should DDT be banned worldwide because of its long- range ecological damage or should economically challenged (poor) countries racked

each question around 100-200 words would do –

1.Please argue from a utilitarian and an ecofeminist perspective, what the right thing to do is in this case. Specifically, should DDT be banned worldwide because of its long- range ecological damage or should economically challenged (poor) countries racked by malaria where people die from the disease everyday be allowed to continue to use this toxic chemical?

2.Describe the difference between the way an ecofeminist might climb a mountain vs how one with a patriarchal view might climb the same mountain. Next, explain how Leopold might answer this question of how to climb a mountain and explain the significance of Leopold’s perspective in terms of how we should make ethical decisions.

3.Please review the case of the Great Ape Declaration that we looked at and apply Martin Schonfeld’s (“The Green Kant” reading) interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s Categorial Imperative to determine what the right thing is to do.

4. describes the “boundary conditions” of Karen Warren’s ethics. Next, apply these to the case regarding the Delhi Sand Fly so that you argue first for and then against the protection of the fly.

5. describes the central components of Utilitarianism. Next, articulate some strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Finally, discuss how this system of ethics was expanded by Peter Singer to support the case against eating animals. 

6. Describe in detail Richard Watson’s critique of Deep Ecology. Next, offer Watson’s alternative approach. Finally, apply Watson’s approach to the practice of testing on animals to insure the safety of makeup products on humans and drugs that might one day be used to cure people (You can look these two examples up on the web if you’d like to see more information on animal testing.) Finally, explain how Albert Schweitzer’s ideas might apply here.

7.Explain the significance of the phrase: “You don’t live on the Earth, you are the Earth.” Next, discuss what ethical theory we have looked at that most closely aligns with this and why. Lastly, explain how this phrase and theory help us better understand the content of the short video you watched called “The History of Stuff”.

8.If one is going to eat other animals, (9,000,000,000 chickens alone per year in the US) does it matter how we’ve treated them before we kill and eat them? Discuss the ethical implications bringing Singer, Leopold or Albert Schweitzer into the conversation.

9.Climate change is happening. Discuss how we know this and discuss the ways that this is connected to any two of the ethical systems/theories that we have looked at. The end product should offer us a guide on how to act.

10. write about which draws an ethical line from the actions of the folks at the original Boston Tea Party, to Leopold stealing the traps of trappers trapping out of season, to the work of the Reykjavík Raiders, to the actions of ELF, to the warning offered to us by Greta Thunburg regarding climate change, and to environmental justice. From what ethical theory can one argue that each of the above actors is acting ethically. Now do the reverse. From what ethical theory can one argue that they are each acting unethically.

Use the attachment for question 1,