爱尔兰塔拉理工学院论文怎么写：保护濒危物种
我认为他们的观点在三个方面不同。1)首先,罗尔斯顿认为拯救物种比储蓄更重要的生命个体动物,因为整个物种会消失如果我们不保存最后一个物种的成员。他解释说他的一些点的一些例子;例如,伦理学家会让野牛淹没即使他们知道野牛将遭受溺水。他们还将允许数以百计的大角羊死于流行性感冒而不是拯救他们的生命(2)。罗尔斯顿认为最好是让大自然做自己的工作,我们不应该过多的干预自然。最重要的是,野牛和大角不是一个濒临灭绝的物种。相比之下,人们应该拯救灰熊的生活如果他们面临危险,因为罗尔斯顿认为灰熊濒危远远超过野牛和大角,因此重要的是要拯救他们。否则,整个灰熊的物种可能永远消失如果我们不拯救他们。濒危物种更有价值比那些很常见,可能很容易繁殖。
爱尔兰塔拉理工学院论文怎么写：保护濒危物种
尽管罗尔斯顿给的原因,我认为有必要保护濒危物种是很重要的,但这并不意味着我们可以让其他常见动物死亡,什么都不做。在这种情况下我们不应该袖手旁观。每一种动物应该有权就像人类一样生活,我们应该减少动物痛苦的机会从人类的残忍。歌手和里根反对罗尔斯顿的观点,因为他们认为动物应该平等。如果他们是在相同的情况下,我认为他们会找到一个方法来救那个溺水的野牛以及灰熊的生活。彼得·辛格的“所有动物都是平等的”,他指出,动物会因为动物可以有感情和欲望,就像人类一样。因此,为了让他们遭受不是人类做的正确的事情。歌手,“如果不能被痛苦,体验快乐或幸福,没有考虑,”(P53)这表明痛苦的能力是至关重要的现象,必须考虑决定是否动物应该平等对待。因为动物会受到影响,那么他们不应该受伤,应该放在平等的考虑。另一方面,里根也表明,动物和非人类subject-of-a-life,因此如果人类想要平等对待动物相同的方式要以类似的方式处理。因此,我认为罗尔斯顿的视图只在保护濒危物种不是道德上正确的做法。
爱尔兰塔拉理工学院论文怎么写：保护濒危物种
I think their views differ in three ways. 1) First of all, Rolston believes that saving species is much more important than saving the life of an individual animal because the whole species is going to disappear if we do not save the last members of its species. He explained some of his points with the help of some examples; for instance, ethicists are going to let the bison drown even though they know the bison will suffer from drowning. They will also allow hundreds of bighorns die from pinkeye instead of saving their life (P68). Rolston believed that it is better to let the nature do its own work, and we should not intervene too much in the nature. Most importantly, bison and bighorn are not an endangered species. In contrast, people should save the life of a grizzly if they are facing danger because Rolston thinks grizzly is far more endangered than bison and bighorns, hence it is important to save them. Otherwise, the whole species of grizzly might disappear forever if we do not rescue them. The endangered species have more value than those who are common and could reproduce easily.
爱尔兰塔拉理工学院论文怎么写：保护濒危物种
Despite the reason Rolston gave, I think it is essential to protection of the endangered species is important, but it does not mean that we can let other common animals to die and do nothing about it. We should not stand aside in such condition. Every kind of animals should have the right to live just like humans, and we should reduce the chance of animal suffering from the brutality of the humans. Singer and Regan argue against Rolston’s view because they both believe that animals should be treated equally. If they are in the same situation, I think they will find a way to save the life of the drowning bison as well as the life of the grizzly. In Peter Singer’s “All Animals are Equal”, he states that animals will suffer because animals can in fact have feelings and desires, just like humans do. Therefore, to let them suffer is not the right thing for humans to do. Singer states, “If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account,” (P53) It shows that the capacity of suffering is the essential phenomena that must be taken into consideration to decide whether animals should be treated equally or not. Since animals will suffer, then they should not get hurt and should be given equal consideration. On the other hand, Regan also shows that both animals and nonhumans have the subject-of-a-life, hence if humans want to be treated equally in the same manner animals wants to be treated in the similar manner. Hence, I think Rolston’s view on protecting only the endangered species is not morally right thing to do.
