The land of the abused and the home of the misused

            “Fatal Harvest” is a collection of essays from prominent ecological thinkers and focuses on dispelling the disinformation that colossal “agribusiness” companies have fed the American public since the early 70s.  Unfortunately, it seems as though the mentality of the early American pioneers of the 1800s still exists in the contemporary world:  the idea of man the conquer of nature.  The environmental conservation movement did not begin in America until the early 20^th century, and was led by the renowned conservationists of the day:  John Muir, Teddy Roosevelt, and Aldo Leopold and many more.  Aldo Leopold revolutionized the way in which the average American viewed the environment through his book “A Sand County Almanac.”  Leopold was in many ways ahead of his time, and contemporary readers still cite his book when faced with the large amount of destruction made by Industrialized Agriculture.  For example, “We abuse land because we see it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.”  However, industrialized agriculture has obviously not read his book and continue to muck up the environment as “man the conquer.”  They lace their good-intentioned goals with counterproductive measures that only serve to increase prices and scar the environment all so the maximum profit can be achieved. 

            One particular set of essays in “Fatal Harvest” tells of the “Seven Deadly Myths of Industrial Agriculture,” and the fifth myth is that “Industrial food offers more choices.”  Although this is a tactic used by the gigantic “Agribusiness” in order to promote its agenda, this idea is simply a grand fabrication.  The truth of the matter is quite alarming because, according to the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), “we have lost nearly 93 percent of lettuce, over 96 percent of sweet corn, about 95 percent of tomatoes, and almost 98 percent of asparagus varieties.”  From a biological standpoint, these numbers are horrifying.  The higher amount of given variation a population of organisms have (plants or animals), the better adapted that those organisms will be in the face of a new disease developing.  Periodically in history, certain biological events occur that favor a type of bacteria to explode in prevalence; the only manner in which the organisms on this planet are able to survive such catastrophic epidemics is through the complex machinery of our genetic diversity.  When the genetic diversity is decreased to such levels that have already happened then that is a recipe for disaster because all it would take for a mass crop failure to occur would be for a deadly bacterium to develop and mutate to the point to where we are unable to stop it before it completely decimates our food supply.  I feel as though so many people have tried to extract as much wealth as possible from the American system without regard for any of the negative ramifications that could follow and now we are spiraling out of control into a nosedive towards the ground.  Even as horrible as it is to say, I feel that the only way in which we will change our collective societal mind will be after a major catastrophe occurs; the type of tragedy that will be written in the history books as the day in which our ignorance of the environment finally came back to haunt us.  Mother Nature’s vengeance shall come back in full fury, and people of like mind to John Muir and Aldo Leopold will only be there to witness the destruction that they have foreseen for decades.  

Andrew Kimbrell (Ed.). Fatal Harvest:  The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture. Washington DC:  Island Press, 2002.

Value Objectivist with a Twist

As discussed in Palmers “An Overview of environmental ethics”, Value objectivists believe that value is not something that humans create, yet something that already existing in the world.  One concern however is the question of what actually is of intrinsic value.  Palmer suggested the ability for something to flourish seemed reasonable.  I believe however, that value can be found deeper within things.

            The value of an earthly thing, no matter living or not is relative to that things ability to conduct, convert or exchange energy.  The entire planet is one biosphere, which is continuously cycling its resources within itself, and for itself.  The unifying quality that functions throughout all things is energy, and each specific way that it passes energy.             

Energy is the very reason why human beings consume our breakfast lunch and dinner, and the same reason why birds eat seeds, lions eat antelope, plants need sun, because every living thing has energy level (value if you will), which is as unique as each thing itself.  Living things need energy to live, and receive and transfer it to themselves, all metabolizing differently, at different speeds and rhythms. 

            To judge the value of something one would judge the energy qualities of something, and how useful the energy level it contains, the energy transfers it can perform or simply it conducting qualities.  All things on this earth manipulate energy and this very energy has value or importance to the energy-consuming organisms around.  Animals will eat the healthiest looking crop in the forest; trees can grow up and out of a permanently shaded place to reach light, and human beings use energy in every way possible.  Energy is constantly moving throughout all things within this biosphere and is necessary to sustain life, can be passed indirectly through non-living things.  It can be held, used, transferred. 

            It seems instinctual to value what sustains, drives and provides for all life.

And yes florishing needs energy, but energy doesn’t always cause flourishing, but always cause cycling.   

The Ethics of Professional Football and Brain Injuries

According to a study conducted in 2000, 60% of professional football players have had at least one concussion and 26% have had three or more. Players who have sustained a concussion are three times more likely to develop symptoms of depression and are 73% more likely to develop Parkinson's disease. However, when delivered these facts, most professional football players are remiss. ESPN the Magazine conducted a poll in 2011 that found 64% of professional football players would take 10 years off of their life in exchange for a super bowl MVP. Why are these players not concerned about the consequences of their incredibly violent and dangerous sport? Should the National Football League Player's Associations (NFLPA), which is in charge of protecting players' rights, intervene in order to make this game safer and to force the league to assist former players with their medical bills, which are almost universal? The answer seems very obvious to an outside observer, but the players are deeply divided on the issue.
Offensive players are much more likely to support rule changes that would reduce the likelihood of brain injuries because it would have a limited impact on their playing style. In fact, the rules would often force defenses to play a more lax coverage - giving receivers, for example, a competitive advantage. Also, quarterbacks and kickers would benefit from the rule changes because it would reduce the aggression that defenders would legally be allowed to use on them. However, defensive players strongly oppose the rules because studies show that they are just as likely to sustain a brain injury, but rule changes would dramatically change their style of play. Forcing them to hesitate before making a tackle and to make sure they properly executed their tackle when they were allowed to do so. It is important to remember that defensive players have played according to a certain set of rules for their entire football careers, from ages 7 until around 32, without and change. To introduce new rules would change the dynamic of the game and could, potentially, take away the livelihood of these players, who have no other backup careers.
As lamentable as it as, there is simply no choice in this matter. The NFL must institute rules to protect players. The game of professional football has become progressively more dangerous as players have become faster and stronger over the years. It is time for the only governing body with and influence, the NFL, to step in and save these players for making the decision between life and football.

Subjectivity/Objectivity and the Environment

In Clare Palmer’s “An Overview of Environmental Ethics,” she highlights various central questions; in particular, the value of certain components of the environment.

Palmer addresses two variations of value: instrumental value, or value that can be used as a means to an end, and non-instrumental (intrinsic) value, which is value that is, in itself, an end.

These varying definitions of value result in a dispute between value subjectivists and value objectivists. As a subjectivist, value is something that we create and assign to our lives. As an objectivist, value is something that already exists in the world, independent of our existence.

The example used in the text was water: water is seen as an instrumental value to humans, for it is used to keep us alive, therefore making it a means to an end. It is valued because it is necessary for us. Palmer states that “water…is of instrumental value to humans because it helps in achieving another goal – that is, remaining alive.” But what about for all of the people in other countries who do not have access to clean water? For them, drinking water would be detrimental to their health and, ultimately, their lives. The quality of the water does not change the fact that they need it to live, but it does change the value of it: water is no longer a means to an end (living), but an end in itself (sickness or death).

I believe that all aspects of the environment should be seen objectively. It should not matter that they do not directly or indirectly aid us. For those with clean water to drink, we are often not concerned with those who don’t have clean water, because we view the environment subjectively; if it doesn’t affect us, why should we really care? But if it were viewed in an objective way, the preservation of clean water (and on the large scale, the environment) would be the end in itself, and it wouldn’t matter which people (and ultimately, countries and continents), benefitted, because we would be doing it in for the sake of the environment.   

The Golden Rule - Not So Simple

The golden rule is one of the most basic and universal concepts: “do unto others as you would be done by them”. This idea is present in some form in most cultures. Although it is often stated that it was originally a Christian teaching, similar principles occur in Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Judaism before Jesus’s time. Influence of the golden rule can be found in most ethic systems as well. Utilitarianism focuses on achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

 Mill said that he thought utilitarianism to be an improvement on the golden rule, which he thought selfishly ignored the collective happiness of the community for individuals’ needs. However, true utilitarianism can easily result in ignoring minorities, while the following the golden rule works on specific instances, preventing sacrifice for the ‘greater good’. Kant felt that he too was improving the golden rule with categorical imperative. The two concepts are similar – followers of both would agree that if there is something you would not want done to you, then you should not do it.

 Kant would expand this argument to universalize the judgment as a maxim, and say that no one should do the action in question. This condition aims to prevent any problems that would arise from differences of taste. The example George Bernard Shaw gives is that a sadist or a masochist would personally enjoy causing or receiving pain, and according to the golden rule would be justified in hurting others. Religiously following the categorical imperative can also result in consequences not thought to be moral. The golden rule is said to be ‘empirical’ in how it is used to judge situations, while Kant’s rule is binding. If someone was hiding Jews from the Nazis, by the universalization of lying being bad, they would be forced to reveal the Jews when confronted, while under the golden rule they would not because they would not want to be exposed if they were the ones hiding.

While utilitarianism and deontology have specific similarities and differences to the golden rule, virtue does not because of its approach to ethics, as its focus is on the character of the individual making the decisions rather than the individual him/herself. This being said, those concerned with morals first would certainly consider the golden rule to be a good base for judgments because it requires empathy and compassion.

As popular as it is, the golden rule in its most frequent form is not perfect. William T. Vollmann reflects on the variations of the golden rule in the ‘Moral Calculus’ chapter of his book, Rising Up and Rising Down. The most pressing issue is that it could be interpreted into what he calls the zealot’s golden rule: “do unto others as you are doing for yourself”; another formulation would be the so-called missionary’s golden rule: “do unto others as you convince yourself they would be done by.” According to these extrapolations, a Christian could be justified in forcing others to convert because it is as they would want. These variations are the cultivation of what hesitations Kant and Shaw had about the golden rule. In response, Vollmann offers the empath’s golden rule: “do unto others, not only as you would be done by, but also as they would be done by. In case of variance, do the more generous thing.” His expansion eliminates the problems of the original form, but requires knowledge that may not always be available. However, it still improves the initial maxim.

There also has been much debate about whether the positive (do unto others….) or negative (do not do unto others) form of the golden rule is superior; the first is more popular in Western society as it is the Christian form, but the latter is much more widespread. The problem translates the same using the empath’s variation or the original. The implications of the negative version are that it only provides guidance in what not to do, not what one should do. It focuses on preventing negative action, while the positive form gives motivation toward positive action, which would bring more good into the world.

     

Lowly Insects

Part of environmental ethics focuses on the value of non-human life and non-living objects. Objects with instrumental value, value given to things we can use, are easy to find. They include anything we can use, water, livestock, crops, etc. This can be extended beyond just readily usable objects as well. It also includes other things as well. Organisms useful for maintaining the biosphere (the ecosystem of the entire earth) which in turn maintains human life are instrumentally valuable. Things with aesthetic beauty such as a mountains and sunsets are valuable because we find them beautiful and pleasing to look at. Instrumental value however leaves out many things that could be seen as valuable. Take some rare jungle insect, found in the most remote forest known to man that has no use to humans and will have minimal to no effect on the environment should it be destroyed. Lets also say it is the most hideous, nightmarish creature ever observed. Its not dangerous, just ugly. Would it then be alright to destroy a creature? To wipe it off the face of the earth for some reason? (Note: we are not taking its environment with it, just the insect) Many people would not care and others would wish it dead but several humans would look at the poor ugly bug and believe it deserves to live. That it should not be destroyed because we cannot find use for it. Why would people go out of their way to save such a lowly creature? It has no use to us yet people find value in it. Thus it must have some form of value that is there whether or not it is useful, some form of intrinsic value. This value must be inherent in the creature. Even though we do not need it, our ugly bug deserves to exist. But if our bug deserves to exist, surely other things, whether instrumentally valuable or not are intrinsically valuable as well. Everything from beetles to whales, water to rocks, germs to people, would have intrinsic value. But where does this value come from? Is it objective, always having this value, or subjective, only having this value if someone believes its valuable. Well lets look at our bug again. I previously stated that it would be valuable because someone finds it valuable. This is definitely subjective value. But lets say a giant flaming ball of white hot rage comes and destroys this small group of people. No one else on the earth things this creature is worth living, and I mean everyone (It recently reached the international news right after the video of the rage ball). And no human on earth finds this creature valuable at all, even subjectively valuable. Does this creature then not have value? It has no right to life? But lets look at it differently. What if their were no human (or any other sentient creature) able to judge its value? Who would get to say its not valuable? Other animals, who don't have the cognitive power to recognize their own existence, much less judge the value of another existence? A deity, which would have needed to have placed it their in the first place? It exists so it must have the right to live. It must have value. Lets try one more example, what if that lowly insect was people. What if we were ugly lowly bugs in the eye of some great alien power? If they did not find us valuable or useful, then we would not have intrinsic value? Hopefully, next time we are able to judge something's value, we can think about what it would be like to be judged as invaluable. And maybe we can feel empathy for that being and realize that its right to existence is no different from our own.

Utilitarianism vs. Virtue Theory: The Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem is a test of human ethics as they face a decision whether or not to kill one person to save four or to let the four die. This problem is presented in two different ways, however, the result is the same in both cases either one or four people die. The first presentation of this includes a runaway trolley heading down a track with four people on it destined to die from the impact of the trolley. However, the person confronted with this problem is given the option to pull a lever that will divert the trolley to other tracks heading toward only one person. In this situation the majority of people would pull lever, which falls into accordance with consequentialism or utilitarianism. The other version of this problem is similar in that there are four people on the track in the way of the trolley, but this time there is a bridge over the track with a man fat enough to stop the trolley. This situation provides the same decision, kill one to save four, but when presented with this people are hesitant to push the man and most would not.

            Why is this the case? Based on Mill’s theory on Utilitarianism the means does not apply the ethics, but depend on the consequence and these consequences are identical, so why are people quick to pull the lever and hesitant to push the fat man. Perhaps it is that consequentialism should not be the ethics that we apply to daily life. This is possible as perhaps the ethics of our actions result in good or bad consequences, making the means the part of the equation to be dissected as either ethical or unethical. Our actions are decided by our morals and virtues making Aristotle’s theory of ethics to be the way we should think ethically.

            However, Mill, might refute this objection as that even though the majority found the pushing of the fat man in the Trolley Problem to be unethical, it is still ethical to do so according to his theory. He would state that the majority is making an incorrect decision, and the pushing is the ethical thing to do.

Mill's Utilitarian Approach to Normative Ethics

The debate of what is good and right has been discussed since the beginning of man. Three of the most recognized views concerning normative ethics are presented by Aristotle, Kant, and Mill. Aristotle argues that one’s character determines what is good and right; Kant argues that one’s intention behind an action determines whether it is good and right. Mill argues that the consequences of the action and the choice that results in the greater good determine what is good and right. Mill’s view, utilitarianism, operates according to the Greatest Happiness Principle, which says that actions are right if they promote happiness and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness for the greatest number of people.

One objection to Mill’s view argues that in reality, there is usually not enough time for a person to weigh the consequences of their actions. For example, if there were a child that was drowning in a pool, most people would jump in on impulse to save it. In that situation, and many similar ones in which the person seems to act on impulse, there is hardly any time to deliberate the consequences of jumping in and saving the child as opposed to letting him drown. Those who oppose utilitarianism deem it useless, as it cannot be consistently used in all circumstances.

In response, Mill might reply that our subconscious has learned from our past experiences that what results in happiness for the greater number of people is what is considered good and right; in those moments when we decide to jump in to save the child, our subconscious is already persuaded that saving his life will result in his and others’ happiness, therefore making it the right thing to do. Though both plausible arguments, I personally believe that the answer to what is good and right is found within a combination of the three aforementioned widely acknowledged theories.