Reading Questions 2

1. Explain the difference between the two ways of understanding values that Minteer discusses, foundationalism
and pragmatism. What is the rationale for each type of value?
2. Describe Rolston's, Callicott's, and Katz's respective foundational views.
3. Explain Minteer's argument that philosophers like Rolston, Callicott, and Katz tend to undermine their own
foundationalist philosophical projects (p. 342). What are the two major facotrs in the argument that Minteer uses
to show this?
4. Explain Minteer's claims that foundationalism, one, fails to accommodate biosocial variability and, two, is
ideological and elistist.
5. How does Minteer use Dewey to describe the foundationalist project (344)? How is this description supposed
to serve as a critique of foundationalism? What, lastly, is Minteer's alternative?

1. Foundationalism-Based in first principles and solid moral rules on how humans should
interact with the environment. It goes against human experience. They are nonexperientially derived. All other values are derived and gain their value from this
foundational principle. These values are derived purely from thought and rationality, and
it is unchanging.
Pragmatism- a more flexible way of understanding interactions, based on situational
forces and circumstances unique to each, and focuses more on human experience. The
values derive their value from the unique circumstance that one finds them in. While
some are more foundational then others, none are set in stone. This focuses on value
transformation, based on the mutual adjustment of all values in the equation. Values are
created through the experiences we have, not purely through rationality.
2.Rollsten: Our environmental values come from some source beyond consciousness (or
intuition) ignoring any impact of human culture on nature and going for a pure biological.
Believes that ecological protection is the reason for being and is the duty of
humanity. Humanity is supposed to recognize its place in nature as a single part of a
whole.
Callicot: how we interact with the environment must be derived from the master
principle derived from Leopolds Land Ethic. Foundationalist in the fact that he calls
for consistency. Callicot despises pluralism, as he sees it as cherry picking. Sees nature
as a holistic entity, with parts subordinate to the whole. Humanity is one part of this
whole. Sees the biosphere as the ultimate value since any subordinate being has lower
value.
Katz: dislike of protecting environment doesnt justify destroying it worried nonfoundational principles arent good enough to form a good land ethic. Wants it both
ways. Katz distrusts peoples everyday values and calls for foundational principles, while
at the same time doesnt wish to be constrained by such ironclad rules.

3. They accept that there are real world limits and tradeoffs that have to be made within
their own principles, which goes against the solid foundationalism they are preaching.
They have to account for the inconsistencies that exist in the real world
4. They put foundationalism above the everyday values of normal
people. It doesnt take into account the complexity of all the variables the go into any
system. This variability is ignored at our own risk.
5. Dewey supports foundationalism because it is clean, and is philosophically easy to
understand Morality is a process. All the beliefs are nicely ordered and very
neat. However reality isnt so neat as this. We cant impose foundational values on
something that is so naturally disorderly. The foundational values will have little
meaning in such a context.