Thinking About the Environment
 

The midterm exam will be composed of questions that ask you to 

(1) define or describe the significance of various concepts, 

(2) outline the basic lines of argument given by the authors we have considered (not just their conclusions, but the arguments that support those conclusions), and 

(3) construct arguments of your own to support some position with respect to a particular environmental issue. 

Below you will find examples of the types of questions that will occur on the exam. 

IMPORTANT POINT:  You are responsible for all material covered in lecture and in the readings regardless of whether it is mentioned on this study sheet.  The study sheet is intended to help you prepare for the midterm by giving you examples of the types of information that will be requested of you on the exam.  It is not a compilation of actual exam questions.
 

I. Concepts and Terms:

You should understand the basic meaning of central terms and be able to explain their significance for the issues we have discussed, including the roles they play in key arguments.

 lifeboat ethics & spaceship ethics
           (know how the metaphors are supposed to work)
 Native American viewpoints on nature
 tragedy of the commons
 Ethical Egoism
 sustainability
 distributional equity
 the Land Pyramid - food chains and energy circuits
 restoration thesis
 substitutes
 holism

A good response will address the question directly.  Make sure you address each part of a given question and eliminate irrelevant information.  Try not to let your response ramble from point to point.  Spend a couple minutes organizing your thoughts before you begin writing.

1.   Explain how Malthus argued that a "population problem" was inevitable.  How might you object to Malthus' argument?

2.  (i)  Describe Locke's vision of individual property rights:  How do we acquire them?  How are they justified?  What conditions have to be met for them to hold?
      (ii) How does this conception of property fit with modern material culture? 
      (iii) How might the comparison discussed in (ii) be relevant to environmental issues?

3.  What are the basic tenets of Leopold's Land Ethic?  How might you argue that Leopold's position is non-anthropocentric?

4.  Explain Hardin's argument that "commons" areas are necessarily doomed.  How does Monbiot argue against Hardin's position that an effective way to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" is through private ownership of property?

5.  According to Goodpaster, what is the criterion for moral considerability?  Outline one of the competing views.  Provide an argument for why either Goodpaster's or the competing view is a more adequate account of moral considerability.

6.  Does Simon assign natural resources instrumental or intrinsic value?  Explain how the choice is central to his argument concerning the infinite supply of natural resources.

7.  Suppose we wanted to mine a valuable mineral from a pristine natural environment.  Elliot claims that even if we could restore this environment exactly to its original condition after extracting the mineral, something of the environment's value would be lost. How does he argue for this claim?  How does he illustrate the claim using an analogy with works of art?

8.   What is the "Ignorance problem" concerning our obligations to future persons?  What is the "Non-actuality problem"?  Choose one of these and discuss how the problem might make it hard for us to take on definite obligations to future generations of humans.

9.  (i)  Is there in any meaningful sense a "population problem"?  Is it a problem of human population?  consumption?  sustainability? 
      (ii) What ethical framework are you assuming in recognizing the problem or its non-existence?
      (iii) "YES" to (i):  What is the essence of this problem?  And what seems the best way to confront it?  or "NO" to (i):  Justify why you are sure there is no problem.
 

 Last Updated:04/29/04