Cabrillo College Claudia Close Non-Western Philosophical Traditions – Philosophy 14 Fall 2013

Case Study #1: Confucians, Daoists & “How to Cool the Planet”

Read the sections in our text on Confucianism and Daoism, the attached articles from Mother Nature Network, The

Huffington Post and The New York Times, then answer the following questions. The completed assignment

should be three pages long, using 12 pt. fonts and single spacing with one inch margins. Each answer

should be proportionate to the number of points possible and each supporting quote should be no longer than one or

two short sentences. In citing the quote, all you need do is indicate the page from the text and whether it is from our

text (Koller) or the Sourcebook. All quotes should come from original source material (Confucian and Daoist texts

quoted by Koller in Asian Philosophies or from any relevant reading in Part III, Chapters 16 - 19 of the Sourcebook),

and should not include secondary commentary – e.g. Koller’s explanations of the text/theory. This exercise is

worth a total of 105 points. This is due on the 31st of October.

Keep Scrolling Down – Detailed instructions, rubrics and a sample completed assignment are on the pages following the Background!

Questions:

1. Paraphrase the argument put forth by Jeff Goodell in the first attached article from Mother Nature Network. How does Goodell argue we should respond to global climate change? Does he argue that geoengineering could be a good idea? (15 points)

2. Prior to determining whether Goodell’s recommendations present the right direction to respond to global climate change, what sort of research information would you need? Provide as a bulleted list and pose in question form. For this assignment, you do not have to do the research, nor do I expect you to become an expert in geoengineering, but you need to raise the kind of questions that would drive such a project. These should be research questions and as such should be concrete and answerable. No bias or prejudice should be evident and the questions should be non-normative. Think about facts that, if known might help determine how one should or could respond to the issues identified. (20 points)

3. Do you think that the Confucians would agree with a response to global climate change through geoengineering? Explain your answer including specific details from Confucian theory with specific reference to the proper relationship between humans and the natural world. (30 points) 3b. Provide and cite a quote from Kong Zhongni (Confucius), Mengzi (Mencius) or Dong Zhongshu supporting your answer. (5 points)

4. Do you think that the Daoists would agree with a response to global climate change through geoengineering? Explain your answer including specific details from Daoist theory with specific reference to the proper relationship between humans and the natural world. (30 points) 4b. Provide and cite a quote from Laozi or Zhuangzi supporting your answer. (5 points)

Background for Case Study 1:

MNN.COM › Earth Matters › Climate & Weather

'How to Cool the Planet:

Geoengineering and the Audacious

Quest to Fix Earth's Climate' A conversation with best-selling author Jeff Goodell about his new book. 1

Tue, Jun 01 2010 at 8:36 AM

Photo: Eric Etheridge

MNN: What is geoengineering?

Jeff Goodell: It’s the idea of manipulating the Earth’s climate as a way to reduce the risks from global

warming. If that sounds dangerous and scary and downright crazy, it is. But I argue in my book that

we’re likely to end up doing it anyway — in part because the effort to reduce emissions has been such a

failure, in part because we love quick fixes, and in part because the survival of civilization may eventually

depend on it. The real question is, how soon will we begin, and will we do it well or do it badly?

What inspired you to write this book?

Two things, really. After I completed my previous book, "Big Coal", which was about the costs and

consequences of burning coal for energy, it became clear to me that we are not going to reduce our

1 http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/how-to-cool-the-planet-geoengineering-and-the-audacious-quest-

emissions anywhere near fast enough to avoid the risks of a climate catastrophe. What will we do if

someday we have the climatic equivalent of the subprime mortgage meltdown?

Shortly after I began thinking about this, I met a few highly respected scientists who were quietly

exploring ideas for how we might cool the planet in an emergency. I was intrigued. I grew up in Silicon

Valley, after all — I’m a big believer in exploring new technology to help solve human problems. In

addition, the idea of deliberately taking charge of the Earth’s climate brings up a lot of interesting

questions about our relationship with nature. But I think I was most interested in the human side of the

story. I wanted to know: Were the scientists who were exploring these ideas crazy or not?

So, are these geoengineering scientists mad?

Well, some of them clearly are nuts. But not all of them. In fact, the narrative of the book is really about

getting to know these scientists as human beings. I mean, we are talking about messing around with the

climate system of the entire planet here! You’ve got to have a big ego and a healthy dose of hubris even

to consider it. Besides trying to understand the technological, political, economic and moral complexities

of all this, I also wanted to know, on a basic human level, whether we could trust these people. And as it

turned out, I met some pretty fascinating characters.

Who are some of the leading scientists in the field?

One of them, David Keith, is a Canadian physicist who has started a company to design and build

machines that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. David is an ardent environmentalist —

among other things, he spends a lot of time hiking and skiing in the high Arctic. One of the reasons he’s

involved in geoengineering is that he believes it may be the only way to save the Arctic from a complete

meltdown.

Another character I was intrigued by is Stephen Salter, a cranky but brilliant Scottish engineer who

seems to have stepped out of a Jules Verne novel. Salter has designed boats that would spray billions of

tiny droplets of seawater into the clouds to brighten them, so they will reflect more sunlight away from

the Earth.

Finally, there’s Lowell Wood, a protégé of Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb. On one level,

Wood is the embodiment of Big Science gone awry. But he’s also a very smart and entertaining guy who

challenged many of my easy assumptions about geoengineering.

What are the most plausible ideas being developed right now?

There are two basic methods to cool the planet. The quickest but most dangerous method is simply to

reflect away some of the sunlight. To offset the warming that comes from a doubling of greenhouse gas

pollution, all you have to do is reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth by 1 or 2 percent —

which, it turns out, is not that difficult. One way is to mimic a volcano and throw a small amount of dust

into the stratosphere; the particles act as tiny mirrors, scattering sunlight. Another approach is to use

the technique Stephen Salter is working on: brightening clouds over the oceans so that they reflect more

light.

The second method — one that would take much longer but would be much safer in the long run — is

to develop new technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. One way to do that is to

dump iron slurry into the ocean, which would stimulate plankton blooms, which in turn would absorb

carbon. Another course would be to build machines that pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. This

would not be cheap, but it could be done. Imagine: someday we may build what amounts to an iron lung

for the planet.

Is geoengineering a quick fix for global warming?

Absolutely not. In fact, that was one of the fears I had about writing this book — that these ideas will be

picked up by skeptics and deniers and sold as a quick fix for global warming. Ultimately, the only way to

reduce the risks of climate change and create a sustainable planet is to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

But geoengineering may well turn out to be an important tool in reducing the danger of climate

catastrophe — or perhaps for buying us more time to reduce emissions. Or, on the other hand, it might

turn out to be a tool used by political leaders who want to look as if they’re “doing something” about

global warming when in fact their real goal is to continue burning fossil fuels.

What are some of the other dangers of geoengineering?

Obviously, once you start messing with the levers of the climate system, there are lots of potentially

serious side effects, including damage to the ozone layer and increasing acidification of the oceans

(reducing the Earth’s temperature does nothing to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the

atmosphere, which is the main cause of ocean acidification). Changing rainfall patterns is also a major

concern. For example, hundreds of millions of people are dependent on Asian monsoons for water to

grow crops. Reducing the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth could alter the path of those monsoons,

which would severely impact the food supply in Asia. A similar thing could happen here in the United

States: even a small change in the amount of rainfall that hits Midwestern farms could have an

enormous impact on our food supply and our economy. It’s important to point out, though, that rainfall

patterns around the world are already shifting because of global warming, so it’s not at all clear that

trying to manipulate the climate would necessarily be worse than what we’re already doing. As one

person I quote in my book says, “We’re already messing around with the planet. We may as well get

good at it.”

But the risks associated with geoengineering are not just environmental, they’re political too. If we start

talking openly about ways to cool the planet, will that reduce our political will to cut greenhouse gas

emissions? And what if a rogue nation — or a group of rogue billionaires, for that matter — decides to

take matters into its own hands and attempt to “fix” the climate on its own? And what if that nation or

that group does it badly, disrupting the climate of the entire planet? This may sound far-fetched, but

really it’s not. In a sense, the politics of geoengineering is a little like the politics of nuclear weapons. The

central challenge is, how do you restrain lone actors from pulling the trigger?

The whole idea sounds crazy — the very definition of human hubris.

Of course it’s crazy. In a perfect world, we would never consider doing anything like this. But we don’t

live in a perfect world. We live in a world that has already been altered, reshaped and polluted by

human activities. There are real questions about how sustainable our current way of life is, especially

when you factor in the enormous risks we face trying to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. It’s easy to

take the moral high ground and say we should never think about geoengineering, but it may be true that

if we learn how to intelligently intervene in the climate system, we could save lives and reduce suffering.

Maybe the techniques I explore in the book won’t work. Maybe they will turn out to be nothing more

than a dangerous sci-fi fantasy writ large. Scientists don’t yet know enough to say for sure. But given

how much is at stake, all these ideas should at least be explored.

At the end of the book, you compare geoengineering to gardening. How did you make that leap?

I was inspired by my wife, who is an avid gardener. Her goal is to grow all the food for our family (we

have three kids, so it’s no small task, especially in upstate New York). She doesn’t use pesticides or

commercial fertilizers — she’s as likely to use Miracle-Gro as to die her hair purple. Instead, she’s

determined to work with nature to figure out the best way to grow things in our corner of the world.

She is constantly experimenting: trying a new variety of basil, rotating the potatoes to a different bed,

cutting back the asparagus.

On one level, her garden is entirely a product of human artifice. Left alone, Mother Nature would cover

this plot of land with pine trees. But when you walk around in her garden you don’t feel that nature has

been banished. Quite the contrary. You feel that she has been able to collaborate with nature to create

something remarkable: a little plot of land that not only feeds us but is also extraordinarily beautiful.

Obviously there’s a big difference between managing a garden and managing the Earth’s climate. But it

does point to a different way of thinking about our relationship with the world we live in and why

getting into the business of actively managing the climate might not be a bad idea after all, especially

given the dire circumstances we find ourselves in. The greatest risk we face today is not too much

intervention in nature but too little. Apathy is the real danger. The fact is, we live in an artificial world,

and our job right now — and perhaps our last great hope for long-term survival — is to create the best,

most sustainable, most beautiful artificial world we can imagine. And while this might sound like a

version of the 1960s idea of “Spaceship Earth,” it really isn’t. It’s about building a new relationship with

the planet that is based on human ingenuity and hopefulness.

Geoengineering Research Needs Better Guidelines, Climate Change

Experts Say2

Posted: 03/17/2013 2:14 pm EDT | Updated: 06/10/2013 12:36 pm EDT

From Climate Central's Lauren Morello:

With no clear rules to guide new research, scientists are shying away from examining whether

geoengineering technologies can effectively cool the planet, and at what cost.

That’s the warning put forth by a pair of climate change experts in an essay published Thursday

in the journal Science.

“This deadlock poses real threats to sound management of climate risk,” write Harvard

University climate scientist David Keith and UCLA environmental law expert Edward Parson.

“Geoengineering may be needed to limit severe future risks, so informed policy judgments

require research on its efficacy and risks." 2 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/17/geoengineering-research-climate-change-rules_n_2896566.html

Without that research, the world could face “unrefined, untested and excessively risky

approaches” if climate change intensifies to the point that governments consider fighting it with

geoengineering approaches, Parson and Keith said.

The researchers, who say the global debate over geoengineering is increasingly polarized,

recommend that governments begin coordinating small-scale geoengineering research and block,

at least for now, large-scale experiments.

They are not the first experts to recommend more geoengineering research. Over the past several

years, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the U.K. Royal Society, the U.S. National Academy of

Sciences, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, the American Geophysical

Union and the Government Accountability Office have all called for more study to determine the

efficacy and drawbacks of various proposed geoengineering techniques.

Parson and Keith zero in on one category of techniques to engineer a cooler planet — those that

aim to reduce the amount of incoming sunlight that reaches Earth, which have drawn significant

attention and controversy.

And unlike many earlier reports calling for geoengineering research, theirs attempts to define the

size and scope of “large” and “small” experiments and lay out concrete steps governments and

scientists should take to regulate the field.

“There is an increasing crystallization of opposing views and in the specific groups that have

looked at this,” Parson said, “which kind of makes sense because of the natural tension that you

feel when you look at these technologies: ‘Oh my goodness, we could really need something like

this because we’re doing such a poor job at managing the primary problem, which is climate

change. But oh my goodness, (geoengineering techniques) hold so many perils themselves.’”

But that has not stopped what Parson and Keith deem “rogue” experimentation, including an

episode last year in British Columbia, Canada. An American businessman arranged to dump

about 100 tons of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean in July in the hope of kickstarting a massive

plankton bloom that would draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Researchers who study the ocean have warned that such experiments could have unknown,

potentially harmful effects on marine ecosystems. Those concerns helped drive the U.N.

Convention on Biodiversity and the London Convention, which regulates dumping of wastes into

the ocean, to prohibit for-profit plans to fertilize plankton blooms with iron.

But despite those bans, when the American businessman Russ George undertook his experiment

last summer near the islands of Haida Gwaii, the Canadian government was caught unaware.

And Parson and Keith argue the experiment, though ill-conceived, did not actually violate

international law.

“The Haida case is a very good example of what you might fairly characterize as an experiment

without controls, run without scientific organization,” Keith said. “We need the ability to

regulate these things.”

He and Parson argue that governments should begin informal coordination to oversee small-scale

field experiments that could help scientists understand how the atmosphere would respond to

geoengineering — without having any significant effects on local climate conditions.

The category might include a small experiment to examine whether injecting sulfur compounds

into the stratosphere destroys ozone molecules, or how spraying tiny particles of sea salt into the

atmosphere affects cloud formation.

At the other end of the scale, Parson and Keith call for a government moratorium on experiments

large enough to have a noticeable effect on regional or global climate conditions.

And there is little advantage to experiments that fall between those two extremes, they say.

“What I hope we are contributing is pointing out some quite effective things that cold be

accomplished very simply and very quickly,” Keith said. “The experiments that could teach you

a lot are very small, small compared to (the atmospheric effect of) things like trans-Atlantic

airport flights.”

And a moratorium on large-scale experimentation could help allay the fears of people who worry

that any research could make the actual use of geoengineering techniques a foregone conclusion.

Most importantly, both researchers said, studying geoengineering does not reduce the need for

the world to cuts its greenhouse gas emissions, because geoengineering is not a long-term

solution to climate change.

Their overall approach is sound, said Katharine Ricke, a postdoctoral fellow at the Carnegie

Institution for Science who has published several studies evaluating different aspects of

geoengineering. Her recent research suggests that economic incentives created by deploying

geoengineering would drive governments to form small, exclusive coalitions, because the

physical impact of geoengineering will vary widely around the globe.

"Every additional partner you bring in requires you to compromise on the setting of the global

thermostat," Ricke said.

With that in mind, she said, "it's reasonable to assume that fostering international cooperation

and inclusiveness and transparency in geoengineering research can probably only make it more

likely that any implementation (of geoengineering) would be cooperative and inclusive and

transparent."

Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise? 3

By CLIVE HAMILTON

Published: May 26, 2013

CANBERRA, Australia — THE concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere

recently surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in three million years. If you are not

frightened by this fact, then you are ignoring or denying science.

Relentlessly rising greenhouse-gas emissions, and the fear that the earth might enter a climate

emergency from which there would be no return, have prompted many climate scientists to

conclude that we urgently need a Plan B: geoengineering.

Geoengineering — the deliberate, large-scale intervention in the climate system to counter global

warming or offset some of its effects — may enable humanity to mobilize its technological

power to seize control of the planet’s climate system, and regulate it in perpetuity.

But is it wise to try to play God with the climate? For all its allure, a geoengineered Plan B may

lead us into an impossible morass.

While some proposals, like launching a cloud of mirrors into space to deflect some of the sun’s

heat, sound like science fiction, the more serious schemes require no insurmountable technical

feats. Two or three leading ones rely on technology that is readily available and could be quickly

deployed.

Some approaches, like turning biomass into biochar, a charcoal whose carbon resists breakdown,

and painting roofs white to increase their reflectivity and reduce air-conditioning demand, are

relatively benign, but would have minimal effect on a global scale. Another prominent scheme,

extracting carbon dioxide directly from the air, is harmless in itself, as long as we can find

somewhere safe to bury enormous volumes of it for centuries.

But to capture from the air the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by, say, a 1,000-megawatt coal

power plant, it would require air-sucking machinery about 30 feet in height and 18 miles in

3 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/geoengineering-our-last-hope-or-a-false-promise.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

length, according to a study by the American Physical Society, as well as huge collection

facilities and a network of equipment to transport and store the waste underground.

The idea of building a vast industrial infrastructure to offset the effects of another vast industrial

infrastructure (instead of shifting to renewable energy) only highlights our unwillingness to

confront the deeper causes of global warming — the power of the fossil-fuel lobby and the

reluctance of wealthy consumers to make even small sacrifices.

Even so, greater anxieties arise from those geoengineering technologies designed to intervene in

the functioning of the earth system as a whole. They include ocean iron fertilization and sulfate

aerosol spraying, each of which now has a scientific-commercial constituency.

How confident can we be, even after research and testing, that the chosen technology will work

as planned? After all, ocean fertilization — spreading iron slurry across the seas to persuade

them to soak up more carbon dioxide — means changing the chemical composition and

biological functioning of the oceans. In the process it will interfere with marine ecosystems and

affect cloud formation in ways we barely understand.

Enveloping the earth with a layer of sulfate particles would cool the planet by regulating the

amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. One group of scientists is urging its

deployment over the melting Arctic now.

Plant life, already trying to adapt to a changing climate, would have to deal with reduced

sunlight, the basis of photosynthesis. A solar filter made of sulfate particles may be effective at

cooling the globe, but its impact on weather systems, including the Indian monsoon on which a

billion people depend for their sustenance, is unclear.

Some of these uncertainties can be reduced by research. Yet if there is one lesson we have

learned from ecology, it is that the more closely we look at an ecosystem the more complex it

becomes. Now we are contemplating technologies that would attempt to manipulate the grandest

and most complex ecosystem of them all — the planet itself. Sulfate aerosol spraying would

change not just the temperature but the ozone layer, global rainfall patterns and the biosphere,

too.

Spraying sulfate particles, the method most likely to be implemented, is classified as a form of

“solar radiation management,” an Orwellian term that some of its advocates have sought to

reframe as “climate remediation.”

Yet if the “remedy” were fully deployed to reduce the earth’s temperature, then at least 10 years

of global climate observations would be needed to separate out the effects of the solar filter from

other causes of climatic variability, according to some scientists.

If after five years of filtered sunlight a disaster occurred — a drought in India and Pakistan, for

example, a possible effect in one of the modeling studies — we would not know whether it was

caused by global warming, the solar filter or natural variability. And if India suffered from the

effects of global dimming while the United States enjoyed more clement weather, it would

matter a great deal which country had its hand on the global thermostat.

So who would be turning the dial on the earth’s climate? Research is concentrated in the United

States, Britain and Germany, though China recently added geoengineering to its research

priorities.

Some geoengineering schemes are sufficiently cheap and uncomplicated to be deployed by any

midsize nation, or even a billionaire with a messiah complex.

We can imagine a situation 30 years hence in which the Chinese Communist Party’s grip on

power is threatened by chaotic protests ignited by a devastating drought and famine. If the

alternative to losing power were attempting a rapid cooling of the planet through a sulfate

aerosol shield, how would it play out? A United States president might publicly condemn the

Chinese but privately commit to not shooting down their planes, or to engage in “counter-

geoengineering.”

Little wonder that military strategists are taking a close interest in geoengineering. Anxious

about Western geopolitical hubris, developing nations have begun to argue for a moratorium on

experiments until there is agreement on some kind of global governance system.

Engineering the climate is intuitively appealing to a powerful strand of Western technological

thought that sees no ethical or other obstacle to total domination of nature. And that is why some

conservative think tanks that have for years denied or downplayed the science of climate change

suddenly support geoengineering, the solution to a problem they once said did not exist.

All of which points to perhaps the greatest risk of research into geoengineering — it will erode

the incentive to curb emissions. Think about it: no need to take on powerful fossil-fuel

companies, no need to tax gasoline or electricity, no need to change our lifestyles.

In the end, how we think about geoengineering depends on how we understand climate

disruption. If our failure to cut emissions is a result of the power of corporate interests, the fetish

for economic growth and the comfortable conservatism of a consumer society, then resorting to

climate engineering allows us to avoid facing up to social dysfunction, at least for as long as it

works.

So the battle lines are being drawn over the future of the planet. While the Pentagon

“weaponeer” and geoengineering enthusiast Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, has proclaimed,

“We’ve engineered every other environment we live in — why not the planet?” a more humble

climate scientist, Ronald G. Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has asked, “How

can you engineer a system you don’t understand?”

Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, is the author, most

recently, of “Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on May 27, 2013, on page A17 of the New York edition

with the headline: Geoengineering: Our Last Hope, or a False Promise?.

Related: Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears (May 11, 2013)

Keep Scrolling Down –

Detailed instructions, rubrics

and a sample are on the

following pages!

General Suggestions for Writing Case Studies4

How not to write your paper:

I. The Paragraphs Authors often complain that the most difficult sentence to write is the first one. Your opening sentence should tell your reader your thesis. Then you just need to answer the question as thoroughly and succinctly as possible given the length allowed. Look at the sample case study questions and responses following the rubrics.

II. Format You do not need to re-type the question. However, each response should be numbered corresponding to the assigned questions. Place the corresponding quote below each response labeled appropriately – see example below. All papers should be three pages single spaced, using 12 pt. fonts and 1 inch margins all around.

III. Tone/Voice Ever since George Carlin pointed out that “using your own words” would result in a

private and hence meaningless expression, I’ve had to give up on the phrase, however a certain degree of originality is still important. Your task is to explain a concept as if you were the Teaching Assistant for this class. If you simply repeat the text or my lecture, you haven’t helped your imaginary student. You need to clarify the argument/concept in a way that demonstrates that you really understand it and can express the same ideas in a way that is different than has already been explained by the text or by me.

IV. Quotes Quoting is a way of supporting your interpretation of an argument or theory. Relevance to your response and to the question asked is critical. Quotes can be edited but be careful not to take the quote out of context, thus altering the intent of the author. The length of the quote must be appropriate to the length of the assignment: short papers require shorter quotes. All quotes must come from the original author’s works, neither from the secondary commentary of the author of our text nor from my lectures or

4 Please note that these guidelines are for my class assignments. Individual instructors may have other format preferences and

you should consult with your teacher for the details before completing your assignment.

power points. Quotes, if they are drawn from our assigned text, need only be cited with the page where it was found (see example below). However any quotes from other sources must have full citation. A failure to cite will result in zero points for that section of this assignment.

V. Length Part of the criteria for success is efficient use of the space allowed. If you write a single sentence for a one/third page assignment, you have not satisfied this criterion. However, this is not an invitation to use the additional space for stream-of-consciousness or irrelevant information not pertinent to the assigned issue. If you are having difficulties with the length, it is usually because you have not recognized or developed sufficiently the various issues involved. Conversely, if your draft is too long, you need to whittle it down to just the relevant essentials, perhaps editing out the anecdotes or redundancies; more is not always better! I am very willing to help if you submit drafts sufficiently before the due date.

VI. Rough Drafts I have invited all of you to bring rough drafts of your completed assignment in for a preview reading. I do not offer re-writes after I have graded your papers. Rough drafts are brought in during my office hours or by appointment and I only read them in person - with the student present. Please do not submit rough drafts electronically nor should you drop them off in my box. I support pro-active measures that encourage preparation and thought and with rough draft readings, both the student and I should benefit with the end result being a better final draft. If your work satisfies my criteria (see rubrics following) for “A” level work, and if the draft is formatted and printed in final draft format, I will sign off on the draft, guaranteeing those students somewhere between 100% and 90% of the points possible for this assignment. Your cut-off for rough draft submissions is 24 hours prior to the due date; I will read no rough drafts the day of or the day prior to the due date.

Keep scrolling down for specific rubrics and a sample partially

completed assignment!

Standards (Rubrics) for Grading Case Studies

The excellent paper (100-90% of points) will exhibit the following qualities:

Question 1: Conclusion is clearly identified Major supporting premises are identified Relevant and critical minor supporting premises are identified. Argument has been presented with good logical flow. Paraphrase has eliminated all irrelevant information. Paraphrase is original and not merely a verbatim repetition of original argument Argument is clearly understood and consistent with the author’s intent. No critique, analysis or irrelevant commentary is provided.

Question 2:

All items are listed as normatively neutral questions. No immediate bias is evidenced.

All critical questions have been raised given the space allowed. Questions are relevant to the case and would be likely to be relevant to the

philosophers/theories being applied to the case in the third section. Questions are likely to drive effective and informative research. The questions

should be answerable (at least in terms of probabilities or projections backed up with historical data).

Questions are grammatically correct and are presented in a bulleted list. Question 3 and 4:

A clear thesis statement is made at the beginning of the response.

Responses are sufficiently detailed and focused on the questions raised. Responses are consistent with the philosopher referenced. Sufficient detail from the philosopher’s theory is provided. Responses reflect careful and detailed consideration of background material

provided. Responses are well supported with relevant reasons. No immediate personal bias is evidenced.

Quotes in 3b and 4b:

Quote is from philosopher’s primary work & is cited properly. Quote is specifically relevant to the issue and is not too general. Length of quote is appropriate to the assignment. Quote supports the position maintained by the author in the previous section.

Overall Impressions:

Study presents evidence of a thoughtful and deliberative approach.

Language is clear and explanations/arguments are original Effective use has been made of space allowed – with length of responses

proportionate to the number of points for each question. Assignment format has been followed.

The Good Paper (89-80% points) The good paper will demonstrate all the above qualities but perhaps to a lesser degree or, will demonstrate some of the above qualities excellently, but not all of the qualities will be presented at a consistently high level.

The Satisfactory Paper (79-70% points)

The satisfactory paper will present all of the above qualities but not as strongly as the good paper or, some qualities may be stronger with some not as strong. Insight is not usually present.

The Paper that Needs Work (69-60% points) This paper is weak on many of the desired qualities.

The Paper that Really Needs Work – Pretty Much Unacceptable (59-0% points) This paper presents few if any of the desired qualities.

Keep scrolling down for a sample completed assignment!

Cabrillo College Joan Q. Hardworkingstudent Introduction to Philosophy – Philo. 4 Fall 2013

Sample Case Study: Ethics & New York Cycling

1. Paraphrase the argument put forth by Randy Cohen in the attached article. (15 points) Note that Cohen specifically mentions Kant in his essay which follows thus it is appropriate in the paraphrase.

Cohen argues that Kant would agree that while it is illegal it is still morally justifiable to treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs while riding a bicycle in NYC. He claims that it passes the categorical imperative test in that he is prepared for every cyclist to treat red lights & stop signs as yield signs in NYC. Cohen rejects the relevance of laws written to apply to both cars and bikes; just because a law reasonably applies to cars, it doesn’t follow that the justification would hold for bicycles since a) bicycles are not relevantly similar in weight, speed and capacity for damage and, b) allowing exceptions for bikes works in Idaho, Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Cohen offers the promise of beneficial consequences in allowing cyclists to run red lights, people could get to their destinations faster which would encourage more cycling which then would promote health for more people and it would be better for the environment. Finally, by allowing cyclists to run red lights, Mr. Cohen’s enjoyment of cycling is improved – it makes him happier to go faster.

2. Research information (20 points)

How many cyclists are there in NYC and what is the proportion of cyclists, to motorists and to pedestrians?

How many accidents occur at intersections involving cyclists running the red light or stop sign?

Of these accidents, how many people have been injured or killed? In cities such as Amsterdam or states such as Idaho, where such practices are legal,

what is the safety record of cyclists, motorists and pedestrians Are Idaho, Amsterdam & Copenhagen traffic patterns relevantly similar to NYC? Proportionately, how much time on average is actually saved on a bicycle by

running red lights? Have studies been done examining the motivations for people to shift from

automobiles to bicycles in large urban areas & is it reasonable to expect statistically significant shifts given the weather and other hazards encountered in NYC with the readily available option of public transit?

Is riding a bicycle hazardous in NYC - how many people have been injured while riding a bicycle in NYC over the past decade?

3. Do you agree with Mr. Cohen that Kant would approve of his actions? (30 points)

Kant would not agree with Mr. Cohen’s thesis for the following five reasons. First, Cohen’s plan to break the law fails the test of acting solely upon the good will – the will to act upon

one’s duty without contradicting one’s reason. One cannot articulate a duty to break traffic laws whenever it is convenient to do so without contradicting one’s aims to use the roads to arrive safely – the concept of orderly traffic depends upon the concept and general agreement to all traffic laws. Were Cohen to advocate breaking laws whenever one assessed it safe to do so, he would have to then be prepared to have everyone – not just cyclists – to act accordingly. This would make maneuvering the roadways ridiculously perilous and thus contradict his intention to use them safely. Even if one charitably articulated the duty more narrowly – “when riding a bicycle in NYC and when one encounters a red light or stop sign at an intersection, pause & verify that it is clear and safe to cross before entering” – then he is still failing the categorical imperative by selectively writing exceptions to rules for himself and other cyclists. When one uses the public roadways, one is tacitly agreeing to the rules and conventions that apply to all. Admittedly, Cohen’s thesis would be a better Kantian argument if he were simply arguing to change the law rather than break the law. In this way, at least this behavior would then be one that is reasonably expected by those who share the roads with him. However, it still smacks of writing exceptions based on one’s desires and preferences and not from a will to act in a rationally consistent fashion. Secondly, Cohen’s argument also fails the practical imperative to always have respect for persons. In not abiding by the generally agreed upon laws Cohen’s actions present an avoidable risk to the well-being of others and constitute a kind of lying promise to abide by those laws commonly agreed upon by those who share the roads. Thirdly, Cohen’s justification that pedestrians often jaywalk and cross against the light so that makes it ok for cyclists to run red lights and stop signs would not pass the Kant test – just because others don’t do their duty, it doesn’t follow that one should be excused from doing one’s own duty. Kant asks us to act as if everyone always did their duty – this is what he meant in his discussion of a Kingdom of Ends. Fourthly, Cohen’s argument is largely consequentialist. His expectations that it will be good for more people’s health and the environment are used as a justification to run red lights. Kant is not a consequentialist – one must act solely from the good will – the will to do one’s duty regardless of outcome. If one makes a decision based on consequences, then one must be prepared to take responsibility for things one cannot foresee with any certainty or control with any regularity. For Kant, the only thing we can control is our own good will. Finally, Cohen’s justification that it makes him happy to go fast is insufficient for Kant – happiness as an end to one’s actions is inadequate for humans who are capable of acting rationally and having the will to counter one’s appetites. Though Kant is not opposed to happiness in itself, it is not, or at least should not be, a determinate for one’s moral duty. 3b. Cite a quote from Kant supporting your answer. (5 points) “For the universality of a law which says that anyone …could promise whatever he pleases with the intention of not keeping it would make promising itself and the end to be attained thereby quite impossible….” (page 287)

4. For Mill does it make sense to institute exceptions to rules and if so, under what circumstances? (30 points)

Mill would not agree with Mr. Cohen’s decision to treat red lights and stop signs as yield signs. For Mill as a consequentialist, the decision would hinge on a kind of cost/benefit analysis. Mill would need to assess the risk associated with Cohen’s plan and weigh that risk against the reasonably expected beneficial outcomes. Firstly, there is clearly a reasonable risk associated with Cohen’s plan. While it is true that for Mill, liberty is a critical aspect of happiness but one’s rights can justifiably be limited if the exercise of those rights constitute harm to others. Oncoming pedestrians or vehicles may not always be seen - blocked intersections and congested traffic are common in NYC. Further, while it may be true that automobiles present a greater risk to pedestrians, nevertheless if a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle it can still do significant damage. Even if a cyclist hits a car there can be significant damage to oneself, to the driver (if not physical harm then one could reasonably argue for psychological, legal, financial impacts), to the vehicle and such an event would most likely produce subsequent delays due to accident investigations with the associated drain on city revenues afterwards by costs from first responders and the police. Secondly, Cohen’s predicted beneficial consequences are somewhat questionable. It is unclear that advocating this practice, even if the law were changed, would significantly increase the number of cyclists in NYC – the weather for many months of the year is inclement and would make showing up for jobs having gotten there on a bike in well-groomed business attire very challenging to say the least. There is also the additional concern that if one is involved in an accident, the bike offers no protection from impact. Cohen’s comparison to Idaho, Amsterdam or Copenhagen is not relevantly similar – Though there may have been positive outcomes in these places, it does not follow that the same would occur in NYC. None of them have the same traffic patterns and city planning; Idaho does not have the high density population and traffic of NYC and Amsterdam and Copenhagen very likely have proportionately more cyclists and fewer motorists; It is very likely that what generates good consequences in those areas will not be a good predictor for NYC nor will it be likely to produce similar results. Finally, the perceived direct beneficial consequence is trivial; Cohen’s good of going fast and being happy is not the same as Mill’s good which he called Happiness which is associated with a higher rational dignity. Mill argued that one must make clear distinctions not just about the quantity of a good but also the quality of such goods. I doubt that Mill’s ideas of higher rational goods such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. are really commensurate with running red lights with impunity. Dogs have great pleasure hanging their heads out car windows with the wind in their fur; humans can do better!

4b. Cite a quote from Mill supporting your answer. (5 points) “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (page 255)

Background5: Sample Case Study

OPINION

If Kant Were a New York Cyclist6

André da Loba

By RANDY COHEN

Published: August 4, 2012

THE rule-breaking cyclist that people decry: that’s me. I routinely run red lights, and so do

you. I flout the law when I’m on my bike; you do it when you are on foot, at least if you are

like most New Yorkers. My behavior vexes pedestrians, drivers and even some of my fellow

cyclists. Similar conduct has stuck cyclists with tickets and court-ordered biking education

classes. 5 Please note that you are not limited to the background offered – you may feel free to use any credible/reliable source as evidence for your arguments. Please provide full citation for all research. 6 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/if-kant-were-a-new-york-cyclist.html?ref=ethics&_r=0

But although it is illegal, I believe it is ethical. I’m not so sure about your blithely ambling

into the intersection against the light while texting and listening to your iPod and sipping a

martini. More or less.

I roll through a red light if and only if no pedestrian is in the crosswalk and no car is in the

intersection — that is, if it will not endanger myself or anybody else. To put it another way, I

treat red lights and stop signs as if they were yield signs. A fundamental concern of ethics is

the effect of our actions on others. My actions harm no one. This moral reasoning may not

sway the police officer writing me a ticket, but it would pass the test of Kant’s categorical

imperative: I think all cyclists could — and should — ride like me.

I am not anarchic; I heed most traffic laws. I do not ride on the sidewalk (O.K., except for

the final 25 feet between the curb cut and my front door, and then with caution). I do not

salmon, i.e. ride against traffic. In fact, even my “rolling stops” are legal in some places.

Paul Steely White, the executive director of Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group

of which I am a member, points out that many jurisdictions, Idaho for example, allow

cyclists to slow down and roll through stop signs after yielding to pedestrians. Mr. White e-

mailed me: “I often say that it is much more important to tune into the pedestrians rather

than tune into the lights, largely because peds jaywalk so much!”

If my rule-breaking is ethical and safe (and Idaho-legal), why does it annoy anyone?

Perhaps it is because we humans are not good at weighing the dangers we face. If we were,

we’d realize that bicycles are a tiny threat; it is cars and trucks that menace us. In the last

quarter of 2011, bicyclists in New York City killed no pedestrians and injured 26. During the

same period, drivers killed 43 pedestrians and injured 3,607.

Cars also harm us insidiously, in slow motion. Auto emissions exacerbate respiratory

problems, erode the facades of buildings, abet global warming. To keep the oil flowing, we

make dubious foreign policy decisions. Cars promote sprawl and discourage walking,

contributing to obesity and other health problems. And then there’s the noise.

Much of this creeping devastation is legal; little of it is ethical, at least where, as in

Manhattan, there are real alternatives to the private car. But because we’ve so long let cars

dominate city life, we take them, and their baleful effects, for granted. The surge in cycling is

a recent phenomenon: we’re alert to its vagaries.

But most of the resentment of rule-breaking riders like me, I suspect, derives from a false

analogy: conceiving of bicycles as akin to cars. In this view, bikes must be regulated like

cars, and vilified when riders flout those regulations, as if we were cunningly getting away

with something. But bikes are not cars. Cars drive three or four times as fast and weigh 200

times as much. Drive dangerously, you’re apt to injure others; ride dangerously, I’m apt to

injure myself. I have skin in the game. And blood. And bones.

Nor are cyclists pedestrians, of course (at least not while we’re pedaling). We are a third

thing, a distinct mode of transportation, requiring different practices and different rules.

This is understood in Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where nearly everyone of every age

cycles. These cities treat bikes like bikes. Extensive networks of protected bike lanes provide

the infrastructure for safe cycling. Some traffic lights are timed to the speed of bikes rather

than cars. Some laws presume that in a bike-car collision, the heavier and more deadly

vehicle is at fault. Perhaps as New York City’s bike share program is rolled out, these will

become the case here.

Laws work best when they are voluntarily heeded by people who regard them as reasonable.

There aren’t enough cops to coerce everyone into obeying every law all the time. If cycling

laws were a wise response to actual cycling rather than a clumsy misapplication of motor

vehicle laws, I suspect that compliance, even by me, would rise.

I choose my riding style mindful of my own safety and that of my neighbors, but also in

pursuit of happiness. Uninterrupted motion, gliding silently and swiftly, is a joy. It’s why I

ride. And it’s why Stephen G. Breyer says he rides, sometimes to work at the Supreme Court:

“The advantages? Exercise, no parking problems, gas prices, it’s fun. An automobile is

expensive. You have to find a place to park and it’s not fun. So why not ride a bicycle? I

recommend it.” I don’t know if he runs red lights. I hope so.

Randy Cohen was the original writer of The New York Times Magazine’s “Ethicist” column

and the author of the forthcoming book “Be Good: How to Navigate the Ethics of

Everything.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 5, 2012, on page SR8 of the New York edition with the headline:

If Kant Were a New York Cyclist.