University of Manitoba Environmental Ethics Paper

Description

Please see attachment below

1 attachmentsSlide 1 of 1attachment_1attachment_1

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Choose one of the following (each question is worth 50% of your total grade):
1a) With reference to Leopold’s piece, (i) reconstruct Leopold’s position into
clear premises and a conclusion; (ii) articulate two objections to Leopold’s
piece (provide examples, provide at least one counter-objection to each
objection advanced and attempt to respond to it/them, in turn); and (iii)
articulate how one may come to cultivate the kind of attitude Leopold believes
is necessary for his Land Ethic (provide detailed examples).
1b) With reference to Naess’s piece, (i) reconstruct Naess’s position into
premises and a conclusion; (ii) articulate two objections to Naess’s piece
(provide examples, provide at least one counter-objection to each objection
advanced and attempt to respond to it/them, in turn); and (iii) articulate how
one may come to cultivate the kind of attitude Naess believes is necessary for
his deep ecosophy-T to thrive (provide detailed examples).
1c) With reference to the spirit of Hill, Jr.’s and Williston’s pieces, (i) elaborate
upon either one individual practice (your eating practices, exercise practices,
work ethic in a non-academic context, etc.) in which you partake or a
collective practice in which you partake (your role in some club, your
relationship to some person/people, etc.); (ii) attempt to delimit the extremes
of the practice (to mimic the extremes of deficiency and excess) and provide
an argument to justify your delimitation of these extremes (example: excess
of eating=binge eating, deficiency of eating=self-induced starvation); (iii)
articulate, given what you argue in (ii), to be the Golden Mean of the given
practice; (iv) given the extremes of deficiency and excess defined by you in
(ii) and the Golden Mean you establish in (iii), examine and elucidate which
virtues attach to this practice and justify why you believe those virtues most
closely associate with the practice; (iv) elucidate where you believe you fall in
relation to the Golden Mean of the practice and its associated virtues; and (v)
elaborate how you might implement a plan (develop phronesis) to more
closely meet the Golden Mean of the practice in question.
Choose one of the following (each question is worth 50% of your total grade):
2a) With reference to the video on Dr. Shiva, (i) reconstruct Shiva’s position
into premises and a conclusion; (ii) articulate two objections to Shiva (provide
examples, provide at least one counter-objection to each objection advanced
and attempt to respond to it/them, in turn); and (iii) defend Shiva’s position
using examples not utilized in the video itself and explain why the examples
you propound defend Shiva’s position.
2b) With direct reference from both Sioui’s and Morito’s articles, reconstruct
(i) Sioui’s depiction of the “environmentally-friendly/concerned
‘Amerindian’s'” relation to Turtle Island (the land and other people (other
indigenous peoples and “colonizers”, past and present)), (ii) Morito’s
characterizations of the “noble savage”/”ignoble savage”/”the ecological
Indian” and each of their relations to Turtle Island (the land and other people
(other indigenous peoples and “colonizers”, past and present)), and (iii)
elaborate upon three examples (of events, practices, etc. related to
indigenous relations to the environment – past or present – to be researched,
cited) not found in the textbook that lend credence to Sioui’s description and
explain why the lend credence, and (iv) elaborate upon three examples (of
events, practices, etc. of indigenous relations to the environment to be
researched, cited) not found in the textbook that lend credence to Morito’s
descriptions of the “noble savage”/”ignoble savage”/”ecological Indian” and
explain why they lend credence.
*The same instructions and grading rubric/suggestions for writing Test 1 are
applicable for Test 2.
Grading Rubric:
Grades for tests are based on depth of analysis, novelty of the content,
whether the grammar is affecting the clarity of the claim that is attempting to
be put across, the quality of a student’s inferential and step by step
argumentation made explicit in their writing, ability to present
examples/analogies to produce arguments, ability to anticipate counterobjections to positions/arguments and answer them (when appropriate). I
also must take into account the presence and quality of all of these factors
compared to the same work turned in by other students.
1) When providing an elucidation of an article’s argument, do not provide a
sort of summary that is written in a kind of chronological sense. This is to
say, do not write it as you might a book report. Instead, try to isolate the
most pertinent concepts and claims and connect them together to produce an
account of how the authors premises/reasons/claims are connected to
produce a sub-conclusion/conclusion, or, where applicable, a series of subconclusions that lead to a final conclusion.
2) While elucidating, identify potential counter-arguments that the author(s)
anticipates and how those counter-arguments are addressed.
3) Try as much as possible to put ideas/arguments into your own words in
elucidating the article. If you are using the article’s words, you MUST quote
and cite appropriately.
4) When creating arguments, try as much as possible to come up with these
arguments on your own. You may borrow ideas here and there (and if so,
cite), but overall, the arguments should be your own. Anyone can use google.
5) When borrowing words and ideas, if the words are exact, they must be in
quotes and a citation must follow every sentence with borrowed words. There
should not just be one citation at the end of the argument/paragraph.
6) When writing arguments, you must be as explicit as possible in outlining
the reasons (premises) for your overall claim (argument). An argument is a set
of reasons, connected (and explain how they are connected), that lead to a
conclusion or final claim. Many of you left out parts of this recipe for an
argument. An argument=series of premises, inferentially linked, which lead to
a conclusion. By “inferentially linked”, I mean you must explain, explicitly,
how your premises lead to the conclusion you advance.
7) Many of you write using unclear referents. If you see a comment to the
effect of “ref?”, this means that the marker cannot tell to what some word or
concept you have written is referring. For instance, many of you write ‘it’,
‘this’, etc. in ways that leave it open as to what these words stand for or to
what they refer.
8) When producing arguments, consider a few possible objections and try to
respond to them.
9) When producing arguments, use analogies or examples to bolster your
arguments.
10) When I’ve indicated that you should advance arguments not already
anticipated or addressed by the author(s) themselves, I really do mean it!
11) In the case of some of you, your grammar really does affect the reader’s
ability decipher your claims. Please use spell check, the multiple free
grammar checks that are available online, or have someone proofread your
written work prior to submitting it.
12) As I have separated the “questions” with sub-numbering – i.e., (i), (ii), etc.
– please include the sub-numbering in answering the test so that the reader
can clearly and quickly identify which part of the “question” to which you are
attending.
13) Try to make it clear where your are paraphrasing someone else’s view and
where your view begins/ends.
AGAIN, IF YOU ARE USING EMPIRICAL DATA/BORROWING OTHERS
WORDS/IDEAS, YOU MUST CITE AFTER EACH SENTENCE WHEREIN YOU ARE
DOING SO. PLEASE SEE “ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT AND PROCEDURES IN THE
SYLLABUS”.
YOUR TEST IS EXPECTED TO BE WRITTEN BY YOU ALONE AND NOT IN
CONCERT WITH OTHERS. TEST ANSWERS WITH WORD FOR WORD
EXACTNESS/UNREASONABLE SIMILARITY TO OTHER STUDENTS’ TEST ANSWERS
MAY FALL UNDER THE AUSPICES OF ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT. PLEASE SEE
“ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT AND PROCEDURES IN THE SYLLABUS.”
ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT IS A SERIOUS ISSUE WITH POTENTIALLY SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES. BETTER TO TAKE A LOWER GRADE THAN TO RISK YOUR
UNIVERSITY CAREER BY USING OTHERS’ WORDS/IDEAS WITHOUT CITATION OR
BY SUBMITTING IDENTICAL/UNREASONABLY SIMILAR TEST ANSWERS TO
THOSE OF OTHER STUDENTS. TO ENSURE THE LATTER ISSUE DOES NOT
HAPPEN, DO NOT SHARE WRITTEN TEST ANSWERS AND WRITE THE TEST
ALONE.
I KNOW HOW TO USE GOOGLE, SHARING SITES, ETC. TOO!
***If you are using counter-objections/points/issues raised in the textbook
(these are usually present in the textbook before or after a given reading) or
from the internet (text or video), you must cite these sources in your test.
However, I would advise you to avoid using counter-objections/points/issues
raised in the textbook (before or after a reading) or internet sources unless
you are going to develop or expand upon them significantly. Otherwise,
you’ve shown very little of your own initiative towards thinking in answering
the question. Your assigned grade for the test question will reflect this.***

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Tags:
community needs

individual needs

clear premises

fundamental premise

plain member

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.