ABSTRACT
The second approach is to argue that damaging the environment affects other people either directly or indirectly. As people are significant others, we should therefore take care of the environment. This approach has moral justification. However, it ignores the fact that indigenous small communities, some Eastern religions and philosophies, and environmentalists have a love of and feel a duty of care to the environment itself. This leads to the third approach. Here the concept of significant other is extended to include non-human entities; these can be plants, animals, landscapes and features of landscapes. The moral justification now is that one should take care of the environment because it is a significant other (Heyd 2007). This argument is complementary to Alexander’s view that everything has life (Chapter 2).
