Student’s Name Professor’s Name Course Date Protection of Biodiversity The increasing human population today coupled with the interaction with both local and global environment results in the depletion of biodiversity. This challenges the societal values that are centered on growth and relies on technology for the mitigation of environmental stress. This erosion of biodiversity as well as basic resources has been raising questions about the main societal values on the protection of biodiversity. There is, therefore, the need for fundamental shifts in values so that we can ensure a smooth transition from a society that is growth-centered to one that acknowledges biophysical limits and centered on biodiversity and human well-being conservation. …show more content…
In his article, "All animals are equal," Pete Singer argues that same respect must be accorded to non-human animals just as it is given to all humans since humans and non-human animals are equal. He argues that people should have a mental switch regarding their attitudes as well as practices towards other members of species other than their own or animals as we call them. He says, "… we extend to other species the basic principle of equality that most of us recognize should be extended to all members of our own species" (1), which emphasize on the moral equity between human beings and organisms and the importance of respecting the rights of non-human animals. For Singer, the society has an obligation of preventing the killing of animals and also relieving their suffering depending on its ability and at a reasonable cost. Human beings and organisms have their interests and have the capability of suffering. They also have interests in avoiding suffering. The similarities between human beings and non-human animals in terms of suffering clearly shows the application of the idea of equality and therefore leaving us with no choice but to find that all animals are equal. Singer argues that it is not necessarily that animals have rights that should be respected, but they have utilities that should be treated as being equal with those of human beings. …show more content…
According to Sagoff, humans can consume animals as food as they continue treating them with respect. This argument seems to elevate the right to life of animals and gives people the rights of consuming animal meat in order to meet their nutritional needs. However, the killing of animals does not in any way respect their interests. Sagoff says, "The principle of natural selection is not obviously a humanitarian principle; the predator-prey relation does not depend on moral empathy. Nature ruthlessly limits animal populations by doing violence to virtually every individual before it reaches maturity; these conditions respect animal equality only in the darkest sense" (299). Further, Sagoff argues that all organisms are normally confronted with diseases or predators before their maturity age. Therefore, the credibility of "community of organisms" by Aldo Leopold with moral obligations to one another is diminished since the natural world is not concerned with these moral distinctions. That means that organisms must escape from being killed or get killed as a way of surviving. Organisms go through danger and suffering while inside the wilderness, and this acts as an equalization among them. Such an equality is a very sharp deviation from the normal meaning of equality that desires the equality of treatment and