1. Do you agree with Anthropocentrism (Section 9.4) that humans are the only entities warranting basic moral consideration, as defined in (TB 9A, Section 9.2)? If so, what is it about humans that uniquely qualifies them for BMC? If not, why not?

2. The text (Section 9.8) presents a possible argument to show why we should give nature basic moral consideration.  Do you find the argument convincing?  Why or why not? If you don’t find it convincing, can you think of other arguments that might be more convincing?  Or do you not think nature as a whole warrants BMC?

3.  In one state in India (Uttarakhand), the Ganges and Yamuna rivers have been declared to  legal persons and to have legal rights. ( Follow THIS LINK for more details)  Do you think that suffices to give them moral rights? Apart from that question, do you think conferring legal rights on inanimate parts of nature is a morally justifiable way to promote protection of the environment? Should forests and mountains, for example, have legal rights?