b) strengths: create higher levels of personal responsibility.
weaknesses: Deontological ethics are based on the actions that we take.

4. Virtue Ethics
a) Ethics that emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking

b) strengths: considers the whole person, including their emotions, qualities of character and practical skills.
weaknesses: concentrates on a limited number on virtues and therefore is not able to focus on the big picture

5. Liberalism
a) political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.
b) strengths: contains a set of analytical tools & policy prescriptions that enable society to maximize its return from scarce resources
weaknesses: Liberals ignore the justice of economic activity 

2. What are some examples of things that money CAN’T buy?
- Friendship is an example of something that money cannot buy, it's a companionship that will eventually dissolve.

3. What is the difference between “market economies” and “market societies”?

- market economies is a tool, for organizing productive activity while a market society has everything up for sale that invades both family and personal lives.

2. Connect these objections to the concepts from Chapter Two. Which concept/s seem to be most in play here?

- These acts of altruism and self-interest may be at play with one another if monetary value is added. this idea connects to the concept of moral sainthood and supererogation that action above and beyond the call of duty. These ethics consider a matter of whether or not if it is moral to help others if money is a factor in making an action.

-economic justice, criminal justice (what people think is fairness, equality, getting what we deserve vs what we need)

-area of moral philosophy that considers questions about life

-some people believe that everyone should get the same kind and amount of stuff no matter what

-everyone shouldn't get the same because our needs aren't the same

-justice actually means giving unequally based on what each person deserves

- Any inequalities that exist in a social system, should favor the least well-off because this levels the playing field of society

-Rawls believed a form of need-based justice that focuses specifically on making sure that everyone is actually in a position to achieve their basic needs
while Nozick believed that we are entitled to the stuff we have, provided we didn't steal it or otherwise obtain it unjustly.

-A negative right is the right to not be interfered with, not to be stopped from pursuing the things you need.

- A positive right to something means that you are entitled to get help to something if you can't get it yourself

Those people would assume that only humans hold consciousness, so it wouldn't matter if there was still a planet left or not.

Yes, I do.

2.Do we have obligations other people’s children?
I think that we have an obligation for the next generation and how we set the foundation of how they are able to live.

3.Do people have a right to experience nature?
Yes, people have the right to be able to appreciate nature in its pure form, it only comes to the point in which we ruin its beauty that should be accounted for to protect it. 

4.Are there limits to these obligations and rights?

Yes, at a certain extent we need to be able to find a balence in which we are able to appreciate nature's true beauty to protect it for future generations.

The most dangerous technologies are those the ones that we do not understand the full long term impacts of. The unknown of the future can lead humanity to its downfall.

2. Would these technologies also impact non-human nature?
Yes, the fear of the unknown can ultimately affect all aspects of life and how we are willing to appreciate nature. 

3. Look up some of the different versions of the precautionary principle and discuss the differences.

A few different versions compare a few taking preventative actions while we are uncertain about the future. Other examples involved people who will not take actions unless when completely nessessary.

No, my thoughts about having children are still the same. I believe that humans can coexist with the environment as long as there is a shared agreement among them. Being able to have children shows the importance of leading the next generation on the right foot to protect future generations.

The rules or laws being applied and enforced equally among all partied involved. 

I believe that there are a lot of flaws in our society, but these flaws are attempted to be addressed. Through the different forms of  judgement that each society imposes, although to some extent our society may be unjust, the effort to no longer be unjust is valuable. 

In my personal opinion, I think that justice is one that is the most morally just potential outcome possible. It is based on each individual situation uniquely and cannot be compared at such.

I think that personifying the river was done in order for the viewer to sympathize for what it was going through. By giving human traits to inanimate objects allows us to understand what is going through the Colorado River. The first person intially suprised me, but after gaining insight behind the purpose of the intentional decision, I understood the purpose. I didn't know that treating rivers like people under the law was a legal strategy to protect rivers, but I completely understand the intention. The ethical implications of ascribing a "personhood" to rivers is a valid way to ensure that people understand the extent of the dangers of such a response.