Business Finance Homework Help

2-3 paragraph response. Choose one:

1. What are some reasons why our ethical obligations to ourselves may lead us to protect the natural world? What is the difference between protecting the natural world because we humans are valuable and because animals are valuable?
2. Explain the marketplace argument in favor of the right for workers to strike. How could a union worker ethically justify not joining companions on the picket lines?

   Reply:

First peer below

An ecosystem is composed of living and nonliving elements that find balance allowing for their continuation. A reason why our ethical obligations to ourselves may lead us to protect the natural world is because of logical reasoning. This is our home and it is our responsibility to take care of it. Protecting the places that we live in allows for the ecosystem to continue for generations down the line.

I think the difference between protecting the natural world because we humans are valuable and because animals are valuable is there are people that do not see animals as holding the same value to humans while there are other individuals that see all living things in the natural world as equals including humans and animals.

Justifying a cause that a worker is passionate about would be an argument in favor for workers to strike. Workers have the right to fight for themselves and their peers to make sure they are treated ethically right. Not all union workers are required to strike with their coworkers. The rights of framework could support this ethically by providing rights to each individual and allowing them to decide what they would like to do for themselves. Each worker has the right to decide if they would like to join their companions on the picket lines no one will/should be forced.

Reply:

Second peer below

I choose question 1

Bearing in mind that we humans are part of the ecosystem, it serves our duty to self to protect the natural world. Along this line of ethical thinking, if the natural world is well cared for and in good balance, we will fit into it better and reap the benefits by being able to enjoy the natural world around us. Under utilitarian theory, anything that increases human happiness is ethically good, and so caring for the natural world is supported here too. Having clean air to breath, fresh water to drink and swim in, and having tall lovely trees for shade are pleasing to us so caring for the natural world by preserving them makes ethical sense.

Protecting the world because we humans are valuable is obvious and can be explained with rights-based arguments as well as social fairness where preserving it for future generations is appropriate. Keeping the natural world lovely and pleasing is good for us as humans serves our immediate and future needs. Having a healthy environment for us to exist in makes us happy, more well balanced and healthier. This differs from protecting it because animals are valuable. Under the ethical premise that animals have intrinsic value, they too deserve to be treated as human. This is supported by rights theory that states we are free and shouldn’t step on anyone else’s freedoms, including animals. The duty to beneficence also is supported here, in that we have the duty to help others as long as it doesn’t cost us too much personally to do so