Andromeda M.

Neilson
Phil. 1120
11:30-1:00 pm.
Professor Wood

Exam Final
For this assignment Im going to write an essay on environmental ethics. My true
position on this argument is that Im against the negligence that humans put upon things that are
naturally and an important assets to our species. But, in this essay I will be opposing my own
concerns. I understand that if we were to change drastically for the better of the environment that
it could cause a major decline in the economy. People will lose their jobs, business will collapse,
and the possibilities of protest can stir.
In West Virginia the dependency on coal mining is outstanding. People, as of today, still
depend on this resources to live a decent life. It is said that in 2008, West Virginia along with
Kentucky already lost 38,000 coal mining jobs since 1983. (Valentine) And, what are one of the
factors that play into this? The finding for a better sufficient and environmental friendly supply.
How about our dependence on fossil fuels? From furnaces to stove tops in our kitchens, its plain
as day that we need such things like fossil fuels to function in our everyday lives. I know that
people will still argue that fossil fuels still emits carbon dioxide, but it is half compared to coal.
Not only that, natural gases help generate 21% of power for our electricity. On The National
Academies website, it states, Natural gas is used to heat more than half the homes in the United
States. It would be a harmful change for so many families out there that use this product as a
necessity; especially during the winter. (Natural Gas) One of the biggest concerns about our
environment is the use of Oil. This is one of the most demanded supply in the United States and

the most dependent. We use our cars everywhere we go. Our lives revolve around the timing and
speed of these vehicles that modify the way me manage ourselves. Hypothetically speaking, if
we were to strip the use of oil in America, what would become of our own economy? What
would happen to the automobile industries that provide jobs to Americans? Thats why theirs is
still a big debate on the use of oil. On the U.S. Energy Information Administration webpage, it
says that back in 2013 a total of 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products were consumed;
making a swooping average of 18.89million barrels a day! (Frequently) If people need this
supply, then why try to take what they consider a need? Yes, you may find other possible
resources that could help use possibly in the long run, but till then we need to understand that we
cant just take something away in order to fix an environmental issue, things like oil are too
much of a dependency for our time. If we take this dependency away, not only will this impair us
economically, but also stop our progression as a society and can cause harm directly to families
that need the oil to continue it for other uses like emergencies.
Despite the consequences of the future of our environment, the people of our nation and
their right to live in happiness cant be taken away. We, as a nation, must think what the best is
for the people now. Yes, we may start to develop different sources for the better our
environment, but we must continue using what most of our society uses in order to keep a
balance and not collapse. Without these resources, it would be very complicated of our country
to quickly repair the damage to our economy.

Section 1:
1. Autonomy, for a Utilitarian, is the most amount of good for the most amount of people.
And, some might have to suffer in order to understand other or, in other words, use an
Altruistic view. An issue, I believe, that relates to this is the idea that it is exceptional to
use Medicaid to pay for abortions if the person was a victim of rape, incest, or life
threating. Theres a law called the federal Hyde Amendment that allows this exception.
Why I believe that this relates to the Utilitarian view is despite my views against
abortion, I completely understand why such an exception came to pass. I cant force
someone to do something that was against their will like rape or a life threating situation.
Im not going to lie, I still think that incest should be excluded only if the two were
willing. Anyways, since I understand such thing, I assume that many others against and
for think the same way; hence most amount of people. And, since I feel that this
exception is justifiable because it is against their will then, I believe, it would be for the
most amount of good.
Autonomy, for a Kantian, is the process of making a logical decision that solely depends
on answer that allows one to have complete self-control by reason alone. In other words,
a reason without contradiction because pursuing it contradicts itselfan absolute right or
duty. I think an issue that can relate to this way of thinking involves any crime that is
unlawful against a governmental system. Since the laws are set in stone, doing something
that neglects the laws contradicts the law itself. And, since this contradiction may not be
justifiable to others; it is still a contradiction. People who may be thinking that its unjust
probably are thinking more than reason; therefore not thinking completely rational.
2. Kants concept of equality deals with the liberty that each individual has that makes a
union fair. And, each individual is treated the same, no matter statues, because the
government would then turn into, as Kant describes as a Paternal Government. We, as
an individual, have the right to choose our own principles; if it was necessary to seek
guidance from our government then we as individuals have no rights at all. Gay Marriage
is something that could fall in this idea that Kant has on equality. There shouldnt have to
be a vote on an individuals right to marry; despite preferences. Since, it is only logical
that every rational human being has the same liberties as the other, a bias belief or
opinion shouldnt be accepted as a justification.
Mills concept of equality deals the rights that everyone has to consider something for
being justified. And, if everyone believes that it is justifiable, then they are willing to
defend an individual who is willing to defend this principle. People have to be able to see
this both wrongly and rightly in order to come to a response to violations of a privilege.
Womens right comes to mind for mills concept of equality. A humans gender shouldnt
be an ineligibility to freedoms. And, it is not equal for the privileged half of the human
population to be able to pursue happiness without worry of gender because every human
naturally and willingly wants freedom.
3. Aristotles theory of Virtue Ethics is the characteristics that are made by the practical
and rational decisions one makes that lead to the obtainment of Eudemonia or
happiness. I think an issue that could relate to Aristotle more than others is others is our

government being a democracy and not a legit constitutional government. Since all of the
people in congress are older and educated in law, meaning they have wisdom in that
profession, that they would use their profession in the most logical and practical ways. By
making reasonable decisions that are good for others, they are also doing well for
themselves. They are giving themselves a better position in society and they develop a
sense of worth for themselves and from others. This also build on the characteristics that
are given and made by and for the person alone; giving then respect, dignity, trust.
4. Nietzsches, I think, gives the idea that there are no set principles other than man-made
principles that we make in order to survive. Because we strive to survive, we tend to
think only for ourselves and our loved ones because it is natural for us to want to
progress. Men who have more will and power are seen more as Complete were to the
weak and less dominate man wont; which causes an affect that makes the weaker person
feel less complete because of the superiority of another. In other words, their image and
self-esteem is diminished by the other or one self. Because of this, it can possible create
inequality, but cause of inequality, people are then forced to create an idea of justice and
enforcement to make a balance given to both strong and weak people. Issues that can act
against Virtue Theory is that virtue doesnt exist as well as vices. Its the person alone
that can determine what is right and wrong that allows them to progress within a society
and individually. Which then brings up that there are no objective moral rules set before
us, so whatever actions we do is for the best of ourselves and we commit to it. In Virtue
Theory talks about determining what is rational that would function for the best of men.
But, Nietzsches idea breaks that idea into pieces. A government that determines for itself
can only lead to inequality. If it were governed by the best people because this superiority
will come up with the most substantial and worthiest justification; with the exception of
them seeing other individuals as imperfect men that need a legitimate foundation.
5. Paternalism is the practice of a certain higher group that governs a society of a lesser
position and contains things like freedom for the dependents best interest. One of the
main issues that relate to this is the legalization of Cannabis. Ultimately, there is this
parental idea that Cannabis is a gateway drug, and like parents, says it is bad because this
could possibly happenwhat a genuine slippery slope. Another issue that youd have to
recognize is the opinions against and for gay marriage. To my understanding a lot of
religious and bias views came into politics saying that it was a sin or disorder, and, since
sinning and disorders are bad, it is bad to allow gay marriage. Now I understand there
supposed to be a separation between government and church, but that doesnt restrict the
fact that a vast majority of congress and the politically involved have a religious or bias
belief against it.

Section 2:

1. Hobbs describes the social contract theory as a common ground for people to strip there
rights and liberties to a ruler because the exception to join a society with a ruler is

excepting the principles that are enforced by that ruler. This will allow the preservation of
peace, happiness, and success of each individual which limits the natural man in a
particular way that helps people join as an alliance to defend each other principles.

ANSWER BOTH OF THESE QUESTIONS!:

1. I understand that the idea of killing can be an issue when it comes to abortion, capital
punishment, and euthanasia. Because of this issue, it is hard to determine what is morally
right because there are multiple factors that come to mind that can turn into an exception
like rape, self-defense, and sever sickness. So, the question is if you either have to favor
all or be against all three to be rational consistentno I strongly dont think so. It is only
natural that we use or brains to the fullest to understand every situation that occurs to us
in life. We have two parts of a brain as well as two ways of figuring out how to determine
a situation; hence Deontology and Utilitarianism. Also, we use both sides of our brain at
the same time so we think both Kantian and like Mill. In other words, it is natural to
contradict our ways of thinking. I feel like if we only thought one or the other that we are
refraining from thinking completely rational, and what I mean by rational is the capability
to comprehend by thought and feel which gives an experience a true meaning. Yes,
killing is wrong, in the most general form, but when dealing with humans that have the
ability to make a general idea a meaningful and experiential idea, No because it is no
longer just killingthere is more to it. And, thats why there are such things as
exceptions because exceptions can be justifiable for themselves and possibly others.
2. .One of my big issues that bother me is the use of pornography. The thought that
someone is willing to see people ridicule their dignity like that is, to me, beyond immoral.
For instance, pornography contributes the failure of one self and the destruction of
anothers self-esteem and feelings. So, why would someone bring so much wrong if it
even is wrong to them or not? It is the fact that they believe that they have the right to do
so and, to an extent is it is their right they are allowed to see what they want to see. But,
what else can it be other than an addiction, even if the other one was okay about it? Why
would one have to rely on a quick fix to either satisfy themselves or the sake of their
relationship? Or because they just like it? Which is, to me, an Egotistic way of seeing it,
for the pleasure for oneself; that even goes for the other person. Let bring up David Hume
into this topic when he says, Imaginary Interest can take over real interest. To me
pornography is an imaginary interest because it is a mental fix that they have to find, but
not personally experience with the other person. Or, when couples watch porn to spike
the mood, they are depending on something else that isnt real to their relationship, or
they are not getting the sex drive from just them.
High School curriculum is also an issue with me because I feel like it is unethical in some
ways. I went to school in two different states which were in Texas and California. In
Texas, I lived in a very small town were in California I lived in the city. In Texas, I was
able to have friends in different schools to figure out that the curriculum in other schools
were more efficient than mine. The teachers were better, the work was clearer, and they

seem to be learning things that my classes were missing. Now, when I would live in
California, the curriculum there was far more advanced then what we were learning in
south Texas. There was more variety in what you can do and you were more likely to
focus on your profession there then what you would focus on compared to the schools in
Texas. Not only that, they were run differently. I learned more in California then what I
did in Texas, but this is just how they were being taught, Im no counting others factors
like students attendance because that could either be the cause or the outcome. Then, I
find out how they teach in schools here in Utah and it hard not to feel a bit jealous
because I wish I was able to grow up in an area where you had more opportunities then
what I had. So, I feel like from what I was able to learn from my experiences that the
inequality and/or sluggish way curriculum is taught in schools is unethical.
I feel like the need to always have something entertaining is a bit immoral because it is
more likely that people are going to waste their time always on games, Facebook,
watching T.V. or something and it is interfering with the progression of their life. In a
capitalistic nation, things like the internet, television, radio, and so on; distract us from
seeing that we are only contributing to other peoples opinions and profit. Instead of
making our own entertainment; we see that it is easier to just access things like the
internet in order to fill in the wasted time that we are willing to put toward a change in
ourselves and others. I understand that these ways of entertainment can also benefit us
too because we are able to access information so easily, or it harder like reading a book,
but worth it. But, maybe for a moment in our lives we should take time to think about
what is really important for ourselves and what needs to be done and do it; instead of
wasting time on day dreaming. Everyone is capable of obtaining a good life if they are
willing to work for that life. Because a vast majority has this idea that it is impossible or
too hard to pursue their dream. But the saying of the American Dream can go either
way; we are able to progress in live and be content or suffer. But, entertainment has a
major influence to that. If we are continuously watching or doing something that is
meaningless then what it to say about what worth we give to ourselves? The fact that we
have this access need to be regulated and its not. I understand that we have the freedom
to speech and basically expression, but shoot when things get too far like porn for
instance, that freedom is being taken advantage.