Leopold of an advantage that may not even

Leopold starts his argument bypointing out that humans try to place monetary significance on the environment, which usually doesn’t have any monetary worth (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Accordingto Leopold, whenever some part of the environment is damaged, or in danger ofbeing damaged, humans attempt to think of reasons why it is monetarilyappealing (as cited in Timmons, 2016). For example, in the early 1900s, Leopoldpoints out that songbird numbers weredwindling (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

Leopold discusses how scientists claimedbugs would prove to be an immense problem if there were no songbirds around (ascited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold emphasizes that the problem was thought of in monetary terms only (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold makes hisposition clear when he plainly states, after this description of the songbirds problem, that the songbirds should havebeen helped without economic considerations (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopoldstates that animals are part of a collective and no human should massacre animalsbecause of an advantage that may not even be genuine (as cited in Timmons, 2016). As Leopold emphasizes, even certain environmental areas, like “ marshes” shouldnot be thought of only in connection to economic worth (as cited in Timmons, 2016 p. 699).

Essentially, Leopold makes it clear that economic considerationsshould not determine how humans act towards the planet at all (as cited inTimmons, 2016). Leopold does not specificallydiscuss whether financial concerns should be deemed as more important than issuesrelating to nature (as cited inTimmons, 2016). Leopold only reinforces the notion that the environment, ingeneral, is more important than economic worth (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Accordingto Leopold, while economic concerns are not necessarily more important thanenvironmental concerns, people can help create economic growth by helping theenvironment (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold analyzeseconomic considerations in relation to the environment (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

Similarly, relativism analyzes ethicality in relation to certain guidelines(Hettche, 2010). For instance, in cultural relativism, ethicality is measuredin relation to local society (Hettche, 2010). Relativism can also includeanalysis of ethicality that is connected to the personal thought processes of aperson, which is called subjectivism (Hettche, 2010). Leopold also discussesthe land pyramid and how every part of the environment is connected with oneanother (as cited in Timmons, 2016). While economic concerns may not be moreimportant than environmental concerns, according to Leopold the land pyramid demonstratesthat, by using economic means to protect the environment, those who depend onthe land pyramid could benefit greatly (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Another example ofLeopold’s insistence that economic concerns are not as important asenvironmental concerns is demonstrated by his realization that, althoughhelping the environment does depend on economic considerations, money and theeconomy does not dictate what humans do with every piece of the environment (ascited in Timmons, 2016).

Further, yet another example Leopold provides pertainsto the minor role money plays in how humans treat the environment (as cited inTimmons, 2016). As Leopold states, what happens to the environment is not aresult of economic considerations, but rather of the preferences the people whouse the environment have (as cited in Timmons, 2016). The normative question couldbe relevant to this discussion (Hettche, 2011). The normative question pertainsto why an individual should engage in ethical behavior (Hettche, 2011).

Similarly, Leopold’s argument does as well (as cited in Timmons, 2016). The normativequestion asks why ethicality is important when it is possible to behave in waysthat most people would agree are abhorrent and not be penalized for suchbehavior (Hettche, 2011). Similarly, Leopold explains why humans shouldpreserve the environment, even though there is not always a clear incentive todo so (as cited in Timmons, 2016). Leopold’s argument pertains more specificallyto the environment and the economic worth that the environment may or may nothave (as cited in Timmons, 2016).

What can be inferred from this argument isthe notion that different people could have different opinions about theenvironment and, to persuade others of his or her opinion, an individual mightuse propositional arguments and thus offer statements to support his or herideas (Pendlebury, 2013). This individualwould likely do so in order to advocate for a certain conclusion in relation tothe environment (Pendlebury, 2013). In Leopold’s personal view, his conclusionpertains to the economy and the factors that are related to it (as cited inTimmons, 2016).

Leopold argues that the economy and its related factors areimportant because they dictate how much or how little humans can conceivably dowith the environment, but the environment itself will always be very important(as cited in Timmons, 2016).