According to Palmer, the moral claim of animals is the same to the moral right. Therefore, any action that does not regard an animal as a worthy being would violate their right, and this is morally objectionable. Drawing from the position of the animals right, animals can be treated and act as a means to the human end. This is practical when human beings eat animals or use them for experiments. This contributes to violations of animals’ rights.
Secondly, the position of animal rights is based on absolutist. According to Palmer any being that has inherent worth and there are rights focused on protecting the worth, enjoy equal rights. Therefore, any practice, which does not protect the animal’s rights, for instance, eating animals, hunting or experiments with them is morally wrong irrespective of the culture, context or need.
Yes, other anthropocentrism versions are such a defensible as the environmental ethics. This is the non-anthropocentrism, which is committed toward preserving the human nature. However, the version seems to treat human beings as having greater values compared to non-humans.
Ethics guide the community members to treat one another with the utmost respect and for the mutual benefit of everyone. The land ethics expounds on the definition of the term community and include not only humans but also other components of the earth such as plants, waters, soils, and animals, and this is what Leopold referred to as the land. The strengths of the view are that the relationship between land and people are intertwined. It emphasizes that people and land should be taken care of equally. Additionally, land ethics act as a moral code of conduct, and it emerges from the interconnected and caring relationships. There are also weaknesses associated with land ethics. The relationship between people and other parts of the land are complex. The view further seems to purport that it is possible to integrate someone into society.
Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?