This is an alternate content page containing a Flash Card Activity. It has opened in a new window.
Here is a list of the terms and definitions on each card.

Card 1:
Term: What do we call the three main approaches to ethics?
Definition: We will call these three types of ethical theories virtue theory, deontology, and consequentialism.
Card 2:
Term: What is the main question of environmental ethics?
Definition: Actions produce good or bad consequences for some beneficiary or victim. One of the main questions of environmental ethics is the moral status of this recipient, especially when the recipient is a nonhuman entity. An entity has moral standing just in case we must consider it for its own sake when we make ethical judgments.
Card 3:
Term: Whose or what's moral standing does environmental ethics consider?
Definition: Environmental ethics considers the potential moral standing of people in distant countries, of future generations, of animals, of living things generally, of species, and of ecosystems.
Card 4:
Term: What are the main views of moral standing in environmental ethics?
Definition: Anthropocentric views of moral standing assign moral standing only to human beings. Non-anthropocentric views assign moral standing to nonhuman entities in the environment. Theories that include both animals and humans are zoocentric. Theories that include all living things including plants and animals are biocentric. Theories that include ecosystems are ecocentric.
Card 5:
Term: What is the difference between direct and indirect duties?
Definition: Agents can owe direct duties only to entities with moral standing. Anthropocentric views of moral standing permit only indirect duties, duties owed by a moral agent concerning a nonhuman environmental object, but owed to another human.
Card 6:
Term: What is the difference between intrinsic and instrumental value?
Definition: Anthropocentric views of moral standing claim that the nonhuman environment is only instrumentally valuable. Its value depends on whether it is a useful resource for human beings. The anthropocentric view claims that the nonhuman environment is not intrinsically valuable, not valuable for its own sake, and that policymakers may sacrifice the environment when its preservation comes into conflict with human interests.