Ethics of Livestock and Land: Reaction to J. Baird ยท Caricot Preface Peter Singer's "Animation Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Awful Marriage, Rapid Divorce" and Peter Singer's "All Animals Equality" is a Basic Definition That seems to ignore animals, that is, the degree of their domestication. The assumption and exclusion of these two articles made me think more about domestication. Through brainstorming and a summary of my argument, I read J's "Animal Liberation: A Triangular Event".
However, as mentioned above, there is a very thoughtful single standard thinker. For example, in his 1989 book "Defense of Land Ethics", J. Beard Kalikot rejects moral eclecticism consciously because it inevitably leads to "moral nonconformity" in difficult situations. This happens because competing ethical claims use different terms to prevent decisive comparisons and solutions. But the strong case is a more gentle, multi-standard theory. In Rolls' influential 'justice theory', the basis for choosing ethical theory is' reflection balance '. Rawls developed this concept in the context of the "original position" of personal anonymity assumed under the ignorance of "veil of ignorance" and chose the ideal norm of justice. The conditions of the initial situation are usually shared, and "preferably weak" is desirable.
The way to criticism individualism generally does not adapt to the protection of ecological whole. Baird Callicott (1980) stated, "When things tend to maintain integrity, stability is the correct biome's beauty." This is wrong when it comes to the highest moral principle: in this theory, The Earth's biome itself is the only trail of intrinsic value and the value of its individual members is merely instrumental in response to the contribution to the greater community's "integrity, stability and beauty" is. The direct meaning of this version of land ethics is that individual members of the biological community should be sacrificed as long as it is necessary to protect the community's overall interests.