I need some help with a case study from the book "Watershed, Chapter 6: The Extended Family, The Saga of the Great Apes"
I need to focus on the following:
? Describe the responsibilities that arise from the ethical positions of the parties involved.
? Describe how the issue has been or should be resolved.
Here's an outline that I have constructed but really feel as though I am not on the right track... I feel like I may be missing some key elements.
I. Describe the responsibilities that arise from the ethical positions of the parties involved.
ii. Demography, reproduction, and cultural behavior
b. Zoo persons, media persons, and the general public
i. Invasive research
ii. Preserving Nature
II. Describe how the issue has been or should be resolved.
a. Conservation of the great apes
i. Natural Habitat
b. Enhance the quality of life of the great apes in captivity
i. Refrain from using the great apes as subjects in invasive studies
ii. Promote scientific understanding through non-invasive techniques
I need a good foundation & detailed outline for the two bullet points above. I then have to construct a PowerPoint presentation of 7 to 10-slides including exceptional graphics, charts, images and/or other material to enhance the paper and complete about an 800 word paper. Some help, direction, and ideas for this part as well would be greatly appreciated. I will complete the paper and presentation myself, of course!© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com September 25, 2018, 11:07 am ad1c9bdddf - https://brainmass.com/earth-sciences/environmental-justice-and-ethics/environmental-ethics-of-primate-conservation-182248
This question seems to suppose that you have a background in ethical theory, which is not provided in your article. As a brief introduction, there three basic ethical positions: a duty ethics of principles; a utilitarian ethics of consequences; and a virtue ethics of skills. Under the duty ethics of principles, actions are judged independently of their consequences. Thus, someone who is trying to provide for his family is not guilty if he unwittingly causes the extinction of an animal. Under the utilitarian view, consequences are used to judge the rightness of actions. Virtue ethics looks the development of positive character traits, such as generosity or kindness, as the basis for what is right or wrong.
As a brief ethical overview, I would say that the idea of preventing extinction comes from a utilitarian position. The ultimate outcome of killing primates is wrong, so killing them is wrong. The treatment of primates as intelligent creatures with rights would stem from a duty ethics positions. It is fundamentally wrong to abuse these animals, even if it yields information that could be used to help people. Virtue ethics does not play a role, although there is some implication that those who engage in bushmeat trade are wrong because they are greedy. The conflict that emerges is that our utilitarian position conflicts with the duty ethics of those who use bushmeat for food. They see the use of animals to provide for their families as a fundamental duty.
You can go into even greater detail if you wish. For example, those who believe nature is fundamentally good, and that its goodness does not derive from human beings' perceptions of it, are called objective nonanthropocentrism. Contrasted with this is weak anthropocentrism, which states that all value is determined by the degree of satisfaction of humans' considered preferences.
The reason we look at ethical positions is because we cannot expect people to take responsibility for actions that lie outside their ethical framework. So, we would not expect a hunter to see killing an ape as wrong if ...