1. Hill claims that a fruitful way to think about the badness of destroying the environment is?
To think about what kind of human would choose to destroy the earth.
To appeal to theories about God and care for the earth.
To examine people’s intuitions about whether it is right to harm the environment.
To examine the rights that belong to the environment and act on the basis of those rights.
I chose the last one according to my logic and what I have read.
The first one is just accusatory, which just elicits a defensive response.
The second one requires that the wrong doers be religious. We can not count on that.
Who knows where intuition will lead?
So I suppose I will have to agree with you.
You are most wrong.
You really ought to read Hill's essay IN ENTIRETY.
http://www.umweltethik.at/download.php?id=403
<<What is needed is some way of showing that this ideal is connected with
other virtues, or human excellences, not in question. To do so is difficult and my suggestions, accordingly, will be tentative and subject to qualification. The main idea is that, though indifference to nonsentient nature does not necessarily
reflect the absence of virtues, it often
signals the absence of certain traits which we want to encourage because they
are, in most cases, a natural basis
for the development of certain virtues>> Why kind of human would destroy the Earth?
To determine which option is the correct answer, we need to analyze the question and understand the arguments presented by Hill. Hill suggests that thinking about the badness of destroying the environment can be approached from different perspectives.
The first option, "To think about what kind of human would choose to destroy the earth," focuses on the moral character of individuals who would intentionally harm the environment. This approach considers the role of personal responsibility and ethics.
The second option, "To appeal to theories about God and care for the earth," suggests that religious or spiritual beliefs about the Earth's sanctity or the responsibility to care for it can shape our understanding of environmental destruction.
The third option, "To examine people’s intuitions about whether it is right to harm the environment," suggests that understanding our moral intuitions and common sense judgments can shed light on the ethical underpinnings of environmental harm.
Lastly, the fourth option, "To examine the rights that belong to the environment and act on the basis of those rights," emphasizes the rights of the environment itself, treating it as a subject with inherent value that should be protected.
Considering Hill's perspective, it is indeed likely that the correct answer is the last option, "To examine the rights that belong to the environment and act on the basis of those rights." Hill's argument may involve exploring the notion that the environment has intrinsic value and deserves to be respected and protected on its own terms, rather than simply as a means for human benefit.
However, it's important to note that to fully understand Hill's position and confirm the answer, it would be advisable to read Hill's work or seek more information about their specific argumentation concerning the badness of destroying the environment.