I think is a plausible idea since you cannot give what you do not have. For example, a blind man cannot help another blind man to cross the road. It is very important to note here that before you help anyone, you must be capable of helping. In short, Peter Singer’s analysis that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” is uncompromisingly convincing and the pragmatic use of this conclusion would help have better human relations.
He never backed down from challenges and protected this land to the best of his abilities. He is a role model to many, including myself. I aspire to be just like him. John Muir lived from 1838 to 1914. He was a naturalist, author, and early advocate of preservation of the wilderness of the U.S. His activism helped save many wilderness areas including Yosemite Valley and the Sequoia National Park.
This is not a value we see in Marcus Aurelius’ writing here. He clearly thinks his views on nature and Reason represent the logical culmination of the human mind. As technology continues to “shrink” our world, it is important that we keep an open mind and avoid thinking that any group has the perfect
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with
Due to this, some people feel that animals should be treated equally with human beings because just like us, they have rights too. Animals are fully aware of their existence and like humans, feel emotions and pain therefore by killing them for own benefit would be ethically incorrect. Just because they are unable to speak for themselves, it does not mean that humans can choose when their life ends. Furthermore, by killing an animal for the benefit of humans is also wrong because it is going against the sixth commandment ‘do not murder’. This is wrong, because as humans we must respect hashem and not disobey his commandments.
It stands to reason however, that anyone’s position on a matter is subject to challenge or criticism. Taking this into consideration I will explore Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism and it’s potential to challenge my thesis on our moral obligation to the environment. While I find the anthropocentric view selfish in nature, it can be used to great effect to justify my claim. Anthropocentrism puts forward the claim that humans are at the centre of nature, and in order to sustain our existence and continue to advance, every living thing and resource exists solely to serve that purpose (Cochrane, 2007). Yet this does not imply that we should mine every mineral and strip every tree, for if we were to consume and take every resource to meet the demands of our ever advancing and growing civilisation, the planet would be devoid of all resources that humanity cannot exist without.
Oddly enough, with this theory, it is prohibited to tell lies or commit suicide because that is morally wrong within itself and does not support the universal good of a rational decision, but if people acted in line with their duty to the universal law of their society, the results were of no consequence (Butts & Rich, 2008, Chapter 1). Kant stated that a person should act without emotion and with a complete sense of duty to serve the morally universal law of society and that the intention is of more importance than the result – consequences of the actions do not matter (Jasper, 1962). The theory of deontology follows this thought by setting demands that humans act at all times as though their actions would be universally accepted into an overall rule for society. He believed that duty and law are always one unit and cannot be separated and that with this duty to law, we shape our world. My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete.
If someone is looking for a lesson in morality, nature is not the place to look. The wilderness is full of creatures scavenging and stalking, looking for the right moment before they can pounce on their unsuspecting prey. Animal behavior, although it may appear to be wicked and unethical, is a necessary way of life to fight through daily struggles to survive. The fact of the matter is that animals do not behave immorally, but rather non-morally. Author Stephen Gould nailed it on the head when he named his essay, “Nonmoral Nature.” His essay provokes our thoughts on nonhuman motivation.
They believe that animals should be granted the right against suffering at the hands of humans. I believe that it is wrong to think that animals have any rights. To protect animals from suffering by humans should be a matter of animal welfare, not right. According to Jussen, animal rights proposes that it is unacceptable to use animals for any human purpose at all, including the use of dogs and cats as pets, cows and pigs for food, or the use of animals in research and testing. Regardless of how humane, animal rights proponents reject all animal use as exploitation and aim to ban all use of animals by humans.
Sane, Not Sentimental Krauthammar points out different arguments in his essay. He states that in order to really distinguish if the environment claim is worthy of doing or not, is by identifying if it is an environmental necessity or luxury. His arguments frankly don’t have both or even all sides to the story. His focus is solely focused on human effect and not the whole spectrum, such as the repercussions that our actions will have on the environment. What he calls necessities, are not really a necessity for the right reasons.