Reading Questions 8

1. Explain the difference between Callicott's and Rolston's views on the intrinsic value of nature.
2. How does Lee use her distinction between recognized articulated value and mutely enacted value to resolve
the conflict between Callicott and Rolston? On her view, explain why the source of intrinsic value must be
understood in a Cartesian/Kantian sense instead of a Humean sense.
3. Explain Lee's argument for the intrinsic value of nature, based on the notion of an infinite regress.
4. Explain the two kinds of integrity Westra identifies and how she applies them to ecosystems.
5. How does Westra understand the role of facts in ethics? What facts does she identify about nature to argue
against the role of sympathy and sentience as a basis of environmental ethics? What does Westra mean when she
says that animal rights support a paternalistic disrespect for the realities that govern all life (220). Do you agree
that a concern based on sympathy, sentience, or rights must fail to respect the relevant facts of nature and wild
animals themselves?
6. Explain the basis of Westra's notion of respect applied to nature and wild animals if it is not based on
sympathy, sentience, or rights. How does she use the example of war to illustrate her point? Do you agree that
her argument show that it is possible to admit to no sympathy for an individual, even one of the same species
(another human being), and still retain respect. (223)
7. Explain how Westra extends her ethics of respect, formulated for wild animals, to domestic animals.

1. Callocots view is that nature has value due to human projection placing value
upon it. The source of the value comes from human consciousness and emotions
(specifically sympathy), and the locus would be the subject (nature). There must
be some kind of commonality (David Hume) between the viewer and the subject.
We can sympathize because we are all members of the biotic community
(Darwin) and thus have something in common. While Rolston views nature as
having value independent of humanity. The source and locus are both the subject,
or nature itself. We simply perceive value rather then generate it. Rolston is more
of a realist view of value.
2. Mutely enacted value exists weather we care about it or not. Such as that of a
plant seeking to fulfill its own needs. There is an instrumental relationship
between anything seeking other things to fulfill its needs. Recognized articulated
value is the ability to identify the value in the world. Humans are the only beings
that can articulate value in the world.
3. Ultimately all living things instrumentally value other living things. This chain
can go on forever. The problem is that the value is located in the prey, and that
the next step in the chain only seeks its own value, and not the value of the
organism that uses it.
4. Integrity of people has to deal with ones physical integrity, or the physical
structure of ones-self. Integrity of person (personal integrity) has to deal with
treating someone as a person rather then a thing. Physical integrity of an
ecosystem is the systems and attributes that allow it to maintain itself. Personal
integrity is about the goals of the ecosystem, the direction the system is going.

5. We cannot derive values directly from facts, and thus cannot make an ethical
decision from facts. They give us a background for judgments about ethics.
Certain facts of nature allow us to establish priorities about when to use nature.
The fact of nature is animals are hostile, in a limited way, to one another. Why
should humans not also act with this limited version of hostility? Using sympathy
puts human ways above animal ways and respecting them in turn respects the
hostility the exhibit. Live and let live.
6. It is based in the idea that even at our worst we have basic human dignity in war,
and since there has already been an established value in animals. This respect is
the basis on how we treat them, we dont have to like them but they deserve our
respect. We have to because we are dependent on one another.
7. Within their limited forced habitat they still deserve respect, more so because we
have an increased duty to them due to our domestication of the animal