According to Dan Shahar, the negative effects of climate change:
…have significance beyond their ramifications for human interests: our obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves. Yet, even if we look solely at our own desires, I think we will see that we do not want to let nature's treasures fall by the wayside when we still have the opportunity to preserve them.
The second point here is about human desires. But the first isn't. If our "obligation not to ransack the planet goes beyond our duties to ourselves," then to whom-or to what-might we have that obligation? Does it make sense to say that we have obligations to (some or all of the many) nonhuman parts of the world? Why or why not?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Answer is Demonstrate understanding of the point that Shahar is making about obligations to nonhuman entities
Propose some candidates for the entity/entities to which we might have an obligation
Explain why it is or isn't plausible that we have such an obligation

According to Dan Shahar, the Negative Effects of Climate Change