Biocentric Egalitarianism and Land Ethic Term Paper

Biocentric Egalitarianism and Land Ethic - Term Paper ExampleBiocentric egalitarianism advocates for the evaluate of non-human beings based on clean-living principles and values. These views reflect similar arguments that humans depend on nature to persist and thus the earth would be a better place without humans (Jonge 23). However, a critical outline suggests that the moral occupation to respect nature can conflict other moral duties. Kantian righteous Philosophy One example where duty to respect can conflict other moral duties is the practise of Kants theory most animal rights. Kantian moral philosophy asserts that animals are mere instruments, which may be used for human purpose (Korsgaard 3). concord Korsgaard, Kants point of view about court-ordered rights is not to protect human interests, but to en commensurate each citizen to act justly and for what is good. Kants moral philosophy underlines that non-rational animals lack the kind of freedom that rights protect. In particular, it is because human beings are rational beings that they are able to choose how they want to live (5). However, Kants philosophy extends the rights held by human beings to include property rights. According to Kant we have the moral obligation to claim property including animals, and the legal status of such animals is the direct tally of their moral status as mere means (instruments) (5). Further, according to Kant, we have no moral duty to animals. In contrast, biocentrism upholds the need to make moral consideration towards non-human species. From this perspective, the conflict between Kants moral philosophy and the duty to respect nature as maintained by non-anthropocentric honest position remains manifest with regard to animal rights. To resolve the conflict between Kants theory and biocentrism regarding animal rights, it is important to turn to the interpretation problems associated with the humanity formula. This is especially because faced with such a sit uation would require one to finalise to follow the humanity formulary as applied by Kant or to stick with the rationality formulary defined in biocentrism. Libertarianism Another example of a conflict between non-anthropocentric ethical position about duty to respect nature and other moral duties is the issue of woodland umpire as seen in the lenses of libertarianism. According to libertarianism, forests and indeed biodiversity, has value only to the extent that it contributes to the expansion of individual freedom (Holsinka 3). The forest justice can be illustrated by attempts by governments to transfer property rights to local communities to enable them benefit from forest resources. In anthropocentric ethical philosophy, human beings are viewed as separate identities based on egoism and altruistic humanism. According to Kopnina, anthropocentrism grants indispensable value to human beings. On the other hand, biocentrism emphasizes on the intrinsic value for ecosystems includi ng humans, plant and animal species. This disconnect represents a broader inconsistency within the fields of environmental conservation. The main concern is that support for environmental conservation appears to be motivated by utilitarian and instrumental ethics. sound like biodiversity, we place value on forests because we think we might need it, we like it or we ought to. Non-anthropocentric ethical position would emphasize on the instrumental value of forests-that