Rolston's claims regarding the relationship between the "value and valuer" point to a fallacy that has been adopted by most people that for one to value things, an individual must be able to define value or attach a meaning to value.

Student’s name
Professor name
Philosophy 220 Final Exam
Rolston’s claims regarding the relationship between the “value and valuer” point to a fallacy that has been adopted by most people that for one to value things, an individual must be able to define value or attach a meaning to value. Rolston feels that the claim discriminates against the role of nature in assessing itself. Also, Rolston believes that assigning a value to an object or a living thing is not the preserve of human beings. In fact, Rolston’s claim indicates that even nature can demonstrate the ability to value, yet it does not have feelings at all like human beings. The only advantage that people have over other forms of life is that people can use instruments to measure something for assigning value to it. Additionally, Rolston uses the claim to explain that nature can be able to value things through acts like natural selection, which allows only the best to thrive.
Rolston claims reveal that some forms of nature can be able to indirectly achieve what people can do. As a result, people who believe that human beings are the central and the most important creatures in the world have to take notice and amend their viewpoints. Since Rolston had quashed the anthropocentric point of view with the claim that nature can be able to ascribe value to itself, the people can then start considering other forms of life as equally important. This means that anthropocentric followers have to change their attitude towards the plants and animals in nature and look for ways to protect them from exploitation. It also says that human beings have no overall right to interfere or exploit the environment for personal gain. Furthermore, the claim means that people have to recognize that they are interdependent with nature and none can exist without the other, as a result, taking the route of environmental conservation will go a long way in enhancing the various forms of life on earth.
Regarding human interactions with other forms of life in the world, Rolston’s claim has the capacity to influence the way people behave towards the ecosystem and bring about other interesting developments. For example, human beings will begin to take environmental conservation seriously by instituting programs that support nature and remove human interference in natural processes. Also, human beings will be more conscious of their actions with the understanding that whatever they do will have either a positive or a negative impact on the environment. As a result, environmental pollution will reduce significantly, as human beings become increasingly aware of their surroundings. Rolston notes that animal and plants have genetically adapted to the environment in which they live (5). Hence, humans can support them in their development against other threats.
Question 2
Taylor claimed that every living thing has a good of its own. Taylor’s fronted two major arguments to support the statement. Firstly, Taylor argued that plants, animals, and other living organisms existed for their own benefits. The argument goes against the belief that human beings were supreme, hence could do as they wished with the ecosystem. Taylor further stressed that human beings had a moral obligation to respect other living organisms in the world. Respect, in this case, means that people are obligated to ensuring that they do not harm or interfere with processes of nature. Taylor meant that nature was independent and could survive on its own without any interference from the people. The reasons that Taylor put across for respecting nature point to the meaning of the words he used in the text that nature is beneficial to itself. The statement means that living things have distinct biological functions of which they are not aware. The second argument that Taylor put across is that nature and all the living organisms in it have inherent worth. The discussion is directed to human beings who seek to interfere with the natural development of other living things for their own benefits.
Taylor’s argument for the claim that nature has a good of its own was a response to Baxter’s evidence that human beings were more superior to anything else in nature and that people were free to do anything as long as it does not harm or affect a fellow human. It appears that Taylor was concerned that when people use Baxter’s principle of absolute freedom, nature will end up being interfered with, as it is not capable of having feelings or thoughts like the human beings.
Taylor’s response to Baxter was adequate. This is because Taylor countered Baxter’s claims with the argument that nature exists for its benefit and that human beings had no business interfering with nature. Also, the response carried with it some agreements that point to the greed of a person, which Baxter seems to praise. Furthermore, Taylor’s claims look to the selfishness of people when they seek to gain from nature without giving anything back in return.
Baxter’s reply to Taylor’s arguments will focus on the superiority of human beings over nature and reiterate the fact that a person had a right to do anything that preserves their life rather than fighting to save the nature. It is important to note that Baxter does not recognize the existence of nature nor the reasons why human beings should respect it more than a fellow human. Additionally, Taylor would respond that people had a right to exploit all that nature has to their advantage.
Question 4
According to Kyle Powys Whyte, settler colonialism is the act of advanced nations to settle on foreign lands to exploit the natural resources offered by the new location. Whyte further notes that the settlers do not focus on only utilizing the resources and exporting the benefits back to their home nation. But that they also seek to deliberately change the culture and the way of living of native population such, they no longer realize the need to protect the environment or their ecosystem from outside interference (179).
Settler colonialism is an environmental injustice because it poses a danger to the environment in the sense that it seeks to alienate the original inhabitants from practicing the duty of care to the situation. Also, settler colonialism changes the way local population views the environment as it teaches the locals to consider a human being as more superior to other forms of nature. The problem with the new way of thinking is that the natives will start treating the environment differently and viewing it as something to be explored for personal gain. Additionally, environmental injustice meted by the settler colonialists is seen when the visitors fail to honor sacred locations set aside by the locals to conserve their culture and tradition. The natives feel that the visitor’s fray their moral authority hence they eventually let go of their moral obligation to respect and safeguard the environment from harm.
The colonial settlement is similar to other forms of environmental injustices that take place in the modern world. This is because just like other ecological injustices, immigrant communities seek to intentionally destroy significant environmental protection efforts put in place by the local populations. Consequently, they render the host communities powerless against their supreme tactic to alienate them from practicing their moral obligation to the ecosystem. Also, due to their intention to exploit the local resources for personal gains, the settler communities pose a higher risk to the environment than the native inhabitants of the area do. This means that the colonialists can destroy the environment at a faster rate and on a larger scale than the local population. Additionally, the residents stand to lose more from the actions of the colonial settlers. To sum it up, the efforts of the colonialist settlers bear the hallmarks of other environmental injustices hence there are no differences with other forms of environmental crimes studied during the course.
Question 5
The denial industry that Monbiot is referring to is the political class’ denial of the climate change despite the fact that its effects are already apparent in the world. It is a denial industry because the politicians, the governments, and even the some of the players in the business world seem to deny the fact that global warming is real. Also, the key players in the government and the private sector pay lip service to the worldwide phenomenon but fail to take action against its spread altogether. Monbiot noted that the political leaders had convinced themselves that global warming is a human-made issue and therefore cannot be dealt with urgently.
Monbiot claimed that political inaction is the inability of the political class to take urgent measures to forestall the effects of global warming. Instead, the political leaders are misleading the public that they are doing all they can about the phenomena. For example, when the national leaders attend international conventions on global warming, they appear clueless that the effects of the event are already being seen in other parts of the world. Also, Monbiot noted that the political class failed to act against the spread of global warming at the right time, waiting instead when it was late enough for their interventions to make any meaningful change to effects of the climate change.
Monbiot’s explanation on political inactivity is noble. This is because it accurately captures the delaying tactics that governments and their political leaders use to evade confronting the climate change. The article also correctly captures the attitudes that politicians have adopted towards the global phenomena. Notably, Monbiot brings to the fore the underhand tactics employed by businesses whose ventures stand to suffer most from the findings on climate change use to disparage the claims made by the scientific society regarding climate change.

Works Cited
Taylor, Paul. The Ethics of Respect for Nature. University of Colorado, 2012,
Rolston, Holmes III. “Royal Institute of Philosophy Annual Conference.” Cambridge University Press, Vol. 36, 1994, pp. 13–30
Whyte, Kyle P. Indigenous Experience, Environmental Justice and Settler Colonialism.

You have not found the right essay?
Get an expert to write you the one you need!
3 hour delivery
Place an Order

"Do you have an upcoming essay or assignment due?

Get any topic done in as little as 6 hours

If yes Order Similar Paper

All of our assignments are originally produced, unique, and free of plagiarism.

Stuck with a Question?

Get it solved from our top experts within 8 hrs!

Get Assignment Writing Help

Our experts are ready to complete your assignment, course work. essay, test, dissertation, research paper, quiz

Get Started
Ask Your Question Now!