Sample "Major Paper 1" (PHIL 320)

by Dr. Jan Garrett

Last revised September 21, 2007

This (incomplete) paper is prepared as an example. Peter Watmiwori is a fictional author and the journal Ethics and Global Warming is fictional too. But the article by me is of course real, having been created as a sample for the short essay assignment you already completed. You will of course be working with real authors and already published articles.

For the moral principles associated with utilitarianism, rights, and justice, see Boss' introduction to chapter 1, the articles in the chapter by Mill, Rand, and Rawls, and Justice; for compensatory justice or reparations see Reparations.

Unlike this essay, your essays should be double-spaced.

---------------------------------

Sallie Student
PHIL 320-001 (or 320-002)
[date turned in to instructor]
Word count : ___.

Must We Tighten Our Belt on Fossil Fuel Consumption?

          Global warming is increasingly accepted as reality by the scientific community. But what should we do about it? In his article "Why We Must Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption?" Dr. Jan Garrett argues that Americans, especially those who use above average quantities of energy, have a moral duty to address this problem by taking "serious steps to reduce their per capita consumption of energy, especially fossil fuels" (Garrett 2007, p. _)

          He reviews the facts of the current global environmental situation, noting that the chief mechanism contributing to global warming is the growing emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide chiefly comes from fossil fuels. He appeals to the historical fact--he thinks it is a historical fact and this agrees with what I've been able to discover about the history of energy consumption-- that the U.S. has long led the world in fossil fuel consumption. (p. ___)

          He lists the predicted, and in some cases already occurring effects of global warming. These include [paraphrase the relevant factual claims]. On the basis of the moral principle that people should "promote an environmentally and socially sustainable society and planet," he argues that we should counter-act the changes that are leading to global warming by reducing fossil fuel consumption. (p. _)

          He tries to reinforce this position by arguing from a utilitarian premise, that might have been inspired by J. S. Mill's utilitarianism, that people should prevent predictable suffering. Having already given evidence that global warming is likely to cause immense suffering, especially in low-lying lands close to the sea where millions of people, many of them quite poor, already live, he argues that we have a duty to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

          Other arguments he gives are based on (1) international justice (fairness on a global scale), (2) the obligations of those with more resources to assist those with less, and (3) the obligations of those who either (a) directly caused a problem or (b) who especially benefited from processes that caused the problem to help toward the solution. (p. __) [You could elaborate . . . ]

          Positions like Garrett's are the target of a contrary article by Prof. Peter Watmiwori. In his 2008 article "Fossil Fuel Is Our Salvation," Watmiwori argues that the reducing fossil fuel consumption would not only ruin the U. S. economy, with a negative ripple effect throughout the world economy, but it would also undercut the ability of Americans to assist the needy, including those "allegedly about to be displaced by global warming." (Perhaps you should paraphrase his factual claims in more detail.--J.G.) Watmiwori appeals to utilitarian principles (state relevant versions) and to principles of justice (state relevant versions) in support of his criticisms. He also claims that global warming will open northern Canada and Siberia to agriculture and that this will more than compensate for the predicted loss of agricultural productivity closer to the equator. (Watmiwori, p. ___)

          Referring to Garrett's paper explicitly, he claims that Garrett is trying to hold the current generation of Americans responsible for addressing problems created by previous generations, that is for "alleged harms" that those who are being asked to compensate did not themselves voluntarily create. He says that this violates "our ordinary understanding" (Watmiwori, p. __) of compensatory justice, according to which "only the party that committed an injury has the obligation to make up for it." (ibid.)

          W. evaluates the claim, which he claims is implicit even if unstated in Garrett's article, that human beings belong to a "larger self that stretches across time" (W., p. __) and that therefore the current generation may have some obligations to compensate for what their ancestors did. He finds this argument unsound for the following reasons: (mention them.)

          Garrett would probably respond to these criticism by targeting the claims Watmirwori makes in support of his view that reducing fossil fuel would negatively impact the global economy. He would likely point to the probable boom in industries associated with renewable forms of energy. Garrett might admit that this is not likely to occur without serious government financial support but argue that there is no reason a government that can now spend billions trying to remain the dominant power in the oil-rich regions of the world could not shift a significant part of those resources into the alternate energy sector. He might say that this is more likely to happen if citizens speak out effectively in favor of it.

          Looking at both views, and the likely ability they have to respond to each other's criticisms, I think that [G or W] probably has the superior position. My reasoning is as follows: ____ [This might take several sentences.] His opponent's response on this point is not entirely convincing. True, [W or G] has made a persuasive case that ____. But that factor is not as important as ___ in resolving this dispute.

          There is another possible position on this that neither of them consider: encouraging the move to "clean" nuclear power. Nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide emissions.

Bibliography

Garrett, Jan, 2007. "Why We Must Reduce Fossil Fuel Consumption," Ethics and Global Warming 2 (January): 3-5.

Watmiwori, Peter, 2008. "Fossil Fuel Is Our Salvation," Ethics and Global Warming 3 (October): 20-25.

Word count should not include quoted material, embedded references, or bibliography.