Kristian and Matthew
Questions for Both Pragmatism
Readings
How do the definitions of pragmatism differ between the two readings? Which, if any, is a better applicable definition?
Pragmatism in both articles is heavily reliant on the democratic
ideals as a balance, especially for the process of critical analysis and adoption of
change. Does this effectively remove morality
from consideration? Does this excuse behavior
that other valuation/morality systems would find serious fault with?
Does the idea of pragmatism enable a defense of racism and speciesism due to the lack of intrinsic consideration, and the majority wins democracy?
1. In his abstract, Weston states he will criticize the notion that intrinsic values be self-sufficient, abstract, and justified in special ways, and that he will develop an alternative which stresses the interdependent structure of values. Does he ever convincingly accomplish either of these tasks? If so, how?
3. Weston brings up an
understanding of intrinsic values that Rolston discussed earlier, where “Rolston goes
on to suggest that nature is intrinsically valuable because it is a source.” Unpack what both Weston and Rolston are referring
to when they refer to ‘sourcehood.’
4. Also, Weston states
that citing sources as intrinsic values “weakens the evocative force of the notion of
‘sourcehood.’” What does he
mean by this?
5. Weston states in his concluding paragraph “Pragmatism, indeed, celebrates a wide-open and diverse culture; it is the prerequisite of all the central Deweyan virtues: intelligence, freedom, autonomy, growth. What we have yet to accept is its inconclusiveness and open-endedness, its demand that we struggle for our own values without being closed to the values and the hopes of others.” This statement seems at first a lot to ask. Can it be achieved? And even if it cannot, can pragmatism still be applied to environmentalism? How?
1. Minteer and Manning state “programs like Norton’s
in environmental ethics demonstrate a sensitivity to changing environmental values across
time, space, and culture;” (194) But how
should the democratic principles employed translate in undemocratic cultural/political
spheres?
2. The idea of critical discussion regarding the nature of
people and their environment assumes that the majority of people have well-informed
opinions about the issues being discussed. Since
it is generally accepted that humans, including the most well informed individuals, have a
very limited understanding of environmental impacts and systemic relationships, how can
pragmatism prove helpful?
3. With the questionnaire, do these statements and opinions
constitute a balanced assessment of concerns and values?
Can opinion questions be held against actual “votes” when dealing
with real applied issues (i.e. most people can say that they will donate lotto winnings to
charities, but what is the actual percentage of winnings donated)? How valid is the overall process of the
questionnaire since we are not afforded an example of the questions asked?
4. Do the land use (national forests, national parks, and wilderness) scenarios that demonstrate a willingness of pragmatism actually advance an environmental ethic, or does it merely stand as a defense of current practices (which are proving less than ideal or effective)?