Joshua Zhang

Phil 220, Final Exam

1. Explain why Warren thinks (a) that an environmental ethic requires a feminist analysis and (b)
environmental degradation is a feminist issue. Evaluate Warren’s argument.

Warren believes that there is a strong correlation between the way we treat nature and the
way men oppress women in society. Warren believes that in order to address the issue of treating
nature poorly, we need to add in some values that are usually seen as more feminine, such as “care,
loving perception, and appropriate reciprocity, and doing what is appropriate in a given situation”
(p601) The issue with how current environmentalism works is that it is being approached without
some integral attitudes that women are keen to provide, in Warren's view. Environmental
degradation is a feminist issue because in the same way that popular society takes dominion over
nature, is analogous to how men take dominion over women in a patriarchal society.

Warren's argument makes light on the fact that there is an analogy between how men
“treats” women and how humans “treat” nature. To me, there is a different meaning to how the
word treat is interpreted. Warren's point is well taken in the aspect that there are men who treat
women well, like how some humans treat nature well, as well as those who act in the opposite
manner. However, women, no matter how oppressed, have ways to voice their opinions, even if
they are not actively heard. You can see this by the way woman's rights have evolved since the
beginning of time. There is an active way that men and women can communicate, as well as an
active method in which women are able to overcome their troubles. With nature, and this is the key
difference, nature cannot communicate with us. The only way nature can give us information is the
way it reacts. When a man mistreats a women, if you can only look at the aftermath of what
happens to the woman, it is not possible to know exactly what went on during the process. In
nature, there is definitely an aspect of process, from when an action takes place until the time it
shows us the effects of our cause. In this sense, the way men treat women and how humans treat
nature are not completely analogous, and Warren's argument in that sense loses value to me.

2. How does Shue defend the principle that those with more should contribute more to
alleviating poverty? (p. 51ff). Offer an argument to defend or reject his position.

There are two factors that he offers as support for his principle. First off, progressive rates
tend to accommodate final outcomes, and the second is that the amount each person needs to pay is
guaranteed to be able to pay. While in theory, Shue's idea is perfect, however in practice, it seems
there will be conflict of interest. Some people who have money genuinely do not have interest in all
the progressive projects of human kind. How many of these projects are there? Is it guaranteed that
every person who has money or resources will contribute to all these projects, in the proper
percentage? I do not think so in practice. People will always have tendencies, and favorites. It is too
much to ask from a human to know what goes where at this scale. Overall, I feel his idea is
agreeable in theory, and disagreeable in practice.

3. Explain the connections in LaDuke and in Robyn between environmental destruction and
cultural destruction for native people. Are there ethical insights that can be used by non-native
people and if so, what are these?

According to LaDuke and Robyn, our original relationship, as a human, is that we are
learners from nature. We are the young ones being brought up by the older and wiser animals and
plants of nature. When we seek to destroy nature in order to replace it with our own technologies
and needs, we are disrupting the connection that had existed long before between life and earth, the
kind of relationship that had preserved the Earth for millions of years. Our modern culture has
bought into the idea that modern technology is the correct way to live our lives, and that the old
values of preservation are inferior in power and worth than the newer destructive values. In a way,
if you apply this type of neo-favoritism type of thinking, our current ideals and values will be
replaced and criminalized by a newer set of ideals later on. There holds a sort of non-objective way
of looking at how we live life, and that happens if there is no set goal for human kind. This is
obviously a serious detriment, as soon the human kind will act without goals, and that will cause
lots of self-destruction and suffering for all.

4. What does Rolston argue to challenge the “no value without a valuer” axiom? (See p. 111ff).
Evaluate Rolston’s argument.

Rolston makes a distinction between discovery and invention. He comes up with examples
of analogies to the phrase “no value without a valuer”, by appealing to a category of discoveries,
such as biology, physics, law, history, and so on, and a category of inventions, such as science,
religion, and so on. Things that are discovered tend to have value despite the conscious observance
of it, while inventions derive value only when it is consciously applied. This distinction, if it is
taken this way, is valid. Things that are discovered have uses whether one knows about it or not. A
baby is not conscious as to how he breathes, but he does, and it is valuable to him. Money, on the
other hand, is useful to a baby only indirectly, through the conscious application by the baby's
parents, in which money is used to purchase diapers and shelter and food for the baby. However, it
is not quite so useful to the baby itself, because the baby is not capable of understanding how to
exchange money for food, etc.

5. What is Taylor’s argument that humans are not superior to other creatures. (p. 216ff) Does this
mean we should not have an ethical preference for humans? What does the absence of human
superiority mean for ethics

Humans are only superior to other creatures because humans say they are. It is this
subjective view of their own race that consists Taylor's argument. From this, he extends this
subjective-view argument to all the points that humans tend to claim that they are superior in, such
as moral superiority, and then to just being superior at everything. It does not mean that we should
not have an ethical preference for humans, it just means that as to this point, we are only capable of
understanding things from a human perspective. There is always the possibility that we will one day
understand how other animals view problems, but until that time, we will only be able to see things
from this perspective. The absence of human superiority just means that there is no subjective or
objective point of reference when talking about issues that are ethical. I think removing this will not
positively affect ethics studies because we will lose all direction and reference. However, we should
not look at problems solely from the human point of view, but try to incorporate all living things
into our ideas.