What Is Baxter First Premise

Question 1: What is Baxter’s Conclusion?

Baxter’s conclusion is that the needs of man should dictate the state of nature. (People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution, William F. Baxter, 1974. Columbia University Press, New York. Page 383 All page citations below are from this source)

Question 2: What are Baxter’s Premises?

Baxter’s first premise is that there is no morally correct state of nature to which we should return (383).

Baxter’s second premise is that present controversy over environment and pollution rests on the idea of a morally correct state of nature (383).

Question 3: What are the reasons Baxter gives to support each premise?

Baxter supports his first premise by posing a series of questions about different entities of nature and discussing how they were neither right nor wrong in the ways they impacted the nature in the big picture. For example Baxter asks if it was “wrong” for plants to alter the atmospheric composition in favor of oxygen (383), and if it “right” for amphibians to crawl up out of the primordial ooze (383). These rhetorical questions were meant for us to come to the conclusion that there are no answers to these questions since they cannot be thought of in a moral sense.
Baxter supports his second premise by highlighting the tacit nonnormative assumptions that exist in today’s society (383).
Baxter points to examples in which we have deemed it wrong to perform a certain action because it could contribute to a worse “state of nature”. Within these points, Baxter presents a counter example of things that we consider ok or right to do, that by prior definition contribute to a worse “state of nature” as well (383). By doing so, Baxter argues that the “state of nature” that we allude to in defense of not doing certain things, is often soon forgotten when another case involving something more favorable is
presented.

Question 4: Is Baxter’s argument sound?

Yes, Baxter’s argument is sound. This argument follows the form of a Modus Tollens argument.

Question 5: If you think Baxter’s argument is sound, try to think of the best possible reason for rejecting one of his premises. Why doesn’t that reason convince you?

After reading Baxter’s argument in its entirety, I could not help but think that Baxter views mankind as being somehow separate from nature. Baxter suggests that after accepting that our goals cannot be pure air or pure water, we should then move on to finding the optimal level of human pollution for our own satisfaction. I think that Baxter is correct that there is no definition regarding nature’s morally correct state. However, the fact that Baxter bases his proposed objective for mankind’s impact on nature on how much we “should” pollute suggests the harmony or symbiotic relationship in which all things in nature create is different than mankind’s goal on Earth. All things effect mankind just as mankind affects all things, so to base our objective on the idea that there is no standard state of nature does not seem to me like it is the best solution. I think a standard state of nature is created when the entities of which compose it acknowledge the harmony that is created. This reminds me of Nash equilibrium in sense, because the greatest common good can be compared to nature’s harmonious state. In the Nash equilibrium, the greatest common good is reached when each individual acts in the best way for himself and for the whole. Therefore, I think Baxter must reconsider his view that our goal as mankind should be our ultimate satisfaction apart from nature.