In his earlier post today, "How liberals and conservatives determine morality", Liu summarizes some fascinating research and makes some thought provoking comments on the basis of our moral judgements and on morality.
This ties in neatly with the reading we will begin next week, but it also prompted me to think of another question that we might add to the list on page 235 of Quest, which is the opening page for chapter 7, "Endangered Species". On page 235, Hartmann and Blass ask us to consider what the word endangered means, and what we can do to save endangered animals (2007). I want to add another question that I think comes first: why should we try to save endangered animals at all?
Should we try to save endangered animals or plants? If we should, does the word should have a moral force here, or something else? Would it be unjust (this is where you might like to have a look at Liu's post) to let animal species become extinct? Would it be morally wrong to deliberately push endangered species to extinction?
__________
References
Hartmann, P. & Blass, L. (2007). Quest 3 Reading and Writing, (2nd. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere are several reasons to appeal for the movement of saving endangered species. The one that I prefer most is the animal right and the one that I think it should not be so effective is the reason that appeal to utilitarian cause. I belive that if we promote the idea of animal right strongly enough, it should be the most effective one. According to Airiley's idea about the diffent mode of thinking between social norm and benefit concern, appealing to different cause brings totally different result. I think saving the endangered species requires people to think in a moral and kind way, if they serve such cause by considering only benefit some people might be suspicious whether those animal can really bring benefit to them and stop supporting the movement.
ReplyDelete