Sagoff: Consumption (do one only)

Compare and contrast Milbrath and Sagoff. Do we consume too much? Too much for what? For a longer paper, explain your own view, and defend it against the most reasonable objection you can think of. (If, in the end, you want to modify the view with which you started, you should feel welcome to do so so. One way to write a paper is to start with a simple version of your thesis, then develop it into a more complex form.)

A superficial read of Milbrath would give us the principle "We should minimize our consumption"; a superficial read of Sagoff says "our consumption is good". In your own words, but using these two people's papers as a starting point, design a modified principle that captures the insights from these papers and that you believe to be more appropriate to the way you personally ought to live your life. Justify your answer. This would be suitable for a short paper, but could perhaps be a longer one.

What are some of the conditions that can lead to a tragedy of the commons situation? Give one or two examples from Hardin and explain the general features these situations share. Then give two examples from your everyday life. This could work for either a short or a long paper--a longer paper would require more explanation of your examples.

One solution to some tragedy of the commons situations is to privatize the resource that is in the commons, thereby changing the incentive structure. Give an example of a situation in which it is morally unacceptable to privatize the resource. In general, when is privatization of the resource acceptable, and when not? Explain.

Is overpopulation an example of a commons tragedy? Explain. For a longer paper, discuss a particular country's overpopulation problem. (Search the web for information. Cite your sources properly.) What are people in that country doing to solve the problem? Is it working?

Why does data on aboriginals provide relatively direct evidence on the structure of an optimal system of property rights? What is special about agriculture such that it nearly always takes place on private property? What are some exceptions to this? (This would be good for a short paper.)

Even if the cost of enforcing property rights was negligible, a system of no communal property might not be optimal for aborigines (or us). Why is this? Explain in considerable detail. (This would be more appropriate for a longer paper.)

What is the problem of original appropriation? Explain in your own words why someone concerned with inequality in the modern-day United States might also be worried about original appropriation. (Short)

How do people in the real world avoid and/or solve commons tragedies? Explain the relevance of property institutions in general, and different types of property institutions in particular. Do you agree or disagree with Schmidtz about the importance of property institutions? Whether you agree or disagree, be sure to consider the strongest possible opposing view. (Long)

1. Different theories of morality can lead to similar conclusions for different reasons. Singer believes that an animal's capacity to suffer is morally significant. People with different theories, though (Hill's for example, or Leopold's) might agree that factory farming is wrong. Contrast Lyman's perspective on why factory farming is wrong to Peter Singer's, or to your best attempt to explain why it is wrong in terms of Leopold's "Land Ethic" What arguments might one use that the other(s) would not? If writing your longer paper on this topic, use both the Singer and Leopold readings, in addition to Lyman, and address utilitarianism and the Land Ethic. Properly cite any arguments you use from these papers.

1. Milbrath asks: "What kind of a world do you want? What is the good life?" Milbrath argues that continued growth in human population and material consumption is not desirable (we do not want to go there). How can we avoid going there? What are the options? Are all of these options morally acceptable? If you are using this as your longer paper, address the following questions: What ought to constrain the means we use to limit population growth? Are some means of limiting population growth and material consumption incompatible with the good life and the world you want? Explain.
2. Explain Milbrath's conception of quality of life, and the reasoning behind the conditions he imposes. If you are answering this as a long paper, address the following questions: Is his conception of the good life well defended? Is he right to focus on subjective experience rather than physical measures?
3. Explain: "The central question is not whether people or spotted owls are more important; they are both important. No one is suggesting that people must die for spotted owls to live. The question, rather, is what values should have the greatest priority as such policies are made." This is a good topic for a short paper.
4. Milbrath observes that children in underdeveloped countries are happy to play with old auto tires, etc. Is he right to infer from this that societies can be happy with a small fraction of the material goods available in the US? Make sure to discuss the notion of "non-zero-sum goods."

1. Hill asks: "What sort of person would destroy the natural environment or even see its value solely in cost/benefit terms?" (The example he uses is the neighbor paving the yard.) What is Hill's answer? Do you agree? Also, why is that the question? Why doesn't Hill just ask: What's wrong with destroying the natural environment? If you choose this for the longer paper, you may want to bring in ideas from other readings--cite them properly.
2. Singer might think it's a bad idea to cut down Redwood forests. Suppose he does. How would Hill's reasons differ from those that Singer would give? Is one sort of reason more or less relevant than the other? This is a good topic for a short paper.
3. Hill thinks the focus on the rightness or wrongness of actions is either misguided or at least overemphasized. He suggests we focus instead on the character of the person doing the action--see his examples of the person who laughs while reading about a tragedy, or the grandchild who spits on his grandmother's grave. Do these examples show that it's more important for moral theorists to focus on characters rather than actions? If character is more important, in what way is it more important? How would someone who thought that the morality or immorality of actions was the most important part of morality reply? This is probably best handled in a long paper.

1. Matthews says she is "not intending to ban change altogether, but to insist that change should not disrupt the general unfolding of things." What do you think she means by this? What sort of policies would such a principle entail? Are there any moral limits on the ways in which we can act so as to limit change? This is probably best handled in a long paper.
2. In your own words, what does Mathews mean by "letting it be?" Is Mathews asking us to let it be as individuals, or as a society, or both? What's the difference? If you want to turn this into a longer paper, consider one additional question: If you are committed to let it be, what are you supposed to do when other people are committed to change (perhaps just for the sake of change)? Does "letting it be" mean letting them be, too, or does it mean trying to stop them?
3. Why does Mathews recommend we maintain rather than demolish old buildings, even out-dated, unattractive ones? What are some advantages and disadvantages of maintaining rather than replacing? Is "old" better than "new" in general? Why or why not?