Palmer

The moral claim of animals, according to Palmer, is the same as the moral right. As a result, any action that does not view an animal as a worthy being violates their right, which is morally unacceptable. Animals can be treated and used as a means to an end by drawing on their rightful position. This is useful when humans feed animals or use them in experiments. This adds to animal rights breaches.

Second, animal rights advocates take an absolutist stance. According to Palmer, any being with inherent worth and rights aimed at defending that worth has equal rights. Therefore, any practice, which does not protect the animal's rights, for instance, eating animals, hunting or experiments with them is morally wrong irrespective of the culture, context or need.

Question 2

Yes, other anthropocentrism versions are such a defensible as the environmental ethics. This is the non-anthropocentrism, which is committed toward preserving the human nature. However, the version seems to treat human beings as having greater values compared to non-humans.

Question 3

Ethics guide the community members to treat one another with the utmost respect and for the mutual benefit of everyone. The land ethics expounds on the definition of the term community and include not only humans but also other components of the earth such as plants, waters, soils, and animals, and this is what Leopold referred to as the land. The strengths of the view are that the relationship between land and people are intertwined. It emphasizes that people and land should be taken care of equally. Additionally, land ethics act as a moral code of conduct, and it emerges from the interconnected and caring relationships. There are also weaknesses associated with land ethics. The relationship between people and other parts of the land are complex. The view further seems to purport that it is possible to integrate someone into society.