Do you accept the ethical argument that every species has the inherent right to survive without human interference, regardless of whether it serves any useful purpose for humans? Explain why or why not?

Please write personal perspective lengthy.. Also, for it to be a full expression. Please type it up, because hand writing is sometimes hard to understand.

Yes, every species that does exist has a right to exist without human interference. Humans have let themselves become apart from nature and feel that they have the right to become the masters over it. As such, we look at species only as being beneficial or detrimental to humans. This right to exist should be extended to any creature, whether it be a disease-causing vector such as the mosquito, a virus or bacterium, or an animal that sometimes attacks and kills humans that have ventured into, or encroached upon, its natural habitat. There are only a few sample vials of smallpox left in the world. An ethical debate exists as to whether these vials should be destroyed. They have a right to exist like any other organism on earth. We have eradicated the disease but who are we to decide to consciously bring about an organisms total eradication.

-Taylor’s argument for the core thesis of biocentrism has already been reviewed: every living organism is intrinsically valuable because each has interests and goods of its own and each is capable of flourishing.what good reasons do we have for thinking that members of the human species are more worthy than members of other species on Earth.

-If the greatness of humanity is not mere human self-aggrandisement, then such greatness may consist at its core in a moral capacity to look beyond the interests of oneself and one’s close associates, and to show a willingness to care for and share with those who are less able to fend for themselves.