Philosophy (environmental ethics) | Instant Homework Help

For questions that ask you to elaborate on objections to arguments or positions or to build up the plausibility of arguments or positions using reasons not found in the textbook, please do not rely on secondary material. Rather, try to use your own thinking and extrapolate/elucidate your reasoning with your own examples/analogies/etc. o Be clear where you are glossing a view and where you are advancing a view. Examples, : according to so and so , as so and so also said, if you don’t have this its assumed its your writing. According to. o Be very clear about stating how you go from one line of thinking to another. Even if it seems ridiculous. 1 (starts on page 75) “The Land Ethic” – (i) articulate Leopold’s land ethic (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises and subconclusions/conclusion(s) of his piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a land ethic; Is there anything within Leopold’s piece that suggests that his land ethic could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? 2 (starts on page 88) “Identification as a Source of Deep Ecological Attitudes” – (i) articulate Naess’s position in this piece (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s) of the piece); (ii) explain how one might cultivate in one’s self or others, a relationship of “deepness” to the environment; Is there anything within Naess’s piece that suggests that his push towards “identification” could actually be used to develop an appreciation for human environmental destruction of our biosphere or does his piece contain elements that prevent this possibility? 3 (starts on page 154) Elaborate the argument (do not provide a summary – attempt to pull out the premises, explain the most pertinent concepts, and identify the subconclusions/conclusion(s)) of Warren’s piece on “The Power and Promise of Ecological Feminism”; (ii) Provide an argument not provided by Warren or by the textbook itself for why Warren is correct that any general feminist position also must attend to the domination of nature and why any theory of the domination (or logic of domination) of nature must also be feminist; (iii) Provide an argument not anticipated by Warren herself or by the textbook against the argument you create in section (ii). 4 In “Two Objections and Responses” (Section D), objections are lodged against Hill’s and Williston’s accounts (the immediately preceding readings. (i) Elaborate two arguments not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works (they anticipate some counter-objections against their own positions) against Hill’s and/or Williston’s arguments and (ii) elaborate two replies not found in “Two Objections and Responses,” in my lectures, or in Hill’s or Williston’s respective works to argue against the objections you lodge in (i).