Rachels 'Way To Go, Lance !'

1. Rachels means that Emotivism claims that when speaking about morality, people only state their own personal opinions rather than verifiable facts. First, he notes that language can be used to make statements, issue commands or convey emotion. As an example of the latter, Rachels notes that someone stating “Way to go, Lance!” is not an order and is neither factually correct nor incorrect, they are simply making it known that they feel positive about Lance (36). He further argues that this “emotional language” is what is used in discussions about morality. So according to Emotivism, a person saying “All cows are evil” is not stating a fact about cows but rather “I personally disapprove of all cows”, they are putting forward how they fell

Gould argues that humans should only preserve other animals for the sake of humanity because the sheer size of time and life makes it only reasonable for humans to base our morality around human lifespans and interests. Calling on his background in paleontology he states the jarring statistic that “more than 99 percent of all species ever living have become extinct”, and that this is simply the nature of life, it is effectively impossible for humans, or any other force, to preserve every species of life (29). It is more realistic for humans to preserve life in a human manner. Humans should preserve certain species only if they can benefit humans, a form of morality that, like all other systems of right and wrong, is based around humans. In contrast, Rolston believes that humans have a duty to protect all species because each species has intrinsic value. He argues that a species as a whole has a sort of intrinsic value separate from that of its members. He quotes Mayr is stating that “species are real units of evolution” that is, the changes in a species as a whole are the most basic changes in evolution that we can record, they are something of a lifeform of their own (721). And as such they deserve to be protected as a living being. Rolston believes that only preserving species due to their utility is hardly a form of morality at all, treating species as a resource rather than as beings, or even a collection of beings, completely ignores their own value to themselves in favor of exploiting them as resources for humans. Humans should not limit the diversity of nature or put any one species about another, but each species takes priority over each individual. He argues that the humans should not be preserving species only if there would be dire circumstances otherwise, such as the possibility of human