1.

Explain the difference between the two ways of understanding values that Minteer discusses,
foundationalism and pragmatism. What is the rationale for each type of value?

Foundationalists like to use the ideas of the non anthropocentric theory because they give
unchanging principles that can go forth with protection of an area. Against
human cultural experience. A flaw would be the incapability to provide firm repeatable support
for protection. Pragmatism is the idea of assessing truth in terms of practical success, its human
based. For foundationalism, the value that humans are not the center of everything allows us to
think about the environment as including ourselves in it. Pragmatisms values show that for
something to be true it must be able to be repeated multiple times.

2. Describe Rolston's, Callicott's, and Katz's respective foundational views.

Ralston rejects anthropocentric ideas and likes biocentric ideas, where we can interpret the world
from beyond our eyes and yet still become a part of it. From extrasensory intuition.
Callicott says that our judgments of nature must come from our own epistemological position.
We are not capable to put ourselves second when regarding to nature. The same value should be
applied to the same scenario.
Katzs morals are with the intrinsic values of the environment, also insists that if we dislike
something we are not obligated to cause that same thing more damage or harm. he also claims to
not be a fundamentalist although he supports the ideas.

3. Explain Minteer's argument that philosophers like Rolston, Callicott, and Katz tend to
undermine their own foundationalist philosophical projects (p. 342). What are the two major
facotrs in the argument that Minteer uses to show this?

First thing he mentions is the intellectual slipperiness that calicott and ralston have. Also, they do
not state that their foundationalist ideas will conflict with biocentric morals. Ralston and
Callicott show a lack of possible change with their plan.
Second They fail to mention that there must be some sort of trade off for using just ideas in real
life.

4. Explain Minteer's claims that foundationalism, one, fails to accommodate biosocial

variability and, two, is ideological and elistist.

He explains that Yellowstone cannot be Central Park. For obvious reason, such as location and
wildlife. There is no variability through foundationalism because theres nothing concrete.

5. How does Minteer use Dewey to describe the foundationalist project (344)? How is this
description supposed to serve as a critique of foundationalism? What, lastly, is Minteer's
alternative?

Foundationalsim lacks morality and puts humans first. Moralities can be compared culturally
between groups of people. The pragmatic approach is the more politically desirable approach.
Minter wants to look at everything instead of putting eviromental views