Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Environmental Ethics. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
7 pages. This research paper is a defense of the following thesis statement: J. Baird Callicott is correct to suggest that a significant moral distinction should be drawn between wild and domestic animals. This paper defends three of the author's arguments that support his thesis. Bibliography lists 5 sources.
Page Count:
7 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_JGAeethc.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
for Enterprises Inc. 10/2001 to Use This Paper Properly, INTRODUCTION This research paper
is a defense of the following thesis statement: J. Baird Callicott is correct to suggest that a significant moral distinction should be drawn between wild and domestic animals. This
paper defends three of the authors arguments that support his thesis. CALLICOTTS ARGUMENTS Callicott asks the following question: "Environmentalists do not appear to walk their walk as
consistently as animal liberationists and anti-abortionists. Are we therefore more hypocritical?" (Callicott, PG). He argues also that "the best way to put environmental ethics into practice is to work
to instill environmental values in society as the foundation for coercive environmental policies, regulations, and laws" (Callicott PG) and that "in cases of conflict, human-centered duties will always have priority
over environment-centered duties" (Callicott PG). These three arguments are in effect based upon his thesis statement that a significant moral distinction should be drawn between wild and domestic animals.
Callicott is talking here about the fact that wild animals belong to the environment and the ecology of the earth, while domestic animals are a product of man that of
necessity must be maintained by man but are not included in the overall schema of environmental ethics. This holds true because domestic animals are not truly affected by the
environment only in the sense that man is supposed to be taking care of them since they do not, in truth, live off of the environment in the way that
wild animals do. In his first argument: Environmentalists do not appear to walk their walk as consistently as animal liberationists and anti-abortionists
...