philosophy 20: Ethics

Pierce College

Department of History, Philosophy, & Sociology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group Exercise for Baxter's "People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Notes on the importance of group exercises.) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each group paraphrases one of the significant parts from the following excerpts, and then provides an explanation to help someone understand the excerpt (explaining what the paraphrase obviously means, and why; what the paraphrase obviously doesn't mean, and why; and finally what the paraphrase could interestingly, and non-obviously mean, and why).  

 

Excerpts:

A) "Waste is a bad thing. The dominant feature of human existence is scarcity- our available resources, our aggregate labors, and our skill in employing both have always been, and will continue for some time to be, inadequate to yield to every man all the tangible and intangible satisfactions he would like to have. Hence, none of those resources, or labors, or skills, should be wasted-that is, employed so as to yield less than they might yield in human satisfactions."  (Baxter)

B) "My criteria are oriented to people, not penguins. Damage to penguins, or sugar pines, or geological marvels is, without more, simply irrelevant. One must go further, by my criteria, and say: Penguins are important because people enjoy seeing them walk about rocks; and furthermore, the well-being of people would be less impaired by halting use of DDT than by giving up penguins. In Short, my observations about environmental problems will be people-oriented, as are my criteria. I have no interest in preserving penguins for their own sake." (Baxter)

C) "I reject the idea that there is a 'right' or 'morally correct' state of nature to which we should return. The word 'nature' has no normative connotation. Was it 'right' or 'wrong' for the earth's crust to heave in contortion and create mountains and seas? Was it 'right' for the first amphibian to crawl up out of the primordial ooze? Was it 'wrong' for plants to reproduce themselves and alter the atmospheric composition in favor of oxygen? For animals to alter the atmosphere in favor of carbon dioxide both by breathing oxygen and eating plants? No answers can be given to these questions because they are meaningless questions."  (Baxter)

D) "From the fact that there is no normative definition of the natural state, it follows that there is no normative definition of clean air or pure water-hence no definition of polluted air-or of pollution--except by reference to the needs of man. The "right" composition of the atmosphere is one which has some dust in it and some lead in it and some hydrogen sulfide in it-just those amounts that attend a sensibly organized society thoughtfully and knowledgeably pursuing the greatest possible satisfaction for its human members." (Baxter)

E) "[T]he costs of controlling pollution are best expressed in terms of the other goods we will have to give up to do the job. This is not to say the job should not be done. Badly as we need more housing, more medical care, more can openers, and more symphony orchestras, we could do with somewhat less of them, in my judgment at least, in exchange for somewhat cleaner air and livers. But that is the nature of the trade-off, and analysis of the problem is advanced if that unpleasant reality is kept in mind. Once the trade-off relationship is clearly perceived, it is possible to state in a very general way what the optimal level of pollution is."  (Baxter)

F) "The basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different rights." (Singer)

 

 

 

 

 

Step 1 (two minutes): Have one group member read your group's excerpt so that the entire group can hear. 

 

Step 2 (two minutes): Have a different group member read your group's excerpt so that the entire group can hear and understand the quote. 

 

Step 3 (five minutes): paraphrase the significant parts from your group's excerpt. 

 

Step 4 (five minutes): explain what the paraphrase obviously means, and why. 

 

Step 5 (five minutes): explain what the paraphrase obviously doesn't mean, and why. 

 

Step 6 (five minutes): explain what the paraphrase could interestingly, and non-obviously mean, and why. 

 

Step 7 (ten minutes):  Each group presents their findings.