Avoid citations amap
1. Do you agree or disagree that nature (e.g., animals, trees, mountains) should have standing to sue in court? Why or why not?
2. The second version of universalism states dont treat others inappropriately as a means to an
end, and relates to fundamental rights that shouldnt be violated no matter what. Do you
consider nature (e.g., animals, trees, mountains) to potentially be an other such that it has
fundamental rights? In other words, might some things be unethical according to universalism
because they violate the fundamental rights of nature?
3. Relatedly, when conducting a utilitarian analysis, does it makes sense to include nature as a
stakeholder, apart from the humans affected by nature in that decision?