Environmental Ethics PHIL 236 FALL 2024 Professor M.

Fritsch
Midterm EXAM
Due date: Wednesday Oct 16th, 11.59pm
Submit to (MS Word or PDF): [email protected]

Late Exam Policy: The grade of exams submitted after the deadline will be reduced by 10% each day it is late. For
example, an exam that receives an A but is submitted a day late will not be worth 4.00 but 3.6 on the numerical scale; if
two days late, it will be 3.2, etc.

Standards for Written Work (Question Log and Exams)

The ability to communicate well in writing is one of the key skills that one is expected to develop while studying the
humanities in general, and philosophy in particular. Moreover, written articulations of philosophical ideas and arguments
have long been treated as their most adequate and rigorous expression, and as the principal basis on which they are
evaluated. Accordingly, this course will hold writing to a high standard.

1. All written work submitted for credit should be proofread for spelling, grammar, clarity, style, and organization,
and should have complete and appropriate citations for all sources. All these technical elements of good writing
form the essential bases upon which it is possible to communicate to others what you know and the ideas that you
have about the material in this course. Work that fails to meet minimum standards appropriate to (introductory,
collegiate) academic writing, or is unnecessarily difficult to read and understand, may not be accepted as a
submission for a grade in this course (see below, under Undergraduate Grades).
2. All written work submitted for credit should convincingly present your own engagement with the course material
and the assignment, and reflect a substantial effort on your part to craft your response. If your writing is generic,
undocumented, unsupported by textual evidence, fails to engage the texts under discussion, refers to editions of
course texts other than those specified for the course (i.e., the course pack), is disorganized or unclear, is
overwritten or uses language the writer clearly does not understand, fails to respect and consistently employ
technical language, obviously mirrors common web or Al sources, makes mistakes common in these sources, or
otherwise does not convincingly represent a sincere and serious effort to work with the course materials in order
to respond to the assignment and to clearly communicate with the reader, it will receive no better than a C.
3. Work that passes the above thresholds of technical adequacy and serious engagement will be graded on its merits,
according to the criteria specified.

Use of Generative AI

In light of the statement above regarding the purposes of written assignments, the knowing use of generative artificial
intelligence tools, including ChatGPT and other AI writing and coding assistants, for the completion of, or to support the
completion of, an examination, assignment, or any other form of academic assessment, is considered an academic offense.
This course policy is designed to promote your learning and intellectual development, and to help you reach course
learning outcomes. In particular, representing as one’s own an idea, or expression of an idea, that was AI-generated is
considered an academic offense. Prohibited uses of ChatGPT or other AI tools will be deemed misconduct under
Concordia’s Academic Code of Conduct. Students will be charged under Articles 18 (general
cheating/plagiarism/dishonest behavior) and 19a (plagiarism) of the Code. Prohibited use can lead to serious
consequences such as a zero for the work, failing grade for the course, or expulsion from the university. See
https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/common/docs/policies/official-policies/Academic-Code-Conduct-2015.pdf.

Instructions

Please answer two (ONLY TWO) of the following four questions in an essay format, one from section A and
one from section B. Clearly mark which question you answer (e.g. A2, B1). Double-spaced, your total take-home should
be between 4 and 6 pages (with regular font, such as Times New Roman, size 12, that is, between 1200 and 2000 words—
TOTAL, that is, for the two answers combined). Please add a word count to your exam. In your answer, try to stick to the
four “C’s” (correct, clear, coherent, and concise) as much as possible, but do not leave out essential information.
‘Essential’ means that a piece of information represents a step in the argument, a piece in a definition, or a part of your
answer without which it is not coherent or intelligible. Do not assume that your reader knows the answer to the questions,
so that you would only have to hint at what is correct. Rather, try to give a full answer without jargon.
 This exam is primarily reconstructive rather than critical. The task is not to evaluate whether the authors are
right, and why you might agree with one rather than the other. Instead, the task is to reconstruct the texts we discussed in
light of the question. Despite the emphasis on reconstruction, the questions are designed to elicit your own work and
thought. The proper response to a question is not simply to be found in a particular passage in the texts or in my lecture
slides, but rather requires that you understand the relevant issues and concepts, and that you construct your two essays on
this basis. Given that a good understanding of the material is more important than locating passages, please do not cite
any texts. Avoid merely repeating my power point slides; use your own words and formulations. Make sure your response
always keeps its topic in view.

An essay involves a brief introduction that states the topic and main point (or thesis) of the paper, a coherent body
that contains the explanation and argument for the main point, and a brief conclusion that repeats, preferably in different
words, the main point, and wraps up the paper. The first paragraph of the body should state your understanding of the
question and define crucial terms of the question. For instance, A1, A2, and B1 demand that you define and explicate the
so-called ‘Anthropocene’; A2 in addition calls for explaining ‘collective species’; B1 asks for an explication of the
distinction between technology and its essence.

Make sure to use your own words, so as to demonstrate that you understand the material. Write only what you
really understand. Do not steal ideas from others, such as a classmate or other sources (except of course the class
material), and do not use generative AI (see above, and syllabus). Before starting to write down your answer, take notes
on a separate piece of paper, thus allowing you to structure your thoughts coherently in advance. After finishing your
response, re-read what you have written and ask yourself whether your response makes sense to someone who cannot read
your mind. It is a very good idea to let your exam ‘sit’ for a while before you re-read and re-examine it—in this light, it
would be best to complete the exam at least 3 days in advance of the due date. Do not refer to class discussions (e.g., my
lectures or the audio recordings), by saying things like ‘as we discussed in class.’ Do not use any graphics or diagrams.
Avoid grammar and spelling errors.

Grading will be based on, in order of relevance, (1) correctness and completeness of answer; (2) quality of
understanding of the class material (this involves demonstrating knowledge of all the authors mentioned by name in the
question); (3) clarity and rigour of the response; (4) neatness of composition and organization, including correct grammar
and spelling.

Section A (answer one question from this section)

1. Authors such as Whyte, Malm & Hornborg, and Moore articulate misgivings about the notion of the
Anthropocene. What are their objections?
2. In arguments pro and contra the Anthropocene, a prominent set of issues revolves around the idea of
humanity as one collective species. What are the principal arguments of authors such as Steffen et al.
and Chakrabarty in favour of grasping the anthropos as thus unified? In this context, how can Callicott
be seen to support Chakrabarty?

Section B (answer one question from this section)

1. How might Heidegger’s distinction between technology and its essence be understood as a critical
refusal of the diagnosis of the Anthropocene? What is the basis of this refusal?
2. Whyte, Kimmerer, and Moore suggest that in light of the current environmental predicament, Western
science should be reconceptualized. What problems do they see in Western science, and what might be
an alternative?