Exam 7: Developing an Argument From Principle

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study Flashcards

Question 1

Essay

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true). The scenario: Eco-sabotage. Hayduke is an Army veteran who lives in rural Oregon near an old-growth forest. That forest houses a thriving ecosystem of plants, fungi, birds, insects, and mammals that Hayduke has studied, admired, and loved since he was a child. It was this forest that prompted him to become an environmentalist, donating money to mainstream groups like Greenpeace, and also to more extreme environmentalist organizations, including Earth First!. Hayduke learns that a logging company has secured the legal rights to clear-cut his beloved forest. He believes, with reason, that this will destroy the local ecosystem, which will have terrible effects for the region. Without the forest, many plants and animals, some of them relatively rare, will die. Erosion into a local river will likely become a problem, perhaps even causing flooding in an area that has never experienced flooding. Because of his Army training and long-standing friendship with members of Earth First!, Hayduke has a good grasp of the the kinds of eco-sabotage techniques that will effectively damage, or even destroy, the logging equipment the company has begun to assemble at the border of the forest. Some of these techniques are as simple as sugar in the gas tanks of the bulldozers. Some techniques are more complicated, but still within his ability. He knows, for example, how to mix thermite, which can destroy any machinery he chooses to target. Hayduke believes that he, acting alone, could cause enough damage to heavy logging equipment to convince the company to leave his beloved forest alone, and to move, instead, to a forest ecosystem that could withstand logging without collapsing. Hayduke has never before destroyed property in pursuit of his environmentalist goals, but he believes this is a special case. If the government understood the importance of the forest, he believes they wouldn't have issued the logging permits, and he even believes that if the logging company knew the forest as well as he does, they would leave it alone. But at this point, Hayduke feels he has no other options: do nothing and allow the forest to be clear-cut, or prepare for a night mission to destroy as much heavy equipment as he can. Is it morally permissible (or morally wrong, or morally required) for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest? (Adapted from The Monkey Wrench Gang, by Edward Abbey.)

Correct Answer

Answered by ExamLex AI

P1: It is morally permissible for Hayduke to destroy logging equipment to stop the destruction of his beloved old-growth forest. Supplementary information for P1: This premise is saying that in this specific situation, it is morally acceptable for Hayduke to take action to prevent the destruction of the old-growth forest. This is because the potential harm caused by the logging, such as the destruction of the ecosystem and the risk of flooding, outweighs the harm caused by destroying the logging equipment. Additionally, Hayduke has exhausted other options and believes that this is the only way to protect the forest. P2: The preservation of the old-growth forest and its ecosystem is of greater moral importance than the property rights of the logging company. Supplementary information for P2: This premise is saying that the value of preserving the old-growth forest and its ecosystem outweighs the property rights of the logging company. The forest has intrinsic value and provides important ecological benefits, while the logging equipment is replaceable and the company can seek alternative locations for logging. P3: Hayduke has a moral obligation to protect the old-growth forest and its ecosystem due to his deep connection and understanding of its value. Supplementary information for P3: This premise is saying that Hayduke's personal connection and understanding of the value of the old-growth forest creates a moral obligation for him to protect it. His knowledge of the ecosystem and the potential harm caused by logging gives him a unique responsibility to take action to prevent its destruction.

Question 2

Essay

Review LaterAdd Note

Below is a scenario that raises a moral question. Using the strategies described in Chapter 7 of Doing Practical Ethics, develop an Argument from Principle that addresses the moral question and represent it in standard form. Then, write a brief paragraph of supplementary information for each premise (explaining what the premise is saying and why we should think it is true). The scenario: A Makah Whale Hunt. Factual background: in the late 1990s, the Makah tribe of Neah Bay in Washington State, near the US border with Canada, fought a multi- year, international political battle to restore the tribe's right to hunt whales. The whale hunts, an important part of their cultural history, had ended in the early 1900s, as whale populations collapsed in the face of large-scale commercial whaling. Then, in the 1980s, international bans on whale hunting were passed by most nations, including the USA, and whale hunting became illegal nearly everywhere, including Neah Bay. But in 1996, it was the Makah tribe's position that those laws did not apply to them; they maintained that their original treaty with the US government granted them the right to hunt whales. Eventually, the tribe won its case and in 1999 a team of Makah men killed their first whale in living memory. Fictional scenario: Ben is the 20-year-old nephew of a tribal elder. He has been invited to participate in the Makah tribe's second modern whale hunt, planned for the spring of 2000. The previous year he had watched as the first whale hunt brought the community together like he had never seen before. Everyone worked together to help the hunters train physically and prepare spiritually. Elders met to try to reconstruct, as best they could, any fragments of cultural memory of how the hunts had unfolded 100 years before. The preparations for the hunt were the focus of multiple conversations every day. When the men returned triumphantly, with the body of a gray whale in tow, the community's celebrations were long and intense. Ben ate a meal of barbequed whale meat, and it tasted to him like the best steak he'd ever had. When he was invited to participate in the second hunt, Ben was deeply honored. He has practiced in his canoe daily, and is stronger than he has ever been. The whalers have gone on several retreats, to purify themselves and spiritually prepare for the hunt. These retreats have brought Ben closer to men in his community that he previously did not know well. But as the day of the hunt drew closer, Ben's misgivings began to grow. Now, when he thinks about the hunt, he gets sick to his stomach. He knows well how intelligent the whales are, with a complex language that humans haven't even begun to decode. He has spent hours admiring them from the shore and from his canoe, and believes them to be gentle, even kind creatures. He cannot deny that last year's whale hunt had a positive effect on the community, but the tribe certainly doesn't need whale meat to survive. Ben feels trapped in a moral dilemma. If he pulls out of the hunt at the last minute, he worries he will be wronging his community, including his uncle (the tribal elder who fought so hard for whaling rights), and the hunters he has grown close to over months of preparation. But if he participates, he worries he will be committing something that feels, to him, increasingly close to murder. What is the right thing for Ben to do in this situation?