VALUES AND CHOICES

1
VALUES AND CHOICES

• HOW WE DECIDE HOW TO DECIDE HOW TO ACT WITH
  RESPECT TO NATURE
• and
• HOW WE DECIDE TO ACT WITH RESPECT TO NATURE

2
QUOTES FOR THE WEEK

• In the end, we will conserve only what we love.
  We will love only what we understand. We will
  understand only what we are taught Baba Dioum,
  Senegalese agricultural scientist.
• Moral fiber is strongest when not threatened by
  the sharp blade of self interest. anonymous.
• The object of reasoning is to find out, from the
  consideration of what we already know, something
  else which we do not know. Consequently,
  reasoning is good if it be such as to give a true
  conclusion from true premises, and not otherwise.
  Charles S. Peirce, American philosopher of
  science.

3
Deciding how to decide about action

• There are two general ways to decide
• From pre-commitment
• We think of this as moral
• From calculation
• We think of this as economic

4
Acting from pre-commitment invokes a
consideration of moral and providential reasons.

• What seems right or good to do predicated
  upon ones moral commitments
• Is nature sacred?
• Is nature here for its own (perhaps unknowable)
  purposes quite distinct from how it serve us?
• Are we put here to tame and conquer nature?
• This approach is deontological
• acting out of obligation

5
Immanuel Kant, the famous German philosopher,
proposed what he called the CATEGORICAL
IMPERATIVE

• Act as if you want your actions to reflect a
  universal behavioral rule

6
The Categorical Imperative

• Kill people as if you wish for random killing to
  become a universal behavioral rule (or norm).
• Discriminate against people unlike you as if you
  wish for such discrimination to become a
  universal behavioral rule (or norm).
• Do all you can to degrade and destroy nature as
  if you wish for such destructive behavior to
  become a universal behavioral rule (or norm).

7
The Categorical Imperative Again

• Be kind to others as if you wish for such
  reciprocated kindness to become a universal
  behavior rule or norm (does this sound like the
  Golden Rule?).
• Be good to nature as if you wish such actions to
  become a universal behavioral rule or norm.

8
Alternatively, acting from calculation invokes a
consideration of the perceived gains and losses
from action.

• This approach is consequentialist
• This approach is teleological (telos ends).
• We would say that it is utilitarian. Jeremy
  Bentham was the major advocate of utilitarian
  thinking (gains and losses pleasure and pain).

9
In consequentialist thinking

• Actions are judged by their outcomes, their
  results, or their purposes.
• The issue here is then to decide upon the basis
  by which outcomes are to be judged in terms of
  their consequences or results.
• Shall it be the greatest good for the greatest
  number of people?
• Shall it be an outcome that distributes gains and
  losses in some fashion that might be thought
  fair or equitable?

10
The Decision Rule, Therefore, Is

• Undertake those actions for which the positive
  implications for achieving some objective or
  goalwhatever that goal may beare thought to be
  greater than the negative implications of such
  actions.

11
In contrast to Kants Categorical Imperative, the
Hypothetical Imperative says

• If you seek outcome A then do those things to
  make A happen. This is the hypothetical.
• We also call this the Desire-Belief Model of
  Action
• If you desire to achieve A
• If you believe doing X will bring about A
• Then do X

12
Modern Science and Action

• Modernism promised to purge metaphysical
  arguments and personal values from all
  deliberation concerning what is best to dolet
  the science reveal to us what ought to be
  done.
• Instead, modernism has given us a way of talking
  about tough choices in a manner that metaphysics
  and personal values can be disguised by (wrapped
  in) the language and protocols of science.

13
The one thing to be said for science is that it
forces us to advance our values and preferences
within the rigorous confines of a community that
has particular shared rules of engagement and
rules of evidence.

• This means that scientists are somewhat
  constrained in the extent to which their personal
  views can be passed off as scientific truth.
• But it offers no such protection against the
  shared values and preferences of the community of
  scientists to which any particular scientist
  belongs.
• By joining a community of scientists the
  individual internalizes (adopts) the shared
  values of the community to which he/she now
  belongs.
• Those who reject those shared values decide to
  join a different discipline whose shared values
  come closest to those of the individual.
• And so there is little feedback and correction of
  the dominant and shared ethos of a discipline.
  It only comes with a struggle by those who refuse
  to leave it and yet keep hammering away at this
  fact until the shared ethos changes.

14
Notice that there are thus two issues when
science speaks.

• What we shall call warranted (justifiable)
  assertions first emerge from a scientific
  communitycall it a discipline.
• Then, what we shall call valuable (justifiable)
  assertions are received by possible
  audiencesthose of us on the receiving end of
  scientific pronouncements from scientists that
  they regard as warranted.

15
Examples of Assertionsfrom Science

• GMOs are perfectly safe for the environment
• There is no evidence of anthropogenic climate
  change
• Nuclear power is both clean and safe

16
But often these assertions are rejected by the
pertinent audience

• Many people refuse to believe that GMOs are
  perfectly safe
• Many people refuse to believe that humans are not
  driving climate change
• Many people refuse to believe that nuclear power
  is safe.

17
Other Empirical Claims

• World Population is increasing.
• The economy is in a recession.
• The world is too crowded.
• Consumption is wasteful.
• Gasoline is too cheap.
• Gasoline is too expensive.
• The earth is getting warmer.
• Fish stocks are depleted.
• The oceans are degraded.
• That car is green.
• Sustainability is threatened.
• Tropical forests are disappearing.
• Pollution is worse now than previously.
• Globalization threatens the U.S. economy.
• The middle class is losing ground economically.
• We consume too much.

18
Those who resist the claims and assertions from
science will be called emotional, or Luddites, or
irrational

• However, human action is about finding those
  actions for which the best reasons can be
  mobilized.
• We do not choose those things which are best.
  Rather, we choose those things for which the best
  reasons, at the moment, can be advanced.

19
SUMMARY ON DECIDING HOW TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO

• We must pick a decision protocol
• That decision protocol must be supported by our
  very best reasons
• Once we have picked a decision protocoleither
  consequentialist or deontologicalwe must then
  stick by our model (our decision protocol).
• And we must insist that others offer reasons why
  our decision protocol (our model) is wrong.

20
Notice that this puts our decision protocol as
our first line of defense.

• This is fundamental because if your antagonist is
  arguing from a different decision protocol then
  of course you will not agree on the right
  action.
• Recall the discussion of thinking about the
  environment on moral as opposed to instrumental
  (economic) grounds?

21
Only when both parties to a dispute employ the
same decision protocol does it make sense to
argue about how well it has been applied.

• It is here that one might disagree over
  assumptions in an economic analysis.
• Or one might argue over whether or not one has
  correctly specified the moral dimension of the
  problem.

22
Now consider three important figures in the
relationship of humans to nature

• John Locke (1632-1704)
• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)

23
John Locke

• Humans have natural rights in their own person
• By mixing what you already own (your labor) with
  something unowned (that is, nature) then you
  become the owner of that thing on which you
  labored.
• Nature is there to be conquered and subjugated by
  us.
• Nature is waiting to be possessedto belong to
  someone.
• Once possessed, it must be protected by the state
  since it is my property.

24
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

• Rousseau regarded Lockean claims and possession
  as the origin of inequality
• He regarded this as a crass form of possessive
  individualism
• Rousseau was opposed to the private expropriation
  of nature

25
Immanuel Kant

• Kant rejected Lockean claims predicated on
  physical possession (this is mine!)
• He insisted that what shall be MINE depends not
  on what I say about the matter, but rather on
  what the REST OF YOU say about the matter.
• To Kant, this as intelligible possession.
• It represents consent on the part of all other
  members of society that indeed I might become the
  sole owner of something that the rest of you
  would very much like to own as well.

26
Locke, Rousseau and Kant in America

• Locke reigns supreme in the eyes of some
• But Rousseau is here as well in the form of our
  national parks and wilderness areas
• And Kant is here in the sense that disputes and
  conflicts over ownership and environmental
  regulations often affirm that the owner of land
  is not at all free to do as he/she wishes with
  that land.

27
So where is the truth about what is best to do
with regard to nature?

• We work out (create) those things that are best
  to do in the course of arguing about what it now
  seems possible to do.
• We do not know what we want until we start to
  figure out (create) what we can have.
• As we work out (create) what we can have we will
  come, gradually, to figure out (create) what
  seems better, at this time, to do.
• When we have settled on that best course of
  action, we may say that our deliberations have
  become settled.
• And thus the truth about what seems right to do
  at this time is simply what we have decided to
  do.
• We see that the term truth is a complement we
  pay to our settled deliberations.

28
WHAT PRAGMATISTS TEND TO BELIEVE

• A truth is just a statement such that no one
  has given us any interesting reasons to entertain
  alternatives that might lead us to question what
  we now believe.
• Morality is a set of useful rules for getting
  along in the world. Morality is not an
  imperative duty imposed on us by others. Nor is
  morality the inevitable and unified recipe for
  action obtained by deep and consistent thought.
• Moral progress tends to consist in ever greater
  levels of sensitivity to the other.