However, I think some of these arguments could be said in much simpler ways. For example, the way we write some of them on the board. Short, concise, informative...this is how philosophers need to write from now on. We should send out a worldwide memo.
I want to understand these people, I really do. I think what they are arguing for an against is a really interesting thing (ecosystem rights etc.) and I want to be able to take a side. However, I seem stuck on the fence in this circumstance. Similar to the animal rights issues, I cane easily see both sides and I think both sides make so much sense so I just can't choose. No I am faced with my own moral dilemma, I don't know what I believe. Do I believe that we have direct duties to animals and therefore-rights? Or do I believe that we can't grant animals rights? I don't really know.
Also, what about ecosystems? This is where things truly get complicated because plants don't have nervous systems so what reason have we to not treat them like a commodity to us? Why shouldn't we treat them like a pen or a sidewalk? They are PLANTS, they must have more than just instrumental value, they are living! It's when the philosophers jump in with all their jargon and way of phrasing things that I get lost. So, dear philosophers all over the nation, please heed my plea and make your arguments less philosophical and more human. Thanks.
