College of Business Administration

Business Management and the Natural Environment

Discussion Questions for February 14, 1996:

1) In the following quote, the author makes reference to Stone's notion of 'guardianship.' Is (s)he correct in the claim that we cannot avoid domination? Why or why not?

"The fact of transcendence, of human domination, cannot be avoided; for all of [their] talk...the project begun by Stone and endorsed by Tribe amounts to substituting the transcendence of unelected judges and environmentalists for the transcendence of the elected representatives to whose rule the people consent."

2) The question of 'value' is foundational to discussions of environmental issues. How is a 'value' for the environment to be determined? Can 'value' be measured without reference to money? Is there a way to establish value without being homocentric?

Consider the following:
"If I am right there is no theory of intrinsic value that, in a parsimonious fashion, can possibly meet the demands this conception of an environmental ethic imposes upon it."
What is the basis for this conclusion?

With what 'values' was Zuckerman concerned? Were any 'values' overlooked by the framing of the issue in the following way?
"Zuckerman faced a dilemma. He had to choose whether to butcher Wilbur (the slaughterhouse would have paid for the pig) or on moral and aesthetic grounds to spare his life..."

"What reasons have we to preserve biodiversity, protect rain forests, and maintain the quality of lakes, rivers, and estuaries?"

3) It is alternately claimed that...

"Nature is random, contingent, blind, disastrous, wasteful, indifferent, selfish, cruel, clumsy, ugly, struggling, full of suffering, and, ultimately death?
This sees only the shadows, and there has to be light to cast shadows.
Nature is orderly, prolific, efficient, selecting for adapted fit, exuberant, complex, diverse, renews life in the midst of death, struggling through to something higher."

Which view is correct? What are the practical implications of embracing one or the other view?

4) Apply the immediately previous question to these alternate world views:

"So this land of the great plains is claimed by the Lakota as their very own. We are of the soil and the soil is of us. We love the birds and beasts that grew with us on this soil. They drank the same water as we did and breathed the same air. We are all one in nature. Believing so, there was in our hearts a great peace and a welling kindness for all living, growing things."
-Luther Standing Bear

"If you've seen one redwood tree, you've seen them all."
-Ronald Reagan

5) Let us now consider the problem of dualism:
"The Bible's discrete distinctions between God, nature, and humanity form a core of current scholarly thought on biblical attitudes toward nature. Because God is distinct from his creation, nature is effectively secularized."
True?

6) Who are we? What role do our 'religious' understandings play in this definition?

Return to Professor Dunn's home page.