Reading Question 1: Do you agree with Paul Taylor that nature has intrinsic value, or is nature 's value based its usefulness to human beings? What sorts of considerations could lead to the view that nature has intrinsic value?
Paul Taylor advocates that society should respect nature as it is intrinsically of value to life. Wit this view, every aspect of life needs to be regarded as valuable. Just because they are here means that it is of view to mankind. The considerations that lead to view the nature has intrinsic value are based on value. Firstly, the organism is good just because they have value. This is also true for species populations and communities of life. Ethically, man should have respect for the environment as it has inherent worth and value. For this reason, humans are do not have extra privileges, the world is based on an interdependent system, all life form is goal directed, and the belief in human superiority counterproductive to the equal status that is shared.
Reading Question 2: What conditions does Kant describe as be necessary to make peace possible? Several hundred years later does it look like Kant was right? And what are the prospects for peace,
…show more content…
If this is not possible, then people need to give much more than the current amount. Singer argues that we should do this as a preventive measure for poverty. By everyone giving the maximal, there would be no need to take from one area to make up for another area that is not meet. As moral human being, this is something that should occur without solicitation. It should occur has an everyday part of life. It is the right thing to do for humanity. This is a very good idea as it exceeds the way be donate to charity. This is a moral challenge to increase giving beyond the ordinary charitable giving. At some point, the maximally giving should be balanced so that everyone is benefitting from this moral