1. In the first essay of the text, Palmer states that one of the central problems up for debate in the field of environmental ethics is "what is considered to be valuable, and from where does such value come?" After reviewing the readings for Week 1, and particularly after reading Palmer's "An Overview of Environmental Ethics", which of the approaches or perspectives to environmental ethics is most appealing to you? Defend* your response.
*By this I mean support your response by directly discussing the various authors from the weekly readings and incorporating their views into your writing. Do not just provide me your opinion. Keep in mind that although the essays are structured for you to present your opinion, they are also intended to gauge your understanding of the course material and one way to do so is to compare and contrast the material to develop your arguments.
2. In Dobel's essay on Greening of Spirituality, he looks at Judeo-Christian roots for his environmental ethic. What parts of the Bible is he drawing on? How does this compare to the readings strictly from Genesis 1-3? Does Dobel believe the current environmental crisis has its roots in the Western world, and is only a problem for the Western world? How does Freundel's view differ from Dobel's? Which argument do you find more plausible? Why?
3. Efforts to identify possible solutions to global warming have frequently involved debates over which countries should be responsible for reducing their emissions and whether some countries that have historically produced greenhouse gas emissions should compensate other countries that are impacted. Do you think that Shue's principles for achieving fair or equitable distribution of costs for protecting the environment can be applied to global warming? What arguments would you make for determining the unequal burden on wealthy countries using these principles?
4. What are the major differences between the holistic and individualistic approaches to environmental ethic?