Blog

A mining company proposes extracting rare minerals from a de…

A mining company proposes extracting rare minerals from a deposit near a major aquifer. The extraction process uses chemicals that scientists confirm will remain stable and harmless for at least 150 years before potentially breaking down into compounds whose effects are completely unknown—no animal studies exist, no toxicology data, nothing. The breakdown will occur around year 200-250. Company executives argue: “We have zero knowledge about what these breakdown compounds might do or whether humans will even be using this aquifer in 250 years. You can’t base policy on such uncertainty about such remote generations.”Based on our author’s analysis, which response most directly addresses the company’s position?

The chapter discusses how World War II changed demographics…

The chapter discusses how World War II changed demographics so profoundly that countless children were born who otherwise would never have been conceived. A student applies this logic: “If the United States had entered WWII one year earlier, my grandmother would likely never have met my grandfather at the veterans’ hospital where they met in 1946. So I wouldn’t exist. Does this mean the U.S. decision about when to enter the war couldn’t have harmed me?”What does this question reveal about the different-people argument?

A chemical company’s legal team drafts a defense against fut…

A chemical company’s legal team drafts a defense against future liability claims: “Even if our industrial emissions cause health problems 200 years from now, we bear no responsibility. Our economic activity affects local employment, migration patterns, and birth timing across multiple generations. The specific individuals who will exist in 200 years depend on the entire chain of historical events, including our operations. Those future people wouldn’t exist at all if we had shut down operations today. You cannot claim we harmed people whose very existence depends on our continued operations.”Our author suggests this reasoning is poor because:

A philosopher argues: “A statue can only be made of marble i…

A philosopher argues: “A statue can only be made of marble if marble exists. Similarly, a right can only be a property of something if that something exists. Future generations don’t exist. Therefore, they have no rights, and we have no duties to them.”Which response from the chapter most directly challenges this argument’s logic?

Our author argues that the nonexistence argument fails becau…

Our author argues that the nonexistence argument fails because it mistakenly assumes all moral duties must correlate with corresponding moral rights.Explain the concept of “imperfect duties” using the charitable giving and drowning children examples from the chapter.Then apply this concept to a specific environmental issue: nuclear waste storage. We currently generate nuclear waste that will remain hazardous for thousands of years. People who will live 500 years from now don’t exist yet and thus have no present rights. Using our author’s framework, explain why we still have moral duties regarding how we handle this waste.⚠️ Reminder: Submitting any part of this Learning Evaluation created in whole or part using AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, etc.) or AI-enhanced writing/translation platforms (e.g., Grammarly, QuillBot, DeepL, Google Translate, Wordtune, Microsoft Editor, etc.) is a violation of this course’s Academic Integrity policy (see Syllabus).Like other forms of plagiarism, it is considered academic misrepresentation or fraud—because you are submitting work generated by someone or something else as your own. This includes editing suggestions or rephrasings produced by AI-based writing assistants.If you’re ever unsure whether something you’re using is allowed, ask first.