essay

You will choose one essay topic (see list in below) and compose an introduction to it in one paragraph (1/2 page) written in narrative format (NO BULLET POINTS) describing three important moments from the history of the topic from 1960+.

 

Grading Rubric 

Your final research paper assignment will be graded according to the grading rubric.  Your first draft  will not be graded according to this rubric.  It is included here below only as a reference. 

15/15: Composition: Is paper written well with attention to syntax, grammar, clear thesis statement, consistent paragraphing and proper citations style or are there recurring problems with any of these?

15/15: History of topic: Does paper develop historical context for the moral issue  from 1960 onward in a clear and chronologically coherent manner or does the paper fall short of doing this in specific ways?

20/20: Pro versus Con: Does paper spell out clearly conflicting sides of the issue or does it only show one side or is it entirely missing a pro/con section?

30/30: Application of ethical theories: Does author treat issue with two ethical approaches studied during the term in depth (or analyzes the issue with unusual and sustained depth from the standpoint of one theory)?

20/20: Personal Conclusion: Does author develop a concluding personal analysis that expresses their standpoint on the subject in a thorough and clear way or does it sum up the issue superficially or is the paper missing a genuine personal conclusion?

 

 

Possible Research Topics

1. Should we or should we not let nature take its course in national parks?

2. The morality of field research on animals. Is it morally permissible to sedate, capture, radio collar, take blood samples from, etc. (say) grizzly bears? What sorts of ethical guidelines must field researchers follow in the interference with and handling of wild populations of animals? Is killing birds (and other animals) for museum specimens morally justifiable?

3. An ethical evaluation of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

4. An ethical evaluation of development proposals that aim to rezone the Everglades for commercial or residential housing.

5. Compare and contrast the morality of fishing vis-a-vis the morality of hunting. Is fishing acceptable even though hunting is immoral? Do hunted animals feel pain while fish do not? Is fishing just as morally legitimate/illegitimate as hunting? Is catch and release fishing more legitimate (or less illegitimate) than fishing for one's dinner? How does fishing morally compare to other human uses of animals?

6. The promise and limits of the movement to restore the environment. Is restoration a big lie, involving the further domination of nature?

7. Property rights and the environment. Do environmental regulations unfairly "take" private property without just compensation? If government/community regulations which decrease property values require compensation to the property owners, then does government/community actions that increase property values require compensation from the property owner to the community? Why or why not? Are property rights natural or created by the community? Does a community's right to environmental integrity (or the environment's right to environmental integrity) outweigh an individual human's property rights? Does the right of an endangered species to exist outweigh a human's property right?

8. Beachfront management: Morally evaluate the legitimacy of South Florida local laws on beach management. Include a discussion of the recent (Lucas) Supreme Court case and its implications on environmental regulations in general.

9. Duties to Endangered Species: Would it matter if the spotted owl went extinct? Ought we to preserve all or only certain species? Do other species have inherent value independent of their usefulness to human beings? Do they have a right to exist? Is it worse to kill members of endangered species than to kill equally psychologically sophisticated members of common species? Why?

10. Is environmentalism (and environmental ethics) an elitist concern of the rich and of the developed world--one that is irrelevant to the poor and the peoples of the developing world? Does the developing world have legitimate criticism of the environmentalism of the developed countries?

11. Should we preserve wilderness? Why or why not? Is the ideal of wilderness (as a place humans visit, but do not remain) flawed since it fails to realize that humans are a legitimate part of nature? Is the idea of wilderness flawed since it ignores that ancient humans (as well as modern society) has so affected the landscape that no pristine wilderness remains to be preserved? Isn't wilderness preservation simply adding recreational facilities for rich elitist college kids (and their professors) who have the time, money, and energy to backpack into it? Is putting the focus on wilderness to miss Syllabus Page 21 of 21

a more important focus on sustainable development?

12. Do we have duties to ecosystems and natural processes? Do they have intrinsic value? Evaluate the possibility of seeing ecosystems and natural processes as morally considerable in their own right. Do we have duties to rain forests or to evolution (or only indirect duties regarding them)? Why or why not?

13. The meaning and value of the natural: What does it mean for something to be natural? Is the natural better than the unnatural, artificial, cultural? Are humans part of--or separate from--nature? In what sense can or should humans follow nature? Does the fact that something is natural give us a reason to imitate it? Should we, as Aldo Leopold suggests, "reappraise things unnatural, tame, and confined in terms of things natural, wild, and free?"

14. Should we manage nature? Must we manage nature? Does managing nature destroy the value of nature? Must we manage nature to protect nature?

15. What is the proper religious perspective toward the nature? What does religion have to say about environmental issues. What should it say? Are the new eco-theologies on the right track? Is Christianity responsible for the environmental crisis or does it provide a strong ethic for responsible treatment of the environment? Would other religious views (e.g., those of Native American's) foster a better environmental ethic? What view of moral standing does the proper religious approach to the environment take?

16. What has moral standing (=is morally important in its own right)? Do (certain or all) animals? Do plants? Microbes? Do ecosystems? Land forms? Natural processes? In virtue of what does something have moral standing?

17. Environmental individualism versus holism: Is intrinsic value (and/or moral standing) located in organic individuals or in biological communities? What are some of the different practical implications of these styles of environmental ethics? Consider, for example, the morality of hunting, saving of endangered species, and the importance of human individuals.

18. Do we have any duties to future generations of people? Why or why not? What are these duties? How much nature do we owe to future generations? How can we harm future generations by destroying the environment, if they wouldn't have existed but for this destruction?

19. Should we constrain or eliminate factory farming of animals? Is "old McDonald" farming of animals a morally permissible use of them?

20. Are wild animals more morally important than domesticated animals? Are there any morally relevant differences between them? Why or why not?

21. Is human population (growth?) an environmental problem? Should government regulate population? Do we have an obligation to stop increasing the world's human biomass? Why or why not? What sorts of methods are morally allowable and practically feasible to control human population, if any?

22. The moral justifiability (or unjustifiability) of civil disobedience for environmental causes (e.g., Greenpeace). The moral justifiability (or unjustifiability) of ecological sabotage: Spiking trees, putting sand in earth-movers, etc. to prevent destruction of natural areas (e.g., Earth First!).