People vs. Penguins: Baxter's Anthropocentric Environmentalism
This paper critically evaluates William F. Baxter's anthropocentric argument in "People or Penguins," in which Baxter contends that environmental protections are only meaningful insofar as they benefit human beings. The paper summarizes Baxter's four philosophical criteria and his defense of rational self-interest as the basis for environmental policy. It then challenges his framework on several grounds: that human selfishness undermines rational decision-making, that utilitarian assumptions are unrealistic in diverse societies, that Baxter overlooks cultural and individual differences in defining the common good, and that people lack the foresight to prevent long-term environmental harm without regulatory intervention.
- Baxter's People-Centered Framework: Summary of Baxter's four criteria and self-interest argument
- The Problem of Human Selfishness: Selfishness undermines rational environmental decision-making
- Unrealistic Utilitarian Assumptions: Baxter's utilitarian ideal ignores real political complexity
- Cultural Differences and the Common Good: Diverse populations disagree on environmental trade-offs
- Human Foresight and Environmental Regulation: People lack foresight to prevent long-term environmental harm
- The Case for Environmental Law: Environmental laws ultimately serve human needs
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper opens by fairly summarizing Baxter's argument before mounting a critique, demonstrating intellectual honesty and engaging with the source on its own terms.
- Each body paragraph targets a distinct weakness in Baxter's framework — selfishness, unrealistic idealism, cultural diversity, and lack of foresight — giving the critique logical structure.
- Concrete examples, such as the DDT debate and Mexico City's air quality, ground abstract philosophical claims in real-world consequences.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models concession and rebuttal: the writer explicitly agrees with parts of Baxter's framework (his four criteria are called "reasonable, sound, and morally unobjectionable") before arguing that his conclusions do not follow from those premises. This technique strengthens credibility and sharpens the critique by showing exactly where the argument breaks down rather than dismissing it wholesale.
Structure breakdown
The paper moves through six logical stages: (1) summary of Baxter's position and partial agreement; (2) critique of self-interest as a reliable guide to environmental behavior; (3) challenge to Baxter's utilitarian idealism; (4) argument that cultural diversity complicates his notion of the "common good"; (5) claim that human short-sightedness demands legal intervention; and (6) a conclusion affirming that environmental laws ultimately serve human needs. Each stage builds on the last, producing a coherent progressive argument.
Baxter's People-Centered Framework
William F. Baxter argues in favor of a people-oriented perspective on environmentalism in his article People or Penguins. According to Baxter, measures to protect or conserve natural resources are only meaningful if they benefit human beings. The author asserts that concerns like clean air and water should be the means, not the end — human beings are the end. Penguins and pine trees matter insofar as they please human beings, but they do not matter for their own sake.
To support his arguments, Baxter first outlines four philosophical criteria on which he bases his observations about environmentalism. First, he urges that all persons should act as they will, as long as they do not "interfere with the interests of other human beings" (604). Second, Baxter notes that human beings possess limited resources — not just natural products like coal or water, but also human labor. Therefore, we must take care to prevent wastefulness. Third, he asserts that each person must be "afforded dignity" and an "even-handed application" of rules and laws (604). Finally, Baxter advocates the redistribution of wealth as a means to solving thorny problems such as the debate over environmental protection. In addition to these four criteria, he also provides six reasons why selfishness is "the only tenable starting place for analysis" (605).
These four fundamental criteria are reasonable, sound, and morally unobjectionable, and it is fair to agree that "no other position" other than selfishness "corresponds to reality." However, Baxter's framework fails to realistically address environmental problems caused by — and, more importantly, affecting — human beings.
The Problem of Human Selfishness
Human beings do not always know what is best for them and do not always act intelligently. Whether with the environment or with international relations, people make poor choices that often have far-reaching, disastrous consequences. Even as he acknowledges selfishness as an immutable part of human nature, Baxter fails to acknowledge its impact on political and economic decision-making. For example, he states that massive environmental degradation is virtually impossible because people depend on non-human life forms and would not deplete natural resources out of common sense (605). However, Baxter does not address demands for capital consumption and unlimited corporate growth that might undermine that common sense and reason.
Furthermore, precisely because the four types of resources — labor, technology, capital goods, and natural resources — are as limited as Baxter suggests, environmental laws are necessary for keeping corporate avarice in check and preserving what is indeed the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Unrealistic Utilitarian Assumptions
Baxter's utilitarian-like argument is unrealistic and idealistic. While it would be agreeable to live in a truly democratic society in which all decisions affecting large numbers of people were acceptable to the vast majority, reality tells another story. Baxter criticizes conservationists who claim to speak for the penguins and the pine trees, but he does not criticize politicians who claim to speak for "the people," or CEOs who claim to speak for their stockholders.
Baxter's argument undermines itself: he believes that "no other position" but selfishness should govern human decision-making on the grounds that selfishness nearly always produces good results for people. However, selfishness by definition neglects the good of the community. It limits which people will share which resources. If human beings are as selfish as Baxter claims, placing people before penguins could yield horrible consequences.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.