Philosophy and the environment practice questions.

Sylvan's thought experiment about the sole survivor of a catastrophe, who destroys the last living things before dying himself, is standardly presented as an argument against

• the view that individual organisms matter more than whole ecosystems do
• the view that value in nature depends entirely on human interests
• the view that the health of the biotic community sets the standard of right action
• the view that duties to future generations outweigh the interests of the present

Answer: the view that value in nature depends entirely on human interests

The case is built so that no human interest can be at stake, so an intuition that the destruction is still wrong counts against anthropocentrism. It leaves the dispute between individualist and holistic non-anthropocentric ethics untouched, since both can accept the intuition.

A forester argues that the floodplain should be left unbuilt because restoring it costs less than the flood damage it prevents. His reasoning ascribes to the floodplain

• instrumental value, since its worth is set by what it does for people
• intrinsic value, since its worth would survive the loss of every human user
• inherent worth, since it counts as a teleological centre of life on Taylor's account
• systemic value, since the biotic community rather than any part is the bearer of value

Answer: instrumental value, since its worth is set by what it does for people

Instrumental value is value as a means, and cost-benefit reasoning of this kind stays anthropocentric even when its conclusion is protective. A defender of intrinsic value would insist that the floodplain keeps its claim on us even if the calculation came out the other way.

Which claim is distinctive of Taylor's biocentrism and rejected by Singer's account of moral standing?

• Only beings that can suffer have interests that can be set back
• Species and whole ecosystems, rather than individual organisms, are the bearers of value
• Every living thing pursues a good of its own, whether or not it can feel anything
• Moral standing belongs to whatever a human community decides to protect

Answer: Every living thing pursues a good of its own, whether or not it can feel anything

Taylor grounds standing in each organism being a teleological centre of life with a good of its own, which brings plants inside the moral community; Singer's criterion is sentience, so plants fall outside it. Neither position is ecocentric, since both still locate value in individuals.

A government adopts a policy of rapid resource depletion. Three centuries later people live worse lives than they would have under the alternative, but they are different individuals, because the policy changed who was ever conceived. Which difficulty does this raise for the objection that the policy harmed them?

• They cannot have been made worse off, since otherwise they would never have existed
• They are too numerous for their interests to be included in any calculation
• The harm is spread across so many agents that no individual bears responsibility for it
• They cannot be consulted about a policy that was chosen long before their birth

Answer: They cannot have been made worse off, since otherwise they would never have existed

This is Parfit's non-identity problem: a person-affecting principle, which measures wrongness by harm to particular individuals, cannot condemn a policy that is a condition of those individuals' existence. The problem concerns the structure of the harm claim, not numbers, responsibility or consent.

A campaigner argues: 'Editing the genome of a wild species is unnatural, so it must not be done.' Which unstated premise does the argument require?

• Genetic editing of wild species has ecological effects that cannot be predicted
• The boundaries between species are fixed rather than the product of continuous change
• Whatever does not occur without human intervention ought not to be done
• Conservation agencies should be accountable to the communities affected by their work

Answer: Whatever does not occur without human intervention ought not to be done

Without a bridging premise the argument slides from a description to a prescription, the step Hume's is-ought observation blocks. Stating the premise also exposes it, since vaccination and irrigation are unnatural in exactly the same sense.

In 2017 the New Zealand parliament recognised the Whanganui River as a legal person with guardians who act in its name. Which philosophical question does the arrangement press?

• Which public body should pay for the upkeep of the river
• Whether an entity can have a good of its own that a representative could speak for
• Whether a river remains the same river as its water is continuously replaced
• How the measured water quality of the river compares with that of neighbouring catchments

Answer: Whether an entity can have a good of its own that a representative could speak for

Legal standing is created by legislation, but whether there is anything there to represent is a question about interests and moral standing, of the kind Christopher Stone raised for natural objects. The puzzle about persistence through change is a separate metaphysical question that leaves standing untouched.