Group+Wiki+Areas


 * GROUP WIKI AREAS: ** You may sign up for any of the five areas below.


 * i.** **Internal Divisions**: Every one of the four areas contains many sub-divisions. One way of identifying one's specific committments is to sue the terms "weak" and "strong." "Strong generally means that one is strongly committed to one's perspective in a way that is more exclusive, and less accomodating to divergent views. "Weak" means that one is weakly committed to one's perspective and that one is open to incorporating other perspectives. An example of this in EE is weak vs strong anthropocentrism. Another subdivision within anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism is individualism vs. holism. Whoever chooses this area will identify the prominent subdivisions AS COVERED IN THE READINGS. This wiki page should include a brief explanation of each subdivision, how the subdivision relates to the overall perspective, and the key philosophers behind each subdivision. Then you can include as well views of your own or group members regarding their views with respect to subdivisions.

NOTE: if you are in group 1 or 2 (APC or NON-APC/Intrinsic Value): you must discuss "weak and strong" versions of both AND Individualism vs Holism as these debates relate to your groupl

If you are in groups 2 or 3 (Holism or Individualism): you must discuss "weak and strong" and then... APC or NON-APC as these relate to your group. ii. ** Supporting Arguments - Identification of Key Philosophers ** (from the Environmental Ethics text and online readings) and creation of individual wiki pages for each philosopher. Each individual philosopher wiki page should have the following: a) Brief synopsis of the philosopher’s views and why you include them as key philosopher for your EE-Perspective; b) Key arguments used by that philosopher to support their views along with citations that source the argument(s). You may present the arguments using the wikispace numbering tool, free mind mapping software that you can insert into a iki page (this probably requires lots of webskill) or you may simply write out the argument in your own words. Be sure that you identify the key elements of that philosopher's argument (conclusion, premises, sub-conclusions).

iii. ** Counter-Arguments - Identification of key counter-arguments and opposing philosophers ** (from the Environmental Ethics text and online readings) to your group's Environmental Ethics-type. Each individual philosopher wiki page should have the following: a) Brief synopsis of the counter-philosopher’s views and why you include them as key philosopher for your EE-Perspective; b) Key arguments used by that philosopher to support their views along with citations that source the argument(s). You may present the arguments using the wikispace numbering tool, free mind mapping software that you can insert into a iki page (this probably requires lots of webskill) or you may simply write out the argument in your own words. Be sure that you identify the key elements of that counter-philosopher's argument (conclusion, premises, sub-conclusions).

iv. ** Evaluation of your group's EE-Perspective - ** based on arguments in support of your group's **EE-Perspective** and counter arguments, how strong are the arguments supporting your group's **EE-Perspective**? Can you offer further supporting arguments not covered in the readings? Physical and Social Sciences - do these areas offer important information, evidence that could support (or challenge) your group's Environmental Ethics-type? Create a separate wiki page off of your group’s home page that discusses the above issues.

v. **Public Policy Implications:** this is one is fairly straightforward. Given the views of your group's perspective, what public policy implications follow? for example for restoration? conservation? global warming policy, etc. Your job is to provide an ARGUMENT that shows how your group's perspective IMPLIES X-set of public policies with respect to the environment.