West Coast Publishing Ocean 2014 affirmative page

Permutations

Permutation Solvency – Ocean Agency

Social constructivist and linguistic theories cannot account for ocean politics. We can recognize ocean agency through the alternative and do the plan

Deborah Jane Kennedy, Doctoral Candidate, 2007, Ocean views: an investigation into human-ocean relations. PhD thesis, Murdoch University, pp. 10-11, http://researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/123/, Accessed 4/4/2014

While social construction perspectives differ, some being stricter or more vociferous than others, few take the view that oceans are simply artefacts of culture. That is, few social constructionists would take the view that oceans are things we bring into being like a commodity made in an industrial process or nothing more than "a sign with shifting patterns of meaning determined only by its position in its systematic relations to other signs". As I emphasised with Rorty's quote above, to say there is a cultural context is not the same as stating that this is all there is to oceans. Oceans are living entities, constituted by complexes and systems that are independent of humans. We will experience oceans in a form that is not wholly, partially or at all caused by humans; nor do oceans rely on human witness for their being. Oceans could exist without humans but humans could not exist without them. The indifference of oceans to, and freedom from, humanity is given to us in clues and hints, such as the interplay between our bodies and the sea: for example, people commonly drown in it. While many writers ascribe conscious agency to oceans, I would simply highlight that oceans do place real limits on us that no amount of talking or any other making of cultural representations will change: a person who stays under the water too long dies. This, in my view, is an example of a real constraint, as opposed to social constructionist ones. Acknowledging that oceans do exist apart from human constructions of them is crucial to the possibility of ocean politics. If nothing exists outside of language, ocean politics becomes merely a process of deciding what kind of oceans should be formed to satisfy human policies of safeguarding or exploiting oceans: oceans can only ever be spoken for by humans in accordance with their passive identity. I argue that in working towards just ocean existences, oceans must be considered active participants in marine environmental disputes and policy-making that shape selves, calmer and the values of humans. This needs to occur through pluralistic, democratic processes.

Permutation Solvency – Environmental Pragmatism/Pluralism

Their dogmatic criticism eschews pragmatic interests. Combining the plan an philosophy of the alternative is an ethical approach

Derk Breslau, Ethics Department University Utrecht, June 2012, Master Thesis Applied Ethics, “People Vs. Wildlife: A Pragmatic Approach to Environmental Decision-Making, p. 18, http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/255186, Accessed 4/7/2014

The point of pragmatism is that you can focus on inherent value and transcendental relationships in private, while publicly pursuing the best possible solutions to practical environmental questions. The goal of this public discourse is the hope for a better future. It is not the dogmatic and authoritarian claims of truth and goodness about the environment that prevail in the public sphere and in political ecology. It is rather the goal to use experience and language to support desired and pragmatic interests. The main thrust of both Dewey’s and Rorty’s works is therefore democratic in the sense of protecting the freedom to give a sincere and truthful account of oneself, and this includes no less the aesthetical freedom to establish new qualitative starting points. It becomes increasingly difficult to hold on to some overriding absolutist conception of Truth that will invariably decide among competing vocabularies. Whatever gets hashed out between two or more competing vocabularies becomes the truthfulness of the matter without reliance on some outside abstract eternal value. The central message of environmental pragmatism is to keep the discussion away from theoretical delays and work towards a practical debate for environmental goals that we ought to strive for. Environmental pragmatism also stands for the possibility to say publicly what is at stake and why ecological concerns are worth fighting for. Pluralism for environmental pragmatism entails that we should acknowledge different values, regardless of whether they have the same theoretical underpinnings. Pragmatists are against a fundamental theoretical underpinning as the only foundation of an ethical principle so they prefer a shift to link theory with practice.

Environmental pragmatism represents an epistemological middle ground that provides protection

Joel A. Mintz, Professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University Law Center, 2004, “Some thoughts on the merits of pragmatism as a guide to environmental protection,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 31, 1-26, http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/ lawreviews/journals/bcealr/31_1/01_TXT.htm, Accessed 4/8/2014

Of equal use and benefit—at least potentially—is the role of pragmatic thinking as what William James referred to as “a mediator and reconciler” of conflicting notions regarding environmental theories, priorities, and tactics. Environmental advocates often find themselves in sharp disagreement with respect to these matters. Regrettably, they often expend scarce resources pursuing disputes with one another. With its intrinsic ideological flexibility, its pluralism, and its non-dogmatic focus on the overall “consequences” of environmental decisions, pragmatism does indeed have the potential of providing a “middle-ground” on which disagreeing environmentalists may choose to stand in the interest of achieving agreed-upon, environmentally-protective ends. To the extent that its methods are adopted, those who value environmental protection may well be encouraged to put aside, or at least deemphasize, their disagreements, and “keep their eyes on the [environmental] prize.” Moreover, they may approach their decision making with regard to organizational political tactics in terms of the realistic consequences of those tactics in furthering environmental values and favorable results.

Environmental pragmatism is a reflexive enterprise that constantly question its assumptions through a combination of pluralism and workability to make decisions

Jeffrey G. York, research assistant at the Batten Institute at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and is a Ph.D. candidate in Entrepreneurship, Business Ethics and Strategy, 2009, “Pragmatic Sustainability: Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Business Ethics, 85:97–109

The pragmatic approach allows us to shed the weight of utilitarian or deontological principles and rather focus directly on the task at hand. Pragmatism argues against the concept of ideology on immovable principles, but rather embraces an approach of multi-perspective pluralism, which allows the integration and valuation of multiple perspectives. These perspectives are driven by the cultural inheritance of the actor, the other members of the community, and experiences from which they have established principles. The moral role of each individual is to begin with the societal norms ‘‘embedded as they are in institutions and in the habits of life’’ as a hypothesis for testing, not to assume ‘‘they are imbedded in the nature of things’’. In deciding which perspectives to value, workability is the main criteria; we should begin with our current values, but continuously question whether these ideas help us in moving toward our stated goals. The pragmatic approach to decision making involves a process of constantly evaluating and evolving our personal perspective and seeking to ensure accommodation of the broader community’s perspective. Pragmatism does not embrace moral relativity and simply says ‘‘anything goes’’ from an ethical perspective; rather, it is focused on maintaining and building upon our historical knowledge while constantly questioning our assumptions and beliefs in light of new information. Figure 1 illustrates this process.

The plan and alternative are not philosophically incompatible. Environmental pragmatism uses pluralism in philosophy as a basis for policy decisions

Derk Breslau, Ethics Department University Utrecht, June 2012, Master Thesis Applied Ethics, “People Vs. Wildlife: A Pragmatic Approach to Environmental Decision-Making, pp.25-26, http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/255186, Accessed 4/7/2014

Despite all the critical remarks there is something to be said for a pragmatic approach to environmental issues. In our constant strive to organize our relationship towards nature, it is valuable to have a justification for the protection and preservation of nature. Environmental pragmatism is a theory that is able to construct arguments which are philosophically based but which also might appeal to policy making decisions. It is also able to explain why the political debate around the natural environment is always going to be strangled with different angles and perspectives. We need a public discussion because there are different positions in society and there is not one clearly better or more valid than the other. To construct a fair and just process, different positions have to be considered and weighed to strive for agreement and compromise. For this reason the framework of pluralism and the focus on public discussion are the best way to tackle problems in society and problems of conflict between wildlife and nature. It might have arbitrary and subjective tendencies because it only looks at the workable solutions based on experience and public discourse. On the other hand it is realistic in the sense that it reflects political argumentation as it is and always will be. It eventually tries to construct the best arguments based on persuasive values to change something in the relation we have with nature.

Permutation Solvency – Environmental Pragmatism/Policy Key

Pragmatism is the best intellectual framework for environmental decisions

Joel A. Mintz, Professor of Law at Nova Southeastern University Law Center, 2004, “Some thoughts on the merits of pragmatism as a guide to environmental protection,” Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 31, 1-26, http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/ lawreviews/journals/bcealr/31_1/01_TXT.htm, Accessed 4/8/2014

Even though it is not a normative “theory for all seasons,” pragmatic thought has much to add to contemporary discourse regarding environmental laws and policies. Pragmatism’s stress on concrete facts, flexibility, experimentation, and practical, workable solutions to real-world problems, combined with its clear preference for democratic consensus-building and social justice, appears to provide a sensible intellectual framework for innovation and reform in environmental decision-making at all levels. Undoubtedly, pragmatism lacks universal intellectual appeal. Some will believe that it is too cautious and modest a theory to be helpful in the rough and tumble of environmental debate. Others are troubled by its non-dogmatic approach to “truth” and “ethics,” and/or its perceived insensitivity to the importance of metaphysical issues and grand philosophical conversations. Nonetheless, as Farber’s Eco-Pragmatism so marvelously illustrates, pragmatism has the potential to furnish a durable and useful set of intellectual tools for analyzing knotty environmental policy issues. In the hands of a gifted legal scholar—like Daniel Farber—those tools have already crafted a powerful, balanced, wise, and far-sighted set of proposed environmental policies. Their potential for further good use, to similar laudable ends, is vast indeed.

Environmental philosophy is useless unless we can translate it into policy. Only pragmatism links theory to practice

Derk Breslau, Ethics Department University Utrecht, June 2012, Master Thesis Applied Ethics, “People Vs. Wildlife: A Pragmatic Approach to Environmental Decision-Making, p. 26, http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/255186, Accessed 4/7/2014

A philosophical theory is convincing if it can explain the experience we have with day to day issues. Experience tells us there are different values and different arguments to protect the environment. A proof of this fact is the variety of theories in environmental ethics. Also in public and political debate we can detect different arguments with different groundings and backgrounds. A philosophical theory is convincing if it finds coherence with life as it is lived day by day. Reality teaches us there are certain incommensurable arguments of different stakeholders. Different groups in society may find they have a claim for the same piece of land. We will see examples of conflicts in the next chapter. Ethical theory should recognize that there are different values which can be equally important in the debate. John Kekes argues for such a pluralistic ethics in The Morality of Pluralism: ‘Many values conflict because they are incommensurable and incompatible and yet we want to realize them. The resolution of such conflicts depends on shaping our attitudes towards the conflicting values. This is done by ranking the values. Their comparative ranks depend on their importance within the conception of good life of the person who faces it the conflict. And although there is a plurality of reasonable conceptions and rankings, it is still possible to criticize and justify them.’ By recognizing the practical basis we can deliberate on what is the right thing to do for the future. Theoretical truth and practical guidelines must not be seen separate but they are connected through our constant strive to deliberate and improve our attitude towards the future. Environmental pragmatism is successful in linking practice to theory through action.

Deontological arguments will never persuade businesses on the environment

Jeffrey G. York, research assistant at the Batten Institute at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business and is a Ph.D. candidate in Entrepreneurship, Business Ethics and Strategy, 2009, “Pragmatic Sustainability: Translating Environmental Ethics into Competitive Advantage,” Journal of Business Ethics, 85:97–109

The argument for the intrinsic value of nature in and of itself often falls on deaf ears in a business setting. Although more and more businesses are adapting a values based model and expanding their view to include all stakeholders, not simply shareholders, the reality for the people who actually make the day-to-day decisions in the corporate world is that they operate within the paradigm of shareholder primacy; if a decision does not directly create shareholder value, it will simply not be made. While many managers intuitively understand and sympathize with the environmental movement, deontological arguments for the sanctity of wilderness or non-anthropocentric arguments for the rights of animals are not only ineffective in changing the behavior of businesses, but are also not understood in the decision-making context. We might as well walk into an Earth First! rally and discuss discounted cash flow analysis or lean operations management. Although these worlds may converge some day, according to the best data we have on the environmental crisis, we simply may not have the time to wait.

We’re a small non-profit. Please don’t share this file with those who have not paid including via dropbox, google drive, the web, printed copies, email, etc. Visit us at www.wcdebate.com