Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Expertise
- All Subjects: Climatic changes
Description
Principles of climate mitigation in environmental ethics often draw on either considerations of fairness and forward-looking concerns, or on justice and backward-looking concerns. That is, according to some theorists, considerations of the current distribution of climate benefits and burdens are foremost, while others take repairing historic wrongs as paramount. Some theorists integrate considerations of fairness and justice to formulate hybrid climate principles. Such an integrative approach is promising particularly in the context of environmental harm to indigenous subsistence peoples, who are among those suffering the most from climate change. I argue that existing integrative climate principles tend not to sufficiently emphasize considerations of backward-looking justice. This is a problem for indigenous peoples seeking reparations for environmental harm and violations of their human rights. Specifically, indigenous people in the Arctic suffer a cultural harm from climate change as they lose their land, and their way of life, to erosion, cementing their status as climate refugees. I argue that the current climate situation facing Native Arctic people is unfair according to Rawls' second principle of justice. In addition, the situation is unjust as indigenous people suffer from emissions by others and few attempts are made for reparations. Thus, Rawlsian fairness combined with reparative justice provide a befitting theoretical framework. I conclude that an acceptable climate principle will adequately integrate considerations of both fairness and justice, both forward-looking and backward-looking considerations.
ContributorsSweetland, Lauren (Author) / Brake, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Tsosie, Rebecca (Committee member) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This paper examines the strength of a recent argument made against democracy. The notion of epistocracy, a system of government where the wise or the knowers rule, has garnered some attention of late. These theories of epistocracy have traditionally struggled with questions of political legitimacy and authority. In Against Democracy, Jason Brennan articulates an alternative theory for epistocracy which may prove more promising. Brennan argues instead that democracy faces objections of political legitimacy which epistocracy avoids because democracy either harms or violates rights as a result of granting political power to the incompetent. This negative argument against democracy hopes to make epistocracy the preferable option in comparison. I will argue, however, that if we take this comparative approach then we ought to prefer democracy---or, rather, democratic reform---over epistocracy as the best solution in addressing the concerns which Brennan raises. It is not enough to merely point to flaws in democracy. For this argument to be successful, it must also be shown that epistocracy avoids those flaws at an acceptable cost. I claim that, upon examination, epistocratic theories fail to make this case. Rather, it is evident from this examination that there are various institutional mechanisms available with which democracy may manage the risks and harms which might arise from imbuing the incompetent with political power. This in turn suggests ways by which we might reform democracy to achieve similar results hoped for by epistocrats without the effort, risk, and cost of tearing down and rebuilding our fundamental political institutions.
ContributorsZhang, Alexander (Author) / Brake, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Recently, it was demonstrated that startle-evoked-movements (SEMs) are present during individuated finger movements (index finger abduction), but only following intense training. This demonstrates that changes in motor planning, which occur through training (motor learning - a characteristic which can provide researchers and clinicians with information about overall rehabilitative effectiveness), can be analyzed with SEM. The objective here was to determine if SEM is a sensitive enough tool for differentiating expertise (task solidification) in a common everyday task (typing). If proven to be true, SEM may then be useful during rehabilitation for time-stamping when task-specific expertise has occurred, and possibly even when the sufficient dosage of motor training (although not tested here) has been delivered following impairment. It was hypothesized that SEM would be present for all fingers of an expert population, but no fingers of a non-expert population. A total of 9 expert (75.2 ± 9.8 WPM) and 8 non-expert typists, (41.6 ± 8.2 WPM) with right handed dominance and with no previous neurological or current upper extremity impairment were evaluated. SEM was robustly present (all p < 0.05) in all fingers of the experts (except the middle) and absent in all fingers of non-experts except the little (although less robust). Taken together, these results indicate that SEM is a measurable behavioral indicator of motor learning and that it is sensitive to task expertise, opening it for potential clinical utility.
ContributorsBartels, Brandon Michael (Author) / Honeycutt, Claire F (Thesis advisor) / Schaefer, Sydney (Committee member) / Santello, Marco (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018