Environmental ethics: make the value judgement explicit
Diperkenalkan| English | Makna |
|---|---|
| intrinsic value/ɪnˈtrɪnsɪk ˈvæljuː/ | nilai intrinsik |
| environmental justice/enˌvaɪrənˈmentl ˈdʒʌstɪs/ | keadilan lingkungan |
What would explain this observation?
- People may agree on the measured loss of a wetland but disagree on whether a development is acceptable. The disagreement can concern values as well as scientific uncertainty.
- Start with a prediction. State the quantities or features you would compare, then decide what evidence could distinguish two explanations.
Build the model
- Environmental ethics examines reasons for responsibilities toward people, other organisms and ecological systems. Anthropocentric reasoning emphasizes human interests; biocentric reasoning recognizes moral standing of living organisms; ecocentric reasoning emphasizes ecological wholes. These positions are lenses for analysing arguments, and real individuals can combine them.
- intrinsic value 内在价值: Value considered independent of usefulness to another party; environmental justice 环境正义: Fair treatment in environmental burdens, benefits and decision-making.
Which statement is a value judgement rather than a measured observation?
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
"Ought" expresses a value judgement; it cannot be measured. Species counts and areas are observations checkable by survey. Keeping the two kinds of statement distinct is the first step in an honest ethical argument.
Match each technical term to its precise meaning.
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Use the definitions to distinguish related quantities and processes.
Choose evidence that can test it
- Separate descriptive claims from normative claims. A species count is evidence about the sampled community; deciding that every species has intrinsic value is a value position. Compare consequences, rights, duties and fairness across generations. A defensible argument states its values, uses accurate evidence and acknowledges competing claims rather than disguising a value choice as a calculation.
- Use a fictional planning dispute or an attributed historical case. Build an argument table: stakeholder, factual claim, evidence, value principle and possible response. Include affected communities and future generations without pretending to speak for them. Use voluntary anonymous classroom positions; assess the reasoning rather than agreement with a preferred worldview.
Which two habits make the investigation or model in this case more defensible?
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
Stating the conditions and assumptions lets others repeat the work exactly, and recording the supporting evidence lets them check the conclusion. Hiding disagreeing results removes the evidence that could challenge a wrong conclusion, and one measurement can never establish a wider claim.
Work from known quantities
- State the known values and their units. Choose the relation because its assumptions fit this case, then rearrange before substitution.
- Known: a wetland proposal affects 12 hectares of a 60-hectare site, or 20%. This quantifies the stated area change. An anthropocentric argument might examine flood protection and livelihoods; a biocentric argument might consider affected organisms; an ecocentric argument might consider hydrological connections. The 20% figure cannot alone decide which ethical argument is strongest.
A project affects 9 hectares within a 45-hectare site. Calculate the percentage of area affected. Use the same sequence: known quantities → model → relation → substitution → unit and interpretation.
A project affects 9 hectares within a 45-hectare site. Calculate the percentage of area affected.
Difficulty 2/5 · 140 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
The result is 20 %. Known: 9 hectares affected within a 45-hectare site. Use percentage = affected / total x 100. Percentage = 9/45 x 100 = 20%. The figure quantifies scale; it does not decide acceptability.
Check the conclusion and its limits
- Worldview labels are analytical aids, not fixed stereotypes of cultures or people. Neither a stakeholder majority nor a numerical index automatically resolves a rights-based or intergenerational objection.
- Return to the original observation. Explain what the result supports, which conditions it assumes, and one way to test a competing explanation.
A percentage of habitat lost alone settles the ethical acceptability of a development. This claim is false: The 20% is a measurement; acceptability is a judgement that also weighs what the habitat means, who is affected and what alternatives exist. Different ethical frameworks can weigh the same 20% differently.
Environmental ethics: make the value judgement explicit: Separate descriptive claims from normative claims. A species count is evidence about the sampled community; deciding that every species has intrinsic value is a value position. Compare consequences, rights, duties and fairness across generations. A defensible argument states its values, uses accurate evidence and acknowledges competing claims rather than disguising a value choice as a calculation.
A percentage of habitat lost alone settles the ethical acceptability of a development.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
The 20% is a measurement; acceptability is a judgement that also weighs what the habitat means, who is affected and what alternatives exist. Different ethical frameworks can weigh the same 20% differently.
Value considered independent of usefulness to another party: write the technical term.
Difficulty 1/5 · 100 coins + a small bonus on first completion today
intrinsic value means Value considered independent of usefulness to another party.