This week we are taking a look into the ethics of the environment. For the paper that I chose, it is not exactly an apposing view but it talks about the ideology of the opposing side and how they are fueling the anti- environmentalist movement. In this article they talk about the complete denial of climate change and its impending effects on the environment and our future. This is being done by bashing the scientific community, the scientists themselves, and even leaving out the facts that could persuade people that the issue is indeed an issue. It then goes on to talk about the psychology of knowing versus not knowing and that blissful ignorance is more widely accepted than the negativity that lies with the fact that climate change is actually a real thing and not just a myth. People are persuaded that science is a lie and that the economy matters more than some radical view that the Earth cannot handle the toll we are dishing out to it.   There are also statements of the government that are more or less falsely claiming compliance with issues even though there are no clear goals of reduction of its own emissions.

2. What obligations do we have to future generations?

We have an obligation the future generations of this planet. Biologically speaking, a species should strive for self preservation and NOT extinction. We are supposed to be the most intelligent creatures on this planet, or at least have the potential for this title if we could only see the bigger picture that we are killing our future generations before they even have a chance to have a say. Previous generations, at least governmentally, basically gave us the middle finger as they plowed into their future emitting any consequences from their minds that their actions have a multitude of externalities. We owe it to the newcomers and ourselves to preserve our environment for the long run. Sure capitalism is fun and all, but at some point the ecosystem should come first before the economy.

Does nature have value in itself?

Yes. There is a reason that so many people that come to Alaska end up staying for the long-term. We are closer to nature than any other state. This is embedded in our lives deeply. We have clean air and clean water. There are claims that people instantly feel “more alive” up here just purely from breathing clean air. In a day of modernization and multimedia, we often seek nature as an escape. We are taking nature in its purest form for granted and if we keep chugging along as we are now, there will not be much of it left to go around.

4. Who should be responsible? This is a very biased answer, but we should all be responsible. We live on this planet, together, whether we like it or not we are stuck with each other. Corporate businesses down to the single individual, we all have to put in our share to help preserve our habitat. We all, especially the 1st world, are responsible for this pollution, yet we also all will benefit from the reduction of these pollutants in the long-term. Again, as stated in previous question, as a species we owe it to ourselves to combat this increase in emissions, the acidification of our oceans, and the misuse of animals. Simply existing in the 1st world we are cause of many of these problems, but we should also at least try and reduce our footprint, and stick up for the future generations that will eventually be handed our collections of environmental problems. By not acting as if we are responsible for our own home, we are asking for the future extinction of not only other species but ourselves. By our hands and our hands alone can we solve this problem and avoid what is now believed to be a soon to be catastrophe on a grand ecological scale.

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social problems, 50(3), 348-373.


This week we examined what consumers mean to business. We are the driving force for almost all interactions within the economy. You would think that those that are producing goods and services to the consuming masses would care, yet after reading about Martin Shrkeli and his many accounts of dehumanizing the market for corporate greed, there are signs that they really do not care about anything than the money. He the epitome of the greed that controls Big Pharma. For he is most known for his price gouging of HIV and cancer medication. This hiked price went from 13.50 to 750 USD. He has gone on record to mock any objections to his price hiking with remarks that shame does not affect the price of a share. He goes on to claim that the money he is taking from those that buy into the good, other corporations, and putting those to use in charities. The consumer themselves cannot be angry at him for trying to make money to help those in need. He has since become a convicted felon and has to make up for his misgivings with the payment of heavy fines and the refund of millions back to consumers. I would say that in his case there should be no forgiving what he had done. He has gotten away with so much that one of his many unethical dealings would be bound to catch up to him. In relation the Thanks for Smoking video, he was sending a message that his intentions were to help the masses rather than to help himself. If that were the case Martin, then why increase the price of such a helpful pharmaceutical tool? Then why are you a current convicted felon? Unfortunately he knows the answers, yet he does not care.

Article from the Guardian:



For this weeks assignment we are examining one of the many normative theories and they have directly been implemented in our lives or throughout history. Egoism is the one that resonated the most with me. After looking into its meaning and philosophy it is quite apparent that egoism resides among us all. Even though that choose to live selflessly and for others, have still decided to do so but within their own best interests. It does not descried human behavior directly, but more or less what we should be doing, aka living life selfishly. Self preservation is what we should strive for as individuals. It is not necessarily bad to live in ones self interest, in fact we all typically have made decisions in our lives that were dependent on how well we would come out in the outcome. Even those that choose to live for others, to provide aid and care for other people, have still weighed out the negatives and benefits to oneself. Whether we are helping others, or helping ourselves, we all exhibit egoism in the fact that if it isn’t beneficial in some way we will not continue to act if it is negative. It is not bad that we are a bit of egoists, if we didn’t care about our outcome in making decisions throughout our lives, then what influences those decisions?

M1- Barril

Where do we develop our ethics? and from where?

The development of our ethic is something that takes place over the entirety of   our upbringing and can evolve as we grow. Through experiences and perceptions of the world and the events that unfold before us, we our surroundings and begin to create our own ideas and guidelines on how we will be living our lives. I would like to believe that most individuals are born with a healthy moral code, yet this code is heavily influenced by the individuals upbringing. Our role models are typically moral code carrying individuals that can influence others in expressing that moral code as well. A lot of people are influenced by their parents or caregivers, though there are cases where these people can give us insight on moral codes not being taught by them, but as we develop as a person/adult the ethics we learn does not mean its the ethics that are portrayed. Everyone has their own unique moral code and its through the events of life and how we interact with these events that can evolve our ethics and morality to better understand right and wrong.