Chapter 13 Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Montgomery College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
140
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Apr 3, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MateWildcat2938
1.
Define anthropocentrism, zoocentrism, and biocentrism. (p. 431, 434) Which of
these theories appears accurate to you and why?
Anthropocentrism “
the notion that only humans have moral standing” (Vaughn,
2019, p. 453). In simple terms it’s a worldview that puts people at the center of the
universe and puts their welfare and interests above all other factors. It usually implies that
nature's and all living things' primary function is to satisfy human needs and wants.
Zoocentrism “the notion that animals—both human and nonhuman— have moral status.”
(Vaughn, 2019, p. 453) Another explanation is a viewpoint that centers ethical issues
around animals or the animal kingdom. It highlights the inherent worth of animals as well
as their wellbeing. Biocentrism “or life-centered ethics, the view that all living entities
have moral status, whether sentient or not” (Vaughn, 2019, p. 453). It’s an ethical and
ecological viewpoint that recognizes the intrinsic worth and care that all living things,
including humans and animals, deserve. It acknowledges the dependency and
connectivity of all living forms.
Zoocentrism appears accurate to me because it places a central emphasis on the
intrinsic value and welfare of animals. Animals are not seen as mere resources for human
use, but rather as morally relevant beings with inherent rights under a zoocentric
viewpoint. This frame of view recognizes that animals have feelings, interests, and the
right to humane treatment regardless of their value to humans.
2.
What is the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value? On what
grounds might someone believe that nature has intrinsic value? (p. 430)
The key difference between instrumental and intrinsic value is found at the source of value. Instrumental value is determined by a thing's functioning or usefulness, but intrinsic worth is a property that is inherent to a thing's nature and is often evaluated irrespective of its usefulness for achieving external goals.
When something is useful as a means to an end or for the sake of accomplishing a certain objective or aim, it has instrumental value.
Something possesses intrinsic value when it
is valuable in and of itself, independent of its usefulness or contribution to any external
goal.
According to the textbook someone might believe nature has intrinsic value as “This is the attitude I call “respect for nature.” It parallels the attitude of respect for persons in human ethics. When we adopt the attitude of respect for people as the proper (fitting, appropriate) attitude to take toward all persons as persons, we consider the fulfillment of the basic interests of each individual to have intrinsic value. We thereby make a moral commitment to live a certain kind of life in relation to other persons” (Vaughn, 2019, p.468). Additionally, biocentrism asserts that all living entities, not just humans, have intrinsic value. This perspective acknowledges the inherent worth of plants, animals, ecosystems, and other components of nature.
3.
What is the difference between species egalitarianism and species non-
egalitarianism? What reasons are there for supporting one over the other?
Species egalitarianism “One who believes that all living things have equal
moral status” (Vaughn,2019, p. 456). Species non-egalitarianism “—One who believes
that some living things have higher moral status than others” (Vaughn,2019, p.456).
The primary difference between species egalitarianism and non-egalitarianism is the
moral value that different species are allowable. Species egalitarianism holds that all animals are ethically equal and have
intrinsic value, regardless of traits like ecological responsibility or cognitive ability.
On the other hand, species non-egalitarianism contends that moral principles can and
should vary depending on the species. This point of view may consider factors such as
sentience, cognitive complexity, or ecological relevance when establishing moral
value. Focusing on species that are considered more valuable or significant may have
an impact on conservation projects because non-egalitarianism among species allows
prioritization based on established criteria. On the other hand, species egalitarianism
promotes an equitable and comprehensive strategy for animal welfare and
conservation.
4.
What is an ecological holist? What is an ecological individualist? (p. 434)
Ecological holist “One who believes that the fundamental unit of moral
consideration in environmental ethics is the biosphere and its ecosystems.”
(Vaughn,2019, p.456) Another way to explain ecological holism is, it is a perspective
that views ecosystems as integrated wholes, emphasizing the interconnectedness and
interdependence of living organisms and their environments. This approach recognizes
that the functioning of an ecosystem is more than the sum of its individual parts and
considers the intricate relationships.
Ecological individualist “One who believes that the fundamental unit of moral
consideration in environmental ethics is the individual.” (Vaughn,2019, p.456) Simply
put it is the independent study of individual organisms. Ecological individualism
emphasizes the significance of examining the behaviors, adaptations, and interactions
of individual organisms within an ecological setting, in contrast to ecological holism,
which emphasizes the interdependence of species and ecosystems.
5.
Provide a summary of deontology, utilitarianism and virtue theories with regard
for environmental ethics. With which do you agree and why?
The focus of deontological ethics is on upholding moral obligations. Deontologists may defend the intrinsic value of nature in environmental ethics by claiming that the environment has inalienable rights that ought to be upheld. This viewpoint may encourage environmental preservation because of a sense of obligation to safeguard the ecosystem for its own sake.
In contrast, utilitarianism seeks to maximize happiness or well-being in general. Utilitarians may consider the effects of different policies and acts on the welfare of sentient beings, such as humans and animals, while evaluating environmental ethics. The greatest good for the greatest number may guide decision-making, leading to the protection and sustainable use of resources for the benefit of both ecological and human groups.
The focus of virtue ethics is on developing virtuous character characteristics and highlights the significance of developing virtues such as justice, courage, and wisdom. In the field of environmental ethics, supporters of virtue theory may push for the development of virtuous environmental traits that uphold ecological responsibility and wisdom. This method places a strong emphasis on moral qualities to navigate environmental difficulties.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
I do not strongly agree with any but if I had to choose then utilitarianism. Deontological principles can be too rigid and may not adequately address complex environmental issues and may face challenges when duties conflict, leading to dilemmas where adhering to one duty may violate another. Virtue ethics may lack specific guidelines for action, making it challenging to address specific environmental issues. Additionally, what virtues are emphasized can vary between cultures and individuals, leading to subjective interpretations of ethical behavior. Utilitarianism has weaknesses as well, but I find them minor compared to the other approaches weaknesses and the overall strengths of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of actions, providing a pragmatic approach to problem-solving and allows for the quantification of outcomes, facilitating decision-making based on maximizing overall happiness or utility.