What Is Intrinsic Value Of The Non Human Natural World

His theory would have made more sense had he introduced his facts in an opposite manner. If he had mentioned viewing nature as a part of a whole, like the brain and lungs of one body, I think the legal aspect of nature having right would have made more sense. Humans are feeling and emotional beings. If someone could connect feelings to nature, it might be easier to see it as having, or needing, the same rights as others objects and people unable to talk for themselves. We have feelings for infants and people in a vegetative state so we could lend those feelings to nature. Many people do not have these feelings for towards and for nature though. That is the importance of nature being given a guardian to speak up for it, even when it might not be in the best interest of a human or

The concept of ecosystem-based management was established as a framework to maintain the production and consumption of natural capital, or ecosystem services. As common with all change, there has been some resistance for wildlife managers to make this shift and a lack of research at a local and national scale about the status of ecosystem services and evaluating trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services (Nicholson et al. 2009). As an inherently anthropocentric concept, it is also plagued with moral and ethical considerations derived by placing value on nature and wildlife to benefit strictly humans and as a questionable basis for conservation of those services strictly for continued delivery of benefits (Fisher 2008).

In his essay titled "The Land Ethic," Aldo Leopold argues that humans should extend ethical behaviors to the natural environment or in other words, ‘the land.' The author points out that, thus far, humans have only acted ethically towards one another. However, he believes that it is time for humans also to start to treat the environment with the same respect and dignity that we have for the members of our own species. The author states that he is aware that we cannot entirely prevent utilizing nature as a resource and a commodity. Nonetheless, he concludes that humans should have the responsibility to take care of the environment and to assure its continued existence.

Hoffman argues that nature has intrinsic value meaning it has value in and of itself. He is supportive of the bio centric ethic which includes all things which are alive or are integral parts of the ecosystem as deserving moral consideration. Hoffman is very critical of the homocentric view which believes that the environment is only as valuable as we make it. Meaning that things are based deemed valuable only if they are beneficial to human well being and development. Hoffman associates the

Environmentalists’ Albert Schweitzer and Paul Taylor have two different positions on what should have rights and what shouldn’t. But as much as their positions are different, they share some similarities as well. In this essay I will compare and contrast their positions, ultimately coming to a conclusion if they are on the same page when it comes to what deserves to have rights. Lets begin by taking at look at what the basis for each position is.

Paul Taylor was a philosopher best known for his work in environmental ethics. In his book, Respect for Nature and essay, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature,” Paul Taylor offers an individualistic ethic, Biocentric Egalitarianism, as a way with which to frame nature’s value. Biocentric egalitarianism puts forth the view that all living things including plants, have equal and inherent worth; in other words, every living thing has its own biological interest and with that its own end.

This is not to say that they would always disagree on the point of intrinsic value because there are exceptions to this ideal. In an article published by the “Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” the author Andrew Brennan explains this exception by stating that “we can recognize the intrinsic value of non- human life and then acknowledge that different beings have different value, and that the flourishing of a being means something different for each kind of being, then an anthropocentric ethic can work for deep ecology” (Brennan). By this statement the author acknowledges that if a person understands the differences in value of nature and humans they would be able to agree with Naess that there is intrinsic value in nature and nonhuman animals. However in most cases the argument of the anthropocentrists reasoning behind conserving resources and the value in nature is solely for human benefit. Deep ecology and anthropocentrism can continue to coexist on this part of the platform because they both understand that human beings and nature have value within themselves. Although their idea of what this value might be may vary they have the capability of seeing this individual value. In this way they may also be motivated to conserve natural resources just as the deep ecologists

In this paper I will discuss how different people each value nature differently. I will discuss Aldo Leopold`s essay about the value of nature and the main points he talks about on how humans should be parted of the community instead of destroying the community. I will compare his views with present day views on valuing nature. I will describe different ways other people value nature, also to describe the value of nature in my opinion and to compare my views with another person whose views contradicts my opinion. I will give my opinion how to go about solving these differences in valuing nature between another person an I.Aldo Leopold discusses how humans should consider themselves as

“And then one student said that happiness is what happens when you go to bed on the hottest night of the summer, a night so hot you can’t even wear a tee-shirt and you sleep on top of the sheets instead of under them, although try to sleep is probably more accurate. And then at some point late, late, late at night, say just a bit before dawn, the heat finally breaks and the night turns into cool and when you briefly wake up, you notice that you’re almost chilly, and in your groggy, half-consciousness, you reach over and pull the sheet around you and just that flimsy sheet makes it warm enough and you drift back off into a deep sleep. And it’s that reaching, that gesture, that reflex we have to pull what’s warm - whether it’s something or someone

Aldo Leopold was considered by many the father of wildlife, and cared for the wilderness system throughout the United States. In “Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic”, Leopold expresses the significance of humans as members of a larger ecological community. He states, “All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts . . . The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.” Leopold claims that “The Land Ethic” is about how people should have a deep, harmonious bond with Earth, instead of using it for our selfish, utilitarian purposes.

As you can imagine, there is much debate among environmental ethicists as to incorporate non-humans and environments into normative ethical considerations. Many of these debates contrast several ethical viewpoints that differ in regard to what things possess intrinsic value. In this course, an important contrast is between ethical

Paul Taylor, a professor at Brooklyn college, is known for his theory of biocentric egalitarianism. Biocentric Egalitarianism is the notion that “ all living beings have equal inherent worth in that each is a goal-directed system pursuing its own good” (VanDeVeer 21). Taylor emphasizes a life-centered approach to environmental ethics, as opposed to an anthropocentric human-centered approach. He argues that it is “the good of individual organisms, considered as entities having inherent worth, that determines our moral relations with the Earth’s wild communities of life” (201). We as humans have a duty to all plants and animals as they are also members of the biotic community. The well-being of species, including human beings, is something to

Ecological ethics is the moral view that nonhumans parts of the earth should be saved for their own purpose, paying little mind to whether this gives individuals advantages. Additionally, we people have an obligation to not hurt them without adequately genuine reasons. There are a few assortments of biological morals, some more radical and expansive than others. The most famous form asserts that, notwithstanding individuals, different creatures have natural esteem and are meriting our regard and security.

Human and animal rights have been a major discussion topic among most news reporters in the recent past. The contagious issue has however been why animals are not accorded equal rights as humans. Philosopher Kant argues in his theory that human have the ultimate right and freedom, and life is very valuable. Utilitarianism says that humans should focus more on doing what produces happiness at all times. Religious ethics demand that humans consider rights and freedom of all creature before making decisions. The natural right theory states that every creature has a natural right and freedom to live and do all that helps them in development and growth. Kantian theory, natural rights theory, utilitarianism and religious ethics have all pointed to the fact that doing something to create happiness to the maximum is sometimes ethically wrong (Magee 23).

Baxter's anthropocentric approach clearly states that our obligations regarding the environment are to be determined solely on the basis of human interests. Our welfare depends on breathable air, drinkable water and edible food. Thus, polluting the environment to the extent that it damages the air, water and land is unacceptable