Ryan Katzman (THURS)

The ethics of the treatment of animals has become a topic that only began to enter mainstream consciousness in the 1970’s. Peter Singer has been one of the philosophers on the forefront of the animal rights movement since it began and has written extensively on the subject. This paper considers Singer’s arguments for utility and applying it to animal rights, drawing heavily from works such as Animal Liberation. Further an analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of a utilitarian calculus when applied to animals is conducted, and Singer’s arguments about speciesism and the attitude that “the greatest good for the greatest number” is the correct way to develop an ethic is scrutinized. The paper concludes with a discussion of animal intelligence, the possibility of animals having languages and cognition, and finally the implications that develop if they do, and what would happen if the social contract were extended into the animal kingdom.

Catherine Peck - Analysis Of The American Indian Agricultural Techniques And The Benefits Of Modifying The Modern Land Ethic (FRI)

As a follow-up to Aldo Leopold’s interpretation of “The Land Ethic” and the land use attitudes that German and Anglo-Saxon freemen perpetuated, I thought it only reasonable that the American Indian connection with their environment and eco-centric views that pervade universally across the diverse tribal beliefs in the magical tradition. At the center of their magical tradition is the creation story that connects the bounty of the earth with the first mortal death on this Earth, which gave rise to the rest of life through the soil itself. A close study of the techniques of the agricultural practices of the earliest North Americans reveals more efficient and organically sustainable practices that lay at the very heart of the agrarian culture of these first inhabitants. Hunting was an imperative tradition that supplied the peoples with their food and from the fur, clothing to protect themselves from the harsh winters. One of the most befuddling of European concepts to these peoples was what lay at the very heart of overseas thought; God furnished the world with everything of instrumental value to human that would provide for the foundations of a utilitarian society. In the eyes of the native peoples, they were only another part of creation that shared equal intrinsic value to the environment; the natural world was to be revered and thought of as a mother and its creation an epic saga of miracles that occurred because of the presence of the environment. Had this awe and respect for the Earth had been instilled within European mindsets, conflicts would not have arisen that have lead to the creation of the reservation system in the United States. Unable to live in an ideal Locke inspired existence, where social contracts are made and upheld, they constantly remain behind the veil of ignorance, contracting amongst themselves what ought to be the conventions of their society, able to lift the veil but not obtain the equal freedom intrinsically granted in each human life. The European based practice of agriculture is wasteful and inefficient and by not allowing American Indians practice their own land use ethic, we are constricting the opportunities available to them and don’t afford the opportunity for the American perspective to adopt aspects of both cultures to create a conjoined, peaceful existence in nature without altering its life giving essence.

Joseluis Bedoya - Protecting the Biodiversity of Ecosystems

Protecting the biodiversity, the variety of life on earth, of our planet is an ethical issue that should be at the top of the political agenda. Natural ecosystems are suffering directly from our excessive use of natural resources and our continuing efforts to inhabit places with rich ecosystems. Oceans, having the highest rates of biological productivity and diversity, play an important role in the temperature setting and regulating the earth’s carbon balance. Deforestation and other methods that require the removal of trees contribute to climate change. Extensive, natural forests are especially valuable: they are stable, resilient, very large carbon stores. Both the destruction of those carbon stores and the added emissions from the process make this even worse for global warming. If the earth’s remaining natural ecosystems are essential to regulate the climate and keep the planet habitable, then why do we invade and excrete its resources dry? Nature provides humans with a place to live, whether we find nature of instrumental value or intrinsic value, and we have a moral responsibility to stop the destruction of these ecosystems. Those that fail to see the harm that we are causing the environment do not understand, or more importantly, do not wish to understand nature and how important it is to the earth and to us.

Ben Ramsey & Jared Jaggers (THURS)

Mountain top removal mining takes the business of mining from an unfortunately detrimental necessity to a grotesque display of environmental negligence. This process is used to access Appalachian coal seams by blasting off the top of a mountain, exposing the coal so it may be easily harvested. The rubble and refuse of this process is then dumped into the valley, contaminating tributaries with heavy metals and coal slurry. This reckless strategy destroys some of the richest ecosystems in the United States while simultaneously misleads and impoverishes communities in the Appalachians. Mountain top removal mining violates land ethic, and is a simple example of a bigger problem of applying a cost effective rather than value effective analysis for industrial protocol in America.

Danny Salvato- Mountain top removal

My paper is about mountain top removal for coal mining. There are serious environmental impacts to this practice which involves the destruction of mountain tops in order to retrieve coal from the landscape. This practice does serious harm to the land, ecosystem, and to human health. The blasting of mountain tops causes lots of dust to be thrown in the air. This dust contains high amounts of sulfur compounds which is a major health hazard to nearby communities. Forests are destroyed when blasting mountain tops as well as species causing a loss of biodiversity. There are laws enforcing companies to reclaim the area in which the blasting occurred but they have focused mainly on stabilizing rock formations rather than reforestation of the area. The practice of mountain top removal for coal is one in which society uses nature for profit and economic gain. There is no “land ethic” in this practice simply land destruction for economic profit. It is unsustainable practice in which ecosystems and human lives are reduced to monetary costs. My paper will analyze the justified destruction of mountain tops for economic profit.

Nigam Gandhi - Ethanol fuel: Environmental problem or Wave of the future? (THURS)

Though many people believe alternative energy is the wave of the future. This is not the case when it comes to Ethanol fuel. There are many disadvantages to the use of this type of energy. Specifically, there are many moral issues that are not always brought to people’s attention when discussing alternative methods of energy. I will examine the ethical dilemma behind the use of ethanol by showing that the arguments in support of ethanol usage are false. By examining the various impacts of ethanol on the environment, I will be able to compare through both Cost-effective and Value-effective analysis the disadvantages of using ethanol as a source of fuel. For example, many chemicals are released into the air during the production and transportation of ethanol. Another major ethical dilemma is the debate between the uses of crops as a food source versus a fuel source. This ethical dilemma is a moral issue dealing with the Allodial Land Right and who has the right to decide and what use the cropland will go towards. In addition, commodification is another issue which stimulates the unequal distribution of crops among many countries. Therefore, in order for this problem to be solved, one must realize our moral obligations when creating new technologies.

David Barton – Environmental Ethics and ‘Leave No Trace’ Principles in Practice (THURS)

During the 1980’s, several governmental organizations including the United States Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Parks Service collaborated on the principles of “Leave No Trace”. This wilderness program and outdoor ethic has since gained the support of such national organizations as the Sierra Club and Boy Scouts of America. The seven core principles provide a framework for decisions and planning in the outdoors, and include such now well-known mottos as “Plan Ahead and Prepare” and have evolved into slogans such as “Pack it In, Pack it Out”. Although it is not law, these principles are reflected in policy decisions made by local agencies. Many parks place a limit on the amount of campers able to stay on a campground in an attempt to curtail the negative impact that humans inevitably have on their surroundings. Other policies and regulations include limitations on where fires can be made, and setting paths for hikers and backpackers.
“Leave No Trace” and the policies that spring from it are a reflection of preservationist attitudes, and especially express the ideas of Aldo Leopold. If the environment is something to be protected, then it must have value—is this value intrinsic or instrumental? If the motivating factor for protecting and maintaining the environment is economic, then this implies that the “land” (defined as Leopold broadly defined it, meaning both physical land and non-human habitants) has some quantifiable instrumental (or intrinsic?) value that would be lost if it is used for other purposes. The decisions to limit outdoor use in specialized areas therefore has both practical and ethical implications.

Abby Pardick (THURS)

I will be looking at the ethics of the non-profit, Energy Action Coalition. The main organizing group of a youth conference, Powershift, the organization stresses the ideas of energy dependence and political action from youth ages 16-22. As an attendee of the 2009 conference, and participant in a large act of civil disobedience, I would like to explore how the organization has used ethical arguments in support of their ideas about progress and democracy. I would also like to see how the social contract theory, and Rachels’ view on civil disobedience has been illustrated, or not illustrated within the views of the organization. There is an underlying theme made in the reading that civil disobedience cannot be justified within a democratic system, and that within a democracy we have the means to create change, therefore making civil disobedience unnecessary. However, the organization feels that civil disobedience and lobbying are both acceptable ways to create change within a society. Not only do they believe this, but they are sharing these ideas and presenting them to the youth of America that they are the only ways create change for the better.

Elizabeth Cockrell - Land Ethic: why you need it and how to get one (FRI)

Planet Earth is home to over 6 billion people and over 1.5 millions species. The expanding populations on Earth have raised the question of how to use the limited amount of land available to us. In order to protect the land for future use it is necessary to develop a Land Ethic. The concept of a Land Ethic was developed by Aldo Leopold in his book A Sand County Almanac. Leopold argued that throughout the history of mankind what has been taken into moral consideration has changed and it is time to update our moral consciousness to consider the impact our actions will have on the land. This update in mankind’s ethics is necessary because it is becoming more apparent that our consumption habits are exceeding Earth’s ability to provide resources and absorb waste. It is important to note that under the Land Ethic it is not the state’s responsibility to protect the environment; it is the responsibility of each individual to consider what impact their actions will have on the land. However, if each individual personally utilizes the Land Ethic and through Value Effective Analysis encourages their representatives in Congress to do the same, change will start occurring on a national level as well as on a personal level. Through adoption of a Land Ethic and Value Effective Analysis it is possible to reform the unsustainable way we currently think about and use land.

Megan Funk & Sammy Maffeo (FRI)

The purpose of our paper is to argue in support of preventing potential new offshore drilling sites and eventually put an end to offshore drilling as a whole. Offshore drilling refers the extraction of oil and other natural resources off the shores of nearby continents.

In 2008 George W. Bush lifted the bans on local offshore drilling in this US, which ignited controversial debates about whether the United States should actually expand our involvement in this activity. Obama’s recent decision to allow offshore drilling in US waters has only magnified the dispute. However, this month, there was an oil spill by BP gas in the Gulf of Mexico, and its effects have been devastating. Although, currently Obama has put new offshore drilling at a stand still until the current disaster is resolved, the possibility still exists. We are going to use this incident and other recent incidents of oil leaks and spills to support our argument that offshore drilling is destructive and wrong, and therefore should end permanently.

We are going to argue that offshore drilling and any destruction of the environment is ethically wrong, using The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold and the environmental definition of rights. We will also take the environmentalist’s stand against offshore drilling to protect nature and state of our future environment.

Alex Ziech - The Wisdom of Animals Rights and Morality

As humans, we deem ourselves as inherently or intrinsically valuable. It is contested as to whether non-human animals have the capacity or “eminence” to possess intrinsic value, morality, or right. However, a good case for animal rights can be made through the application of ethical theories to animals and humans, examination of the nature of animals and humans, and investigation of cultures that implement animal rights. There are several ethical theories that can be applied to animal rights, such as Jeremy Bentham’s “Principles of Morals and Legislation”, even if they appear anthropocentric. While animals are often deduced to instincts and stimuli, there is significant evidence in support of animals having complex mental abilities like memory, perception, and pleasure and pain. Furthermore, animals enrich the ecosystem, providing an environment capable of supporting life and supplying us with all of our resources. As in the words of writer-naturalist Henry Beston, “we need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals.”

Jessica Johnson (FRI)

Music has always been a proponent for change. From the spirituals of slaves in young America to the words of Bob Dylan in the sixties, musicians have inspired many a movement with their stories, their passion, and their desire for a better world. Oliver Sacks describes music as a force that “can lift us out of a depression or move us to tears…it can provide access, even when no medication can, to movement, to speech, to life.” In today’s environmental movement, music again takes on its traditional role of fighting for change. This song is the result of an exploration in musical protest techniques applied to issues addressed by the environmental movement. Do we have a responsibility to fight for change in today’s world? Do we have anything to fight for? Environmental degradation has a severe effect on the human population, and the song’s lyrics focus on these negative effects as well as on the weight of our obligation to reverse them.

Sudeep Poludasu & Matt Lee - Plankton and the Environment (FRI)

Plankton is an organism that lives underwater and is said to help reduce carbon dioxide levels. Phytoplankton accounts for about half of the CO2 absorbed by plants. Researchers believe that plankton help reduce greenhouse gases and CO2 emission. This leads to thinking that increasing their population will help reduce CO2 levels and greenhouse gases. Therefore, many private groups believe dumping iron to promote plankton is beneficial to our planet. However, there are cons to this idea due to the long term negative effects this has to plankton and the environment. Because plankton is at the bottom of the food chain, it triggers a break in the natural cycle and affects everyone. The increased carbon and iron uptake is harmful to the plankton and other animals that feed off plankton. This includes animals that we eat. Also, the plankton release their CO2 intake eventually when they are no longer living and reach the bottom of the ocean. This causes the ocean’s PH level to decrease and become more acidic. Therefore, what once seemed like a good idea just leads to more problems. We believe that increased uptake of carbon dioxide and iron in plankton will produce a harmful effect in the long run.

Audrey Savage & Jordan Ball - The Ethical Merits of Cap and Trade (THURS)

Cap and trade is defined as "the is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants." While cap and trade has shown to be successful in reducing emissions and company costs overall, it also raises some important ethical questions that should be addressed. Debate over whether lowering emissions is necessary due to the uncertainties associated with global warming will be ignored for this paper. We will focus, rather, on the ethical merit of emissions trading as a method for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This will include discussing the ethics of the alternative methods, such as voluntary reduction, taxes, and economic incentives. While these alternative methods are considered economically inefficient, are they any more ethically sound than emissions trading? Cap and trade essentially quantifies and puts a dollar value on the environment, allowing some to argue that the system in fact allows corporations the right to "pay to pollute." This paper will also look at the ethical implications of this for the environment, for people, and for the future. We will argue that cap and trade is an ethically dubious system, at least in its current form.

Lizzy Warner (FRI)

Former Alaskan Governor, Sarah Palin, has gone on record stating very controversial topics in regards to the environment. In particular, Palin’s views on the use of fossil fuels and her support of the National Rifle Association have been the cause of much debate. This paper will look specifically at Palin’s views on these two subjects and how they reflect her anthropocentric beliefs. Palin has continually been known for supporting drilling for oil specifically in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Palin believes that more people will benefit monetarily from drilling for oil though the counter argument suggests this monetary benefit will not extend to long term earnings. In discussing Palin’s pro-drilling policies we can see that she favors a cost benefit analysis to a value effective analysis and uses a somewhat Utilitarian approach—commonly known for being short-sighted—to make her arguments. While Palin has recently supported the use of “green technology” she has gone on record doubting global warming. Palin has stated that she does not believe global warming is a result of human practices, which is further evidence of her anthropocentric beliefs. If Palin does not believe global warming is caused by humans, then she believes humans do not need to change their behaviors to change the climate: the world is still at our disposal. In addition, because Palin is in adamant support of the National Rifle Association and hunting wildlife we can see that Palin believes humans have rights that animals and non-humans do not. This belief can be specifically categorized as theological anthropocentrism, as Palin has stated her disbelief in evolution. As a result of her various ethical statements, commonly brought to the attention of the public, she has been highly criticized and simultaneously highly praised and well-accepted.

Christina Aquino (THURS)

Although some benefits are extracted from animal experimentation, the moral obligation to animals should supersede this benefit. Animal experimentation often involves excruciatingly painful procedures, sometimes without the use of anesthetics. Animals’ intrinsic value and their ability to suffer, coupled with the availability of other options, makes these practices morally wrong. The Stanford Encyclopedia or Philosophy defines intrinsic value as “something that is valuable for its own sake as opposed to being valuable for the sake of something else.” Since (using G.E. Moore’s isolation test) animals would still possess value while living in a world by themselves, there are intrinsically valuable and therefore any harm done to them is morally wrong. Animals’ ability to suffer also grants them certain rights and creates an obligation to humans to refrain from inflicting pain on them, especially in when there are means to avoid that pain. There are a variety of alternatives available, such as cell cultures, computer modeling, statistical design, and The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) that yield the same, if not better results than the experiments performed on animals.

George Abariotis - Shipping, Fishing and the Environment (THURS)

Shipping and fishing are two of the world’s most ancient and lucrative industries. It brings people and commodities together from the corners of the world fostering communication, trade, and even economic booms. These industries are globally established with ports in every continent and sea routes crisscrossing the map. However, their adverse environmental effects are vast. The World Wildlife Fund identifies a few ways ways in which shipping pollutes and degrades the environment: oil spills from shipwrecks, the release of bilge oil (oil and water from the ships holds) as well as other chemicals needed for the maintenance of ships, introduction of invasive species carried by ballast water (seawater carried by a ship in order to maintain a certain weight when it’s not carrying cargo). However, the impact of fishing on the environment is by far larger. Over fishing, bycatch, and destructive yet profitable fishing practices such as bottom trawling and the use of explosives have destroyed marine habitats and rendered some species such as the North Atlantic Cod nearly extinct. The ocean which provides oxygen, food, and jobs is exploited for the sake of profit in an unsustainable way. However, these industries must continue to exist because of their beneficial qualities. This paper will examine what different schools of thought (such as Utilitarianism, Social Contract Theory, Biocentrism etc .) recommend for dealing with this issue and how they relate to the goals and policies of organizations such as Greenpeace, the International Maritime Organization, and WWF.

Gretta Reed (FRI)

My paper will discuss the ethical implications of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), especially in food crops.
The idea behind genetically modified crops is that it will end world hunger by increasing yields and deterring pests. In our society, food crops are only considered to have instrumental value, therefore we should be allowed to manipulate them however we like. However, if we truly value crops for their instrumental value, then we should not be developing a monoculture and wiping out biodiversity (and potentially helpful plants). If plants only have instrumental value, how do we explain the connection of farmers to their land? Yes, they have this connection because the land feeds them and they feed the land, but there is something beyond it. There are things we enjoy about agrarian life, but do not have necessary instrumental value. They have intrinsic value. Each plant on its own has value in my opinion. They are miraculous things, self-sufficient in ways we can never be.
In terms of utilitarianism, if the goal of businesses is producing the greatest good for the greatest number, agribusiness has failed. Although GMO varieties can, at times, increase yields, they do not always replace the existing crops in pest resistance, drought resistance, general yield, or overall acclimatization.
And then there are objections from the organic world view. Can we as humans be responsible enough to genetically alter plants? And where is the line between the domestication/breeding and physically altering the genetic code? The conclusion I, and others, have reached is that we do not know the lasting effects of this science. The spread of GM crops should be stopped for the ethics of the actual science behind them as well as the social effects they are having around the globe. Overall, I argue that GM plants are unethical.

Mary Reindl - Native American versus Anglo-American Land Ethic (THURS)

After the arrival of white settlers to what is now the United States, the land changed dramatically. Not all Native Americans can be put into one category, as there existed many sovereign tribes, but, on the whole, Native Americans did have a greater respect for the land and lived more sustainably. Anglo-Americans tended to believe in Jefferson’s “allodial rights”, or that the land one owned was theirs alone and they could do as they wished with it. Due to these views, after their arrival, the land and its inhabitants suffered grave consequences, including deforestation, extinction of animals, pollution, and other serious environmental problems. For example, there were once 30 million buffalo roaming freely in the western United States. The white settlers slaughtered the buffalo for their hide or simply for sport, in stark contrast to the Native American practice of using every part of the buffalo: bones as eating utensils, skin as clothing, hide for warmth, etc. The extension of the railroads also led to the near-extinction of the buffalo. Another example is the deforestation: half of the United States was forest when the settlers arrived. An incredible amount of trees have been cut down for our use, and this continues to happen.
While “going green” has become popular, even trendy, it is still difficult to undo so much damage that has been done in the past few hundred years. That being said, it would be beneficial to all of us to study age old Native American practices and begin to incorporate them into our lives today, in addition to some of the green trends that are catching on.

Runtian Bai - Ethics on the Chinese Eating Live Golden Monkey Brain (FRI)

It is not ethical and not right for family members in China to sit around a banquet table and eat a live golden monkey because it is illegal, harm biodiversity in terms of killing endanger species, and cruelty, instead, as civic citizen, one should obey the law, protect biodiversity, and treat the animals as what ‘he’ or ‘she’ would like to be treated.

I am going to first describe the real monkey eating scenario which was tragedies that had already happened in China around the Guangdong area 10 years ago. My first major argument that supports my thesis is this: The Chinese family eating the monkey was enjoying the white fresh monkey brain because they believed that monkey brain would make them smarter people and gave them more money in the future. In addition to the fortune belief, the restaurant servant was enjoying serving it because he knew he would earn a lot of money and the restaurant caught the Golden Monkey for free from their habit, their home. The Chinese Culture Relativists encouraged the eating of any kind of animals in China because there were always starvations in China due to the population size. The cultural relativists don’t see why eating a live monkey’s brain is wrong because it is just a sub-cultural within the Chinese culture that has preexist in the past, and there is nothing wrong about it based on Daoism. I am going to attack and convince the Chinese Culture Realists to stop encourage the eating of any kind of animals through several fallacies of Cultural Relativism and Bentham’s argument on animals, and then provide a more fair treatment of animals. Eventually, I want this paper to raise awareness for animal treatment and stop what people are doing in China of eating all kinds of animals that they can catch, and be able to have debates on including animals into the social contract in China in the future.

Monkeys are among the closed related to humans because of evolution and they can feel pleasures and pains and they have backbones, so they have rights to be protected by human beings, and more legislative reinforcement due to more value effective citizens, the increase of civic virtue of Chinese citizens, and more attention and budget to animal and environmental movements will help correct the tragedy that I have described in this paper from happening again, and benefit Chinese people in the future in terms of sustainable future biodiversity, and food resources.

Ruoxi Jin

China, as a developing country, has got great achievement on its economic development in recent years. As a Chinese, I’m really proud of my country for the great progress in just 10 years. Meanwhile, the environmental problem has become more and more severe as more and more people realize the importance of the protecting the environment. Actually, it is undeniable that china is now facing an ecological crisis and I think this problem could be a big burden for the development of my country.
I have heard a lot about how to save the environment and how to change the situation from Chinese government .However, I haven’t feel any change of the environment and I think what Chinese government is doing right now merely has a little bit influence on diminishing the pollution. My hometown, Nanjing which is one of the biggest cities in China is still suffering from the very bad air pollution. The API (air pollution index) in Nanjing is 500 which almost reach “severe” level. When I went back to Nanjing this winter break, I couldn’t even see the blue sky which was covered by a thick, brownish haze. It’s obviously that the city’s smog has a negative affection on people’s health and it has made more and more people have cancer. There are two considerable causes for the poor air quality which are the industrial factories and the roadside emissions. Personally, I think the Chinese government should consider this problem as priority and find some really efficiency ways to solve the problem from essence. China is still a developing country and it is hard to implement environmental policy to diminish the pollution. The authority is too weak to change the situation. Some people argue that we should focus on developing economic not diminishing the pollution because the cost of diminishing pollution is too much and we can’t even predicts the result of improving the environment. It might only have a little bit influence of the whole world.
Personally, I think the best way for Chinese government do now is promoting the adoption of some environmental policies. According to Gaia Hypothesis, the entire world is a single organism. What we do to the natural, will affect us as well. The environmental problem will finally become a big burden for the development of China. Government should limit the industrial pollution and improve the awareness of protecting environment. In this article, I will analyze what should Chinese government do right now and how can they balance the environmental problem and the development of the whole country.

Britt Anderson & Amanda Sicoli - Ethical Implications of Global Dumping

Each year tons of toxic wastes are exported from the global North to poor communities around the world. This practice is linked with health hazards, such as high rates of illness and death, as well as ecosystem damage.

In 1991 Lawrence Summers signed off on a memo that came to be known as the Summers Memo. This memo supported an increase in the amount of global dumping on the least developed countries worldwide. The reasons given in the memo argue is that it is more economically efficient to dump in poorer countries, that the least developed countries are under-polluted; that a small amount of a toxin could be catastrophic in Los Angeles or Mexico City and have no impact in countries that have yet to be exposed to that toxin, and that the value of a life in a developed country is much higher than that in a less developed country. Therefore it is more important for us to spare the life of the individual living in a developed country.

While cost benefit analysis and utilitarianism would support this view, we find the Summer’s memo morally reprehensible through the frameworks of value effective analysis and the land ethic.

Jacqueline Johnson - An Ethical Insight into Slaughtering Animals for Meat (THURS)

Pegged by some as an egotistical, non-environmental, intolerable act, slaughtering animals for meat has been a long-standing ethical argument. Therefore, the solution found by many is to live a vegetarian lifestyle, this lowers one’s ecological footprint, while simultaneously working toward a common cause of decreasing the rate of animal cruelty. I read an array of different sources, including articles from each school of thought: PEDA and the meat industry. When juxtaposing this with my prior knowledge on the topic, I found my results.
The results accumulated are the different arguments proposed on this topic. Those that are against argue the anthropocentric nature of eating meat, Bentham’s argument of animal’s feel pain, and the brutal actions of factory farming surface frequently. Those arguing for slaughtering for meat discuss the same issues, but on the reversed side of the coin. Included in their arguments is the necessity to realize that not all, in fact most, animals are not treated mercilessly when killed. In addition, they are being slaughtered for a purpose, not a meaningless, unnecessary act. From these results I have come to the conclusion that it is a case-by-case basis for ethically slaughtering animals for meat. Ethically, this topic is difficult to measure, because it essentially comes down to the cultural and personal beliefs of each individual.

Dan Pers - Guatemalan Deforestation: A Land Right Issue (THURS)

Guatemala is a Central American country that has a rich rainforest. However, throughout the country’s history it has suffered from a great deal of deforestation. The source of the deforestation comes from two different causes. The first cause is the mass logging of lumber by large corporations. The second is from the slash and burn practices of peasant farmers. The cause of these two sources is also two fold. There exists an issue with both the large companies and the farmers having an anthropocentric mind set, and second the government of Guatemala has an issue in identifying the land rights of the forests. The two sources act with an allodial land right mentality; however, they do not have absolute possession, instead the government blurs exactly where to draw the lines on the rights. In addition a problem arises in how to correct the problem. The large corporations are acting solely out of self interest, while the farmers have more of a moral pluralism mind set. This will make the solutions more complicated because while the corporation’s needs could be ignored, the health of the land and the need of the farmers to survive and provide for their family will both have to considered. A conservation approach that incorporates a blend of organic farming and restoration could provide this correct mixture of solutions to protect the land and the people. However, for this to be successful first the government must take a more biocentric mentality and also establish a concrete definition of land rights.

Joshua Livingston (FRI)

Should other non-human animals have rights or do animals solely exist in the world to be exploited by humans? In other words, what place do non-human animals have in our moral system? What is it that according to some, humans are thought to have moral status and non-humans do not? To what degree of a moral status should an animal have compared to a human? Should animals merely be used as a means to some human’s end, such as being eaten or experimented on? Should the law promote animal welfare? What are our duties to animals? In order to answer these questions, one must first consider whether animals have consciousness, but not necessarily self-consciousness, and have the potential of rational thinking. For example, one can argue that if you aren’t self aware then you are merely “property” or entirely subject to the will of your owner. For example, a table or a chair can be treated however the owner likes, such as being broken or sold. In order to address the issue of whether animals are merely property, one must question whether animals are capable of and can feel pain. If the animal is able to suffer then they are relevant to the argument of whether they are simple a property. Moreover, by answering the question of whether animals can feel pain one can begin to answer the question of which animals should have rights. Everything depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering.

Jessica Joyce - Environmental Education (THURS)

Teachers need to try to cultivate a sense of environmental responsibility, morals, and ideas. They specifically need to construct their curriculum to meet these objectives. In the curriculum, they need to teach each of the three worldview points- anthropocentrism, biocentrism, and egocentrism. They need to reinforce each of these ideas with logic, examples, and connections to the students. This allows students to understand each view, so that the teacher can ultimately show the students that the only view that makes sense is the ecocentric one. Anthropocentrism eventually would cancel itself out because Earth has a finite amount of resources and humans cannot keep using the Earth as they wish. Biocentrism focuses on individual species’ purposes on Earth and their inner directedness. This view starts to get at the idea that people should take into account the Earth and our actions on other things, but does not fully satisfy the need to take care of the Earth as a whole, that is where ecocentrism comes in. Ecocentrism supports the idea of biodiversity, global change, and many other environmental factors. Ecocentrism can become a universal truth if it is taught in the schools and can help to shape environmental progress. The age at which this is taught doesn't matter. The material that is taught doesn't change, its the way it is presented changes.

Brent Newman - Tradition or Torture: A Look into Modern-day Bullfighting in Spain (THURS)

From the ancient island of Crete to the Iberian Peninsula, bulls have been the focus of many religious ceremonies, cultural tradition, and art in Europe. While the history of bullfighting remains uncertain, a majority of respected historians trace the origins of this spectacle to Spain. Barbaric and cruel to the common tourist or foreigner, bullfighting or corrida de torros (running of the bulls) is a Spanish pastime rooted in history, tradition, and art. Because of its significance in ancient times as well as today, bullfighting must be evaluated in the context of its cultural evolution in Spain to fully understand the complex beliefs and established practices that sustain it. This paper seeks to prove that the art of bullfighting, in the context of Spanish culture, employs ethically sound rules and actions which prove the current protesting of the “blood sport” illogical.

Regina Cloyd - Friedman and Social Responsibility (THURS)

Milton Friedman believe that a business only responsibility is to increase the profits of the shareholders and if a businessman “is to make expendi tures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the cor poration or that is required by law”, he is not taking into account the best interest of the shareholders; however, the following thought-experiment will show that businesses should go beyond the rules of the game of being socially and environmentally responsible. At a time when population growth, energy, land resources, and environmental constraints are a problem all at once, stakeholders are expected to decrease their carbon footprint and actively participate in the eco-friendly movement. If corporations continue to follow Friedman’s theory, they will be exposing themselves to third-party liability claims, clean-up costs, business interruption, and damaging publicity. These million dollar consequences, sometimes deadly, are definitely not in the best interest of the shareholder for it kills their profit and their brand. To stay functional and profitable, businesses use an abundance of natural resources and the development of new products, service, or buildings always impact the environment. Corporations like Exxon-Mobile, Chevron, and ConAgra have all witnessed and paid the price for the negative externalities that were damaging to the environment; therefore, imposed on the stakeholders. Certain philosophies like Utilitarianism, cost-benefit and cost effective analysis are committed to the thesis by their other views, though they do not come out and explicitly endorse the thesis. Businesses fail to be more environmentally friendly for multiple reasons, but mainly because of its developmental expense and the lack of consensus on the importance of taking the necessary steps. If businesses can get pass their short-term objectives of achieving fast profits and “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, they have no choice, but to excel in long-term profits, receive governmental incentives and loose regulations for playing beyond the rules of the game. For corporations to acquire the eco-friendly expense in the beginning, they will avoid long-term liabilities by doing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people—maximizing the interest of the shareholders.