yho11

[yho11]

Iris Marion Young: Democratic Decisions

          In Justice and Hazardous Waste, Iris Marion Young argues for the importance of a democratic decision-making process. Contemporary philosophy and laws on justice often asks questions about the fairness of distribution, but this understanding of justice fails to account for questions on who makes such decisions. They fail to do this because there is an assumption that the state is the decision maker and they will be neural arbiters that favor no side over another. The government is assumed to be unbiased and is therefore the best decision maker that never acts in a bias or unreasonable way. But this assumption of a neutral state is unrealistic, the government has its own interests and bias to carry out its agenda over the interests of people it affects. This violates the ability of affected residents to self-determine and disrespects their autonomy. In the case of deciding hazardous waste treatment sites, there is the utilitarian argument that if no community takes the burden of such sites then all communities will suffer from lack of treatment. Young offers an alternative perspective, if it’s the extreme case that no community out of the many available would want to host such a facility, then it’s obvious that such a facility is too dangerous to be a good solution to waste treatment. The reasons for why such a facility is dangerous is rarely ever decided by the public, it is often private back-room assessments. In light of such private decision-making processes, justice would be in replacing them with democratic decision-making processes that respect autonomy, especially of the large number of people affected by such private decisions.

           I agree with Young that many of the government’s decision making needs to be more democratic. Other countries like the UK have had national referendums on major issues like exiting the EU. Yet, the US hasn’t had similar national referendums recently. The federal government isn’t asking citizens to nationally vote on climate change policies or the next COVID relief bill. It’s past the presidential election and nearly the end of the 2020 and Congress still hasn’t made up its mind on bailing out Americans from the current economic crisis. If this decision was up to the vote of average citizens who are more financially affected than members of Congress, then I think there would have already been a second major relief bill.

           While I agree that the ideal decision-making process should be democratic, I have practical concerns with it. Young brought up how decisions on waste treatment are often made privately and this needs to be changed to a public setting. This made me wonder much does the average citizen even know about waste treatment? How would the leaders of a waste treatment company know about how to treat waste? I imagine there’s probably discussions with experts and scientists on the topic behind the scenes informing such private decisions. Bringing these private decisions to a public setting would require the average citizens to be informed on what the experts have to say. The point is that a democratic decision-making process requires a well-informed citizenry. A healthy democracy has well-informed citizens voting on decisions about waste treatment.

           The need for a healthy democracy to make a democratic decision-making process is very challenging. Young said the state isn’t neutral because it has its own interests and agenda. Wouldn’t this be the same for scientists who could be informing citizens about waste treatment? They could be influenced by their own worldview or money taken from industries. There’s plenty of things that influence a citizen’s information or stance on an issue whether its disinformation, political partisanship, adverting, or economic reliance on fossil fuels / industries. Companies don’t advertise the negative consequences of their actions, but they might buy ads about how eco-friendly their business works. Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to $15, yet it also voted for Trump over Biden, when the minimum wage increase is a democratic policy position and not a republican one. This shows an inconsistency between voter policy preference and political ideology, which could be as a result of the previously mentioned challenges to a well-informed citizenry. I think Young would say to these signs of an unhealthy democracy, that it shows the importance of a democratic decision-making process. The inconsistency between on policy and political party shows how it’s important that citizens decide on issues for themselves rather than having the state or private companies make the private decisions.

Word Count: 750

[yho11]

Robert D. Bullard: The Right to Protection

            In Decision Making, Robert D. Bullard brings up the issue of unequal environmental protections and the principles needed to end it. He claims that unequal environmental protection undermines 3 types of equity: procedural equity, geographic equity, social equity. Procedural equity is how fairly “government rules, regulations, evaluation criteria, and enforcement are applied in a nondiscriminatory way.” Unequal protection often results from groups not getting proper representation because of conflicts of interests or exclusionary practices like having “public held in remote locations and at inconvenient times” that keep out anyone that has a strict work schedule.  This inequality leads to worse outcomes and lower priority in government cleanup of pollution and environmental protection. Geographic equity is how close communities are to hazardous facilities. Inequality here is seen in how communities of color are often more like to be picked to build these facilities around. Social equity is how social factors like “race, ethnicity, class, culture, lifestyle, and political power” influences decisions made on the environment. Often, governments and corporations follow the easiest path to following regulations by pushing environmental hazards onto poor people and people of color, who have less power to resist. To address these inequalities, he brings up 5 important principles of environmental justice for governments to adopt: the right to protection, prevention of harm, shifting the burden of proof, obviating proof of intent, and redressing inequities. An important one is the right to protection, which requires enacting a fair environmental protection act modelled after the Civil Rights Act. The FEP would be based on precedents by the Civil Rights Act which was used to address environmental discrimination in southern states that put African American communities closer to industrial pollution. Bullard thinks that to implement such an act, there needs to be a new strategy from the old way of DAD (decide, announce, defend), that includes involvement of grassroots movements, diverse advisory commissions, training on implementing executive orders, and executive orders being part of the agenda for conferences. He brings up the importance of enforcing civil and environmental laws even if it means “the loss of a few jobs”. Like how the FEP is based on the precedents of the Civil Rights act, he bases this point on how slaves were freed with the 13th amendment despite oppositions that claim it would hurt the planation economy.

              Bullard mentions in his Right to Protection section that “The civil rights and environmental laws of the land must be enforced even if it means the loss of a few jobs”. He uses the example of the 13th amendment freeing the slaves justifying the cost to the plantation economy. I think the implication here is that justice is more important than the economy. Like how racial justice for slaves mattered more than hardship for the plantation economy, environmental justice matters more than providing new industrial jobs to vulnerable communities. I wonder what Bullard would think about communities that do consent to becoming industry and hazard sites for the economic gains. In the Right is Right, Naomi Klein mentions how communities that are reliant on fossil fuel economies are often more skeptical of climate change even if they do lean democratic. Should environmental concerns override the economic interests of local communities? Environmental issues are not as black and white as civil rights issues such as prohibiting racial discrimination. While abolishing slavery is absolutely necessary, the same can’t be said about waste treatment sites, the fact that the US is an industrialized country means that there is always a need to deal with such hazards. If such an opportunity exists, then there is some community that has to take it since it requires workers. If a minority or vulnerable community democratically consent to waste sites and are economically compensated for it, then is it just for them to shoulder the elevated health threats? What if the implication of justice over economy was applied to the fossil fuel industry? Fossil fuels are an unsustainable resource and have a global environmental impact. If environmental justice were expanded beyond the US and into a global sense, then quickly retiring such an industry would be just for people who live in countries that pollute the least yet suffer the greatest consequences of climate change. But such an action would destroy a whole industry and result in the loss of most jobs associated with it. Current laws don’t really demand dismantling the fossil fuel industry but the underlying implication of Bullard’s argument could possibly justify this. But then it would no longer just be enforcing the civil rights and environmental laws of the land if it means the loss of a few jobs, it would be enforcing environmental justice for the globe at the destruction of existing economic industries.

              I think Bullard would say that part of the right to protection should also entail economic protection. He mentioned how the FEP should address intentional and unintentional effects of policies and practices have on vulnerable communities. If environmental justice requires moving away from harmful economic industries, the job loss as a result could create more vulnerable groups. This policy effect would require not only compensation, but also training for those that would lose their jobs to help them transition to different work.

Word Count: 871

[yho11]

Kyle Whyte: Colonial Déjà vu

            In Is it Colonial Déjà vu? Indigenous Peoples and Climate Injustice, Kyle Whyte argues how climate injustice is not a new thing, but rather a continuation in the history of colonialism. He describes Indigenous Peoples to be experienced in adapting to environmental changes. These adaptions can be called anthropogenic environmental change, which is human-induced changes to the environment like the Potawatomi seasonal rounds that adapt to seasonal changes or on a planetary level where massive amounts of fossil fuels are burned for a carbon-intensive economy. Colonialism can be understood as how a dominating society pushes the burdens of their anthropogenic environmental change onto another society.

            The history of US settler colonialism is of oppressing Indigenous peoples. This is done through erasure of their abilities to be mobile and adaptive changing environmental conditions. The strategy of containment is used to contain the abilities of Indigenous peoples to be adaptive. This can be seen in treaties that force Indigenous peoples onto to reservations and making them immobile, capitalist policies of deforestation and pollution that destroys the environment as known to Indigenous peoples and limit their usage of the animals and plants, forced education on Indigenous peoples that limits their knowledge of the land and how to adapt to it.

            Climate change today is a continuation of those past colonial and capitalist policies that pushed the burdens of change onto weaker groups of people. It’s seen in various instances like the Dakota Access Pipeline or the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. These economic projects for the profit of colonial/capitalist powers come at an environmental cost to the people they build their industry on top of. Climate justice would require that more than the reduction of such practices, the fact that they have been occurring for centuries is indicative of a colonial attitude underneath it all and it must be rejected.

            Whyte argues that the current bad luck view of understanding Indigenous peoples’ issues is flawed. This view characterizes Indigenous peoples as vulnerable because of their dependence on environmental resources and their location in vulnerable environments like small islands, mountains, deserts, or the Artic. These characteristics rely on 2 assumptions. One is that Indigenous peoples are more vulnerable from dependence on local environment is due to them being the most dependent on the environment. This makes it seem like they are just living close to the environment and it happens just that climate change impacts that environment the worse. The second idea is that the history of poor socioeconomic on Indigenous peoples made them worse at enduring climate change impacts. It just happens that being poor makes it harder to adapt and that the Indigenous peoples happen to be poor. There ideas ignore underlying colonial attitudes and capitalist policies that perpetuate them. There is no such thing a bad luck because the history of colonialism created these conditions that lead to Indigenous peoples’ vulnerable state today.

            I agree with Whyte on how many of the issues today are a déjà vu of past colonial and capitalist policies. He argues against the bad luck view that sees climate impacts as accidentally converging with existing problems. There is no such bad luck, current climate injustice is a result of colonial and capitalist policies in the past that interfered with indigenous people’s ability to adapt. He brings up the case of the village of Shishmaref, it shows how indigenous peoples were forced by colonizers from their mobile lifestyle into an immobile settlement. Such sedentary lives meant that they could not move away from climate impacts and their town location was a poor choice as being on an island meant higher vulnerability to climate disasters. Such resettlement policies happened at the same time as resource exploitation industries were also built on the land to extract oil.

              The example that Whyte uses shows how policies in the past to settle Alaskan indigenous peoples so that their land could be used for massive resource extraction led to their current climate injustice as a result of poorly planned settlement choices and loss of autonomy in movement and decision making. I see a theme here, where colonial or capitalist powers in their pursuit of wealth and power, carelessly exploit land at the expense of the local people and without full regard for the future consequences. Colonial déjà vu can often be the result of such careless pursuit of profit where short term mass exploitation results in long term consequences.

            Whyte’s colonial déjà vu is a strong argument because through the theme of careless pursuit of profit, we can see how there are many similar cases in which such déjà vu occurs. Looking at how COVID disproportionately affects communities of color demonstrates this. The US has had a history of discrimination against people of color that lead to worse socioeconomic conditions for them today. Policies like red-lining forced minority communities into poorer and crowded areas. COVID hospitalization rates for Black and Hispanic people were both 4.7 times the rate of non-Hispanic white people.[1] A history of being pushed into crowded living areas would have made social distancing harder and infections easier. Additionally, people of color from poor communities rely more on work for income and these jobs are often considered essential or cannot be done remotely. Reliance on work means they have to travel more during a pandemic and are always putting themselves at risk.

Word Count: 893

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/expert-answers/coronavirus-infection-by-race/faq-20488802

[yho11]

Naomi Klein: The Danger of Eco-Fascism

               In “The Specter Of Eco-Fascism”, Naomi Klein warns about the dangers of racist far-ideologies in their response to the worsening climate change. She starts off by contrasting two events that happened on the same day in Christchurch, New Zealand. A student-led climate strike was supposed to be about the dangers of climate change to Pacific nations including New Zealand, but it was soon interrupted as the police evacuated the event because of a nearby shooting. This was the Christchurch shooting committed by an Australian far-right extremist. Klein uses these two events to highlight the different responses to climate change. Whereas the students were rising up peacefully to speak on climate change, the Christchurch killer was a self-identified eco-fascist, claiming that his actions as environmentalism killing population growth.

[1]

               Klein sees our future response to climate change is to either live up to our responsibilities to it or to rationalize refusing to be responsible. A responsible approach to climate change would be to help the poorest around the world. The wealthiest people in the world profit off of emissions that contribute the most to climate change which in turn causes humanitarian crises for the poor. A just response requires the rich to adopt the Green New Deal premise of halting their emissions. Rich countries have a duty to share resources with the poorest in the Global South to protect them from the impacts of climate change. If protection can’t be achieved then there is the duty to aid them in seeking refuge when displaced.

               The alternate response is a frightening future when denial is no longer a viable strategy in the face of worsening climate change, that deniers turn to racism to protect their own group from outsiders and avoid any responsibility towards the worst impacted. This racist far-right ideology will start denying the responsibility of the largest polluting nation to help black and people victims of climate change, justifying this new denial under the guise of protecting superior white Christians from the lesser outsiders. Such a far-right has already started to influence policies in Europe, Australia, and the United States, where brutal immigration policies make cruelty a point towards migrants in order to discourage movement.

              Klein warns this is how climate barbarism emerges, by embracing policies influenced by a racist in response to climate change, society will justify discarding human life deemed lesser. One of the most important ways to avoid such a future is to face the fossil fuel industries most responsible for the emissions. Political movements have to fight to get money out of politics so that elected officials cannot take money from these companies. The grow or die mentality must be stopped, future leaders have to be willing to nationalize these industries in order to stop their growth and fairly transition their workers elsewhere.

[2]

              I agree with Klein’s warning on the rise of Eco-Fascism. The recent rise in far-right violence and movement activity shows that it’s definitely something to be concern about. It doesn’t help that in the US, climate bipartisanship has pushed climate denial to become a right-wing position. According to the Pew Research Center, in 2020, 88% of democrats show climate change as a major threat while only 31% of republicans did[3]. Combine this with rhetoric from President Trump like calling far-right protestors fine people, his pulling out of the climate agreement, and anti-science attitude during a pandemic, I can see the continuation of such violent movements.

[4]

              It’s not a far fetch scenario where fascists commit violence in response to government action on science. This is evident in the response to Michigan’s COVID restrictions. There were widespread protests during the spring which involved armed protestors entering the state capitol. This tension was further egged on by the President, who blamed Governor Whitmer for the restrictions and calling for Michigan to be liberated. This would culminate into the recently foiled plot to kidnap the governor by far-right, anti-government militiamen. They planned to try her for treason, the group would often talk about killing tyrants for violating the constitution. The point of this example is that we are already seeing violent anti-government responses to government action trying to follow the science on a pandemic. Now imagine if the government tries to follow the science and massively intervene with actions like doing the Green New Deal and nationalizing fossil fuel industries. The egging on of already anti-science, anti-government movements could mean violent resistance to these changes.

              When in the future, climate change worsens so much that it becomes undeniable to such extremist groups, the previous denial of government action on climate change could shift to denial of government action to help outside refugees from climate disasters. Klein made the point in “The Right is Right” that conservatives held onto climate denial because the alternative of massive government intervention would invalidate their ideology. If far-right ideology follows the same action of holding onto ideology because the alternative would invalidate it, then Klein would be correct in saying that the racist elements of such ideology would be held onto even after climate denial is no longer feasible and instead it will evolve into barbarism against outsiders because the alternative of taking responsibility towards poorer people of color would invalidate their racism.

Question: What would a stronger movement for left-wing socials push more people away from eco-fascist ideology?

 Word Count: 938

[1] Ed Crooks, “Democrats Unveil Proposal for 'Green New Deal',” Subscribe to read | Financial Times (Financial Times, February 7, 2019), https://www.ft.com/content/fe5adfd8-2b00-11e9-a5ab-ff8ef2b976c7.

[2] “The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States,” The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States | Center for Strategic and International Studies, October 15, 2020, https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states.

[3] Brian Kennedy, “U.S. Concern about Climate Change Is Rising, but Mainly among Democrats,” Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center, May 31, 2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/16/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/.

[4] Lois Beckett, “Armed Protesters Demonstrate against Covid-19 Lockdown at Michigan Capitol,” The Guardian (Guardian News and Media, April 30, 2020), https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/michigan-protests-coronavirus-lockdown-armed-capitol.

[yho11]

Lori Gruen: Debunking Human Exceptionalism

Lori Gruen: Debunking Human Exceptionalism

                In “Why animals matter”, Lori Gruen debunks the human exceptionalist claim that only humans are worthy of moral concerns because of their superior uniqueness. She breaks the claim down into two implications: Humans have a unique thing X that no other beings possess, and because humans have X, they are above all those who don’t have X.

[1]

                On the first implication, Gruen goes through a number of things commonly considered unique to humans and debunks their exclusivity. This includes tool usage, language usage, theory of mind, and moral engagement. The ability to use tools isn’t exclusive to humans as animals like crows know how to use sticks and bend wires to help retrieve food. Some animals like chimps could learn sign language. Theory of mind was also seen in chimps that recognized food competition as they would not approach the food of dominant chimps showing that they thought about what others could see and not see. Gruen defines morality as caring for others to show that animals care for each other all the time, whether it’s lab rats refusing to electrocute another for food or a large dog restraining themselves to play gently with a small dog. Gruen notices how exceptionalists would often move the goal post each time new evidence proves animals were smarter than previously thought. She quotes Darwin on the differences between humans and non-human animals as “of degree and not of kind”.  While humans have more elaborate forms of cognitive skills, nonetheless intelligence as seen in animals proves that it’s not exclusive to humans.

                On the second implication, Gruen asks why do differences between humans and animals matter in who gets moral concern. Humans differ in math skill, height, hair color, language, etc., yet none of those differences matter in treating all humans with equal moral concern. She uses language as an example of the X that exceptionalist claims make humans exclusively worthy of moral concern. If language makes humans worthy of moral concern, then what about humans who can’t use language? The exceptionalist’s logic would imply that non-linguistic humans do no matter, they can be killed and it wouldn’t be wrong. Besides the terrible implications, language also isn’t a moral concern considered when we rescue someone in danger, no firefighter risks their lives saving people asking if they are linguistic human beings. Also, language isn’t the only way to express discomfort, babies, mentally deficient people, and animals can all express emotion without language. Exceptionalism cannot provide any universal X that justifies moral concern that is applicable to all humans. If animals have many similar X to humans, exceptionalists can only exclude out of prejudice, without any other defensible positions.

                I think Gruen provides a solid case against human exceptionalism. I think an example of X that only humans have which non-humans don’t would be our advanced civilization. An exceptionalist could move the goalpost to argue that while humans may not possess a unique kind of X, our degree of X is so vastly beyond the reach of non-humans, that it is what makes us unique. Building human civilization seems quite impossible for non-humans whether because they lack high degrees of intelligence, social cohesion, or ability to use tools (hands). Because only humans are capable of high-tech civilizations, we are superior to those without it. Gruen’s debunking of the second implication comes as a handy counter to this example. The example defines X in terms of membership with a kind of group, humans are unique members of the only species that have built high-tech civilizations. Gruen would ask if this X actually matters when it comes to deciding moral worth. What about humans who were never part of an advanced civilization? Today, there are plenty of isolated groups of humans, many of which still lived like life before major cities and civilizations. If being a member of an advanced civilization was a requirement for moral concern, then it has terrible implications for how isolated people are treated. The exceptionalist’s logic that justifies superiority over those without X can be seen historically through this example. Past European empires enslaved and killed the native people of lands they colonized. Natives were stereotyped as being primitive and savages compared to the civilized white man. They didn’t have membership in X; therefore, they could be treated as bad as an uncivilized animal.

                The exceptionalist logic is similar to the logic of domination that Karen J. Warren mentions as the enemy of all oppressed. Like how the oppression of women is justified by arbitrarily conceived distinctions between men and women like their identification with the mental and physical realms, the exceptionalist claim to superiority over animals is justified by arbitrary degrees of differences with humans. It’s interesting how comparing Warren’s ecofeminism and Gruen’s case against exceptionalism reveals a common goal against the logic of domination.

  Question:

Gruen notices how exceptionalists often move the goalpost whenever their claim to human unique is proven untenable. Does this happen in other forms of oppression that use a similar logic of domination?

  Word Count: 804

[1] Corvus moneduloides, “New Caledonian Crow Tool-Use,” Flickr (Yahoo!, July 14, 2017), https://www.flickr.com/photos/corvus_moneduloides/35746602572.

[yho11]

Peter Singer: Against Speciesism based of the logic of suffering

              In “All Animals Are Equal”, Peter Singer argues that the interests of animals should be equally considered as we do for human rights on the basis that they can also suffer. Singer uses suffering as the precondition to sentience, a being has to be able to suffer and feel happiness in order to have meaningful interests. Suffering allows us to properly discuss interests, it’s what differentiates the kicking of a rock vs an animal, a rock does not have feelings but an animal does, thus its feelings should be considered. If something is capable of suffering then it is worthy of moral consideration.

               Singer denounces how most humans are speciesists because they override the greater interests of animals with human interests. He demonstrates this in three ways.

              The first way is in animal eating. Eating meat is a luxury, people like the taste of meat therefore they want to eat it, but in reality, there is evidence that humans can survive on a diet without it. The human demand for meat as a luxury is enough to sustain factory farming of animals in disgusting, claustrophobic, and cruel conditions.

              The second way is in animal testing. Commercial products are tested on animals such as dropping shampoo into the eyes of rabbits to see their harmful side effects. It’s cruel to cause such suffering for the sake of luxury products, but such cruelty is not limited to commercial industries. This also happens in laboratories and universities which run cruel experiments that often yield lackluster results. He also anticipates the counterargument of justifying experiments on some animals to say the lives of thousands of people by asking if you would justify experimenting on a baby as well. An experimenter would clearly refuse the baby and it’s because he favors the interest of humans over animals.

              The third way is in contemporary philosophy where human equality is often justified on the basis of a common quality shared by all humans. Yet is there really a certain quality shared by all humans that give them an intrinsic value that no other animals possess? Singer points out that there are always going to be some humans that don’t fit a common quality, such as mentally handicapped people who don’t fit into the quality of intelligence that should give all humans ethical consideration. He then brings up Stanley Benn’s argument that despite human qualitative inequality, even if an imbecile has intelligence on par with a dog, we should still give that person equal consideration because we shouldn’t exploit those with a deficiency from the norm, the imbecile is still a member of his own species even if he is a smart as a dog therefore he should be treated as a human. Singer points out that there is no good defense for preferring the interest of humans with mental deficient but mistreat dogs with the same mental level. Why should we treat them differently when neither of them is at fault for their mental level? The only justification is speciesism, the imbecile is favored because he is human.

              I find Singer’s use of suffering as the criteria for moral consideration and his instances of speciesism to be potentially contradictory. He cites the utilitarian philosopher Bentham in saying that the capacity to suffer is vital for equal consideration. But what does this equal consideration entail? Is there any instance in which a group of animals can suffer in the interest of humans in a way such that it was equally considered? Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy could justify the suffering of the few in order to maximize the happiness of the many. Even if such utilitarian calculus takes in the equal consideration of animals and humans, it still justifies the suffering of some animals and humans to maximize the happiness of most animals and humans. Would Singer be ok with the utilitarian calculation for suffering? Would he agree that it’s ok to sacrifice some animals for the interests of humans if it meant saving the lives of a larger group of humans? In his second example of speciesism, he claims that animal testing is cruel and often not needed. He poses the counterargument that an experimenter wouldn’t be prepared to sacrifice a baby to save the lives of thousands, but would readily sacrifice animals because he is speciesist. If millions of lives are a stake due to a pandemic and a vaccine requires live testing, can it not be the case that animal testing in this instance may be justified? In utilitarian calculus, it would be unfair to weigh the suffering of some animals over the suffering of the millions of humans, it would speciesist against humans according to Singer’s own definition. Singer would have to either accept the utilitarian calculus for suffering that justifies some instances of animal suffering for human benefit or reject it on principle against animal mistreatment (then suffering is not a good criterion for equal consideration because human suffering is massively unconsidered).

               If Singer accepts the utilitarian calculus for suffering, then it brings into question his definition of speciesism. Is it ever speciesist to override the interest of some members of another species? It’s not just limited to Singer’s discussion of human exploitation against animals, animals eat other animals too. Is a wolf speciesist for not caring about the interests of the deer that it eats? What about ancient humans, are hunters speciesist for hunting and eating animals to survive? Singer’s definition is weak in that it doesn’t give compelling answers to these cases, the wolf or ancient hunter need to survive, if we take their interests into equal consideration, they have a right to live as needed, but that would mean the death of the prey or they can starve and the prey lives. I can’t fault them for wanting to survive and the calculus for suffering considers it fair enough for survival, it might even be better since the death of a deer can feed many wolves or ancient humans. If it is speciesist then aren’t all living things speciesist because they feed off the lives of another, defeating the significance of the definition. If it is not speciesist, then there are instances where it’s fair to use another species for the sake of survival. Singer’s example of the experimenter not wanting to experiment on a baby can be compared to a wolf not wanting to eat another wolf for food. Why should a wolf eat a deer when they can just feed on their own kind (assuming the case when there is a sufficient deer population to feed them)? It’s strange to say that a wolf should equally consider eating another wolf when it can eat another available deer. If the experimenter needs live testing to help the survival of millions of his own species, then it’s strange to say he needs to sacrifice some humans when he could also experiment on some animals. If this animal testing is speciesist and therefore should not be done, then the suffering of humans is not important enough, if the suffering of humans matter equally as the animals tested then the lives of the many more humans should have greater weight, and testing should be justified, even if it feels speciesist to painfully experiment on animals for a cure, it would violate suffering as a principle for moral consideration not to do so.

 Question for further thought:

Is it possible for non-human animals to be speciesist?

 Word Count: 1229

[yho11]

Karen J. Warren: Against the Logic of Domination

              In “The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism”, Karen J. Warren makes the case for ecofeminism by laying out the oppressive framework that causes the issues ecofeminism is concerned about. Warren lays groundwork for the ecofeminism argument that the domination of women and the domination of nature are conceptually connected. She does this by explaining conceptual frameworks as worldviews affected by one’s identities and background. Such frameworks can become oppressive and patriarchal when it justifies the subordination of women by men. Oppressive frameworks have 3 important features. The first is value-hierarchical thinking which places higher value on things at the top of a hierarchy. The second is value dualism which considers disjunctive pairs as opposite and exclusive, with one often being valued more historically. The third is the logic of domination which is an argument that justifies one thing to subordinate another. She emphasizes the disproportionate importance that the third has because the other two can be used in non-oppressive contexts such as hierarchical thinking in organizing data. But these two features are often misused in oppressive frameworks when combined with the logic of domination which always use their conclusions to justify oppression. Warren says that a western patriarchal framework looks like:

“(B1)      Women are identified with nature and the realm of the physical; men are identified with the human and realm of the mental.

(B2)        Nature and the realm of the physical are inferior to human and the realm of the mental.

(B3)        Thus women are inferior to men.

(B4)        If x is superior to Y, then X is justified in dominating Y.

(B5)        Therefore, men are justified in dominating women.”[1]

              This framework uses the value dualism in B1 to put women and men on opposing realms of natural/physical and human/mental, with human/mental realms being historically considered superior. Value-hierarchy reaffirms this by placing the human/mental higher than natural/physical. The logic of domination therefore is used to characterize this difference with justifying the superior realm to dominate the inferior realm, rationalizing the oppression of women by men. Women aren’t the only group that is identified with nature to justify their oppression, this logic is used for people of color such as natives to paint them as primitive with nature. Its justification of sexism makes the eradication of such logic the goal for feminism, but the universal applicability of this logic to other issues like naturism means that feminists and environmentalist can be united by a common enemy. Feminism should therefore accept ecofeminism as the end of all oppression is the logical end goal with the eradication of such logic, their movement are interconnected.

               I agree with Warren on the universal applicability of the logic of domination when it comes to many issues of oppression. It’s easy to see how it justifies the domination of nature with an argument like: humans are more rational than other natural beings, rationality opposed to irrationality, more rationality means better value, therefore humans are superior than non-humans because of higher rationality. Apply the logic of domination and humans are justified in subjugating non-humans. It’s not just rationality, any number of identities or traits can be used to value one group above another and apply the oppressive logic to justify domination. It gives an interesting way to examine climate change issues. I’m reminded of the climate barbarism that Naomi Klein mentioned in “The Right is Right”. Klein was worried about how worsening disasters from climate change can further lead to inequal and cruel treatment of the poor by those who can afford to adapt. The oppressive framework for this barbarism can look like: the rich elites can easily afford to adapt to climate change while the poor cannot, being rich and adaptable is superior to being poor and unadaptable, thus those who can adapt better to climate change are superior to those who cannot, applying the logic of domination, therefore rich elites are justified in subjugating the poor because it’s the survival of the fittest. This justifies the continuation of environmentally destructive economic practices and exploitation of the poor. If the fittest deserve to be the most well off then it naturally it’s the not the elites’ problem that the unfit should suffer and be exploited to benefit those who are fit and superior. It also reminds me of human exceptionalism that Lori Gruen debunks in “Why Animals Matter”. The oppressive framework in exceptionalist argument tries to differentiate humans and animals based on a unique trait exclusive to all humans, having this unique trait is better than not having it, therefore humans are superior to animals because of their exclusive trait and they are solely worthy of moral concern. The fact that Warren’s take on the logic of domination can be seen in so many of these author’s works shows how pervasive it is in any issue involving oppression and it proves her call for intersectionality.

 Question:

Is the logic of domination naturally occurring? Could any other species adopt this logic?

 Word Count: 823

    [1] Karen J. Warren, The Power and the Promise of Ecological Feminism, 284

[yho11]

Naomi Klein: Causes of Climate Denial

              In “The Right Is Right”, Naomi Klein makes two important claims about the cause of climate change denialism and the solution to it. The underlying cause of denialism has to do with the neoliberal ideology that is so pervasive in western societies. This ideology puts free market capitalism at the top, it drives climate change because of its grow or die mentality that demands ever more profit and less government regulation. Its influence can be seen in 3 kinds of denial.

              The first type denies the science of climate change because the conclusions threaten the validity of their worldview. Conservatives deny the science because the solutions would require massive government action that invalidates their small government politics. On top of that, think tanks funded by rich neoliberals push out anti-regulation and climate denial rhetoric. The second type is denial based on economic stakes in fossil fuel. People who rely on fossil fuels for a livelihood are prone to denialism regardless of their political associations. While republicans largely deny climate change, even some democrats do if their job depends on fossil fuels. This even extends to the few scientists who have commercial interests in exploitation of natural resources and don’t believe climate change to be manmade. The third type is based on social and economic privilege. The rich can afford to adapt to climate change disasters simply by just moving away and buying new homes, climate change isn’t their problem. The current free market system benefits them and keeping the status quo means they can stay powerful. Klein warns that this type of denialism can lead to a future of barbarism where the there is no empathy for the poor, corporations buying out small businesses ruined buy disasters, and wars over scarcer resources.

              Klein claims that the solutions to climate change cannot be middle grounds. Climate change requires massive government intervention such that it uproots the current neoliberal system. Solutions cannot coddle to conservatives who are afraid of such big government action. Some activists try to appeal that climate change will make big government more extreme later. She argues it’s already too late, world governments have procrastinated so that on climate action that the only response is drastic action that deniers would never agree to in their ideology. Solutions also cannot coddle to neoliberal values because not only does it not work as conservatives are more opposed to climate action now than ever, but it also reinforces the neoliberal values that will keep causing the issue. Therefore, the solution to climate denialism must be a stronger countermovement which rejects neoliberal ideology and fights to change our current pro-corporate, materialistic culture and advocates for the massive climate action needed.

              I agree with Klein that the current neoliberal culture is holding back climate change action. In the current free market system, corporations regularly profit off of environmentally destructive activities whether it’s deforestation, fracking, fossil fuels, and causing disasters like oil spills. This current corporate culture is so ingrained that it tries protects the market from anything that tries to threaten its profits. This is evident in how often the financial elites get bailouts and more money during a financial crisis whether it was the 2008 crash, or the trillions of government dollars wasted trying to stabilize a crashing stock market during the march 2020 COVID panic.

              I relate with Klein on the types of denialisms. When it comes to conservatives denying the science because it would disrupt their worldview, I can see a parallel with COVID science. It’s bewildering how face masks are such a divisive thing in the US, as many Trump supporters justify their stance as anti-maskers with claims like COVID is a hoax, it’s not as dangerous as the media exaggerate it to be, it’s a ploy by the government to take away more rights, economic shutdowns are causing more harm by keeping people from working, etc. Such rhetoric from anti-maskers is very reminiscent of the arguments that climate deniers. I think it’s a consequence of a general anti-science attitude from climate denial that it carries over to COVID, rejections of climate science due to it requiring government intervention is similar to the rejection of masks and safety measures because it’s also big government. The neoliberal anti-regulation attitude is so pervasive that it even leaks into regulations that don’t involve climate change. On the second type, I was surprised to learn how bipartisan climate denial can be, given enough economic reliance on it. But this influence of fossil fuel corporations can also be seen in lobbying groups that donate to politicians in both parties, making it part of their interests to not take drastic climate action. On the third type, elites can afford climate adaptation, so it’s not their problem so it’s ok to profit off of climate disasters. This kind of free market barbarism that Klein warns about spills out of climate issues and can also be seen in the COVID economy. The economic crash from COVID has caused financial struggle for millions of Americans but at the same time, the wealthy elites have gained billions of dollars even during a crisis. The pandemic furthered wealth inequality and it opened disturbing opportunities for profit like mass evictions which a company was started to help evict people. With such similarities between the anti-science attitude towards COVID and climate change, Klein is correct in assessing the dangers of continuing to coddle such this neoliberal worldview that denies reality to protect itself.

 Question:

How do highly socialized countries in Europe deal with fossil fuel corporations? Do they face similar a corporate culture?

Word Count: 910

[yho11]

My First Post

Testing!