Philosophers Christine Korsgaard and Bonnie Steinbock believe that animals do not share the same moral status as humans, though they are deserving of certain rights and considerations. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan believe that animals share the same moral status as human beings. Ecological feminists believe that no one is truly free, unless all beings are free, including non-human animals.
Which of the positions described above best represents your own and why? What constitutes freedom for non-human animals, specifically? Be detailed about the rights and considerations you believe animals deserve. Specifically, do zoos and circuses hold the same moral weight? Are they unnecessary forms of entertainment? Are hunting and meat-eating morally equivalent?
Is it true, as is highlighted in certain pop culture references (please see the Module Notes), that we only love cute animals and eat ugly ones? To what extent is the reference to our hypocrisy accurate or not?
250 words APA
Two key perspectives in environmental ethics are anthropocentrism, meaning human-centered, and ecocentrism (or biocentrism), meaning nature-centered, where humans are seen as one part of the ecosystem. Two primary types of values associated with the environment are intrinsic (inherent worth) and instrumental (useful). For instance, some environmentalists believe that trees have intrinsic value, and as living things, deserve to be protected. Others view trees as having value because they are useful in some way.
What is the environmental concern most important to you? Provide a rationale to support your opinion. Do you approach it from an anthropocentric or ecocentric viewpoint and why? What are the intrinsic or instrumental values that you consider?
Provide at least one facebook or SNS link that best represents your current issue. Share a synopsis of the information from your chosen site. To what extent does the site represent all of the ethical considerations of this issue?
250 words APA