The first one is just accusatory, which just elicits a defensive response.
The second one requires that the wrong doers be religious. We can not count on that.
Who knows where intuition will lead?
So I suppose I will have to agree with you.
1. Hill claims that a fruitful way to think about the badness of destroying the environment is?
To think about what kind of human would choose to destroy the earth.
To appeal to theories about God and care for the earth.
To examine people’s intuitions about whether it is right to harm the environment.
To examine the rights that belong to the environment and act on the basis of those rights.
I chose the last one according to my logic and what I have read.
2 answers
You are most wrong.
You really ought to read Hill's essay IN ENTIRETY.
http://www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=403
<<What is needed is some way of showing that this ideal is connected with
other virtues, or human excellences, not in question. To do so is difficult and my suggestions, accordingly, will be tentative and subject to qualification. The main idea is that, though indifference to nonsentient nature does not necessarily
reflect the absence of virtues, it often
signals the absence of certain traits which we want to encourage because they
are, in most cases, a natural basis
for the development of certain virtues>> Why kind of human would destroy the Earth?
You really ought to read Hill's essay IN ENTIRETY.
http://www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=403
<<What is needed is some way of showing that this ideal is connected with
other virtues, or human excellences, not in question. To do so is difficult and my suggestions, accordingly, will be tentative and subject to qualification. The main idea is that, though indifference to nonsentient nature does not necessarily
reflect the absence of virtues, it often
signals the absence of certain traits which we want to encourage because they
are, in most cases, a natural basis
for the development of certain virtues>> Why kind of human would destroy the Earth?
1 answer