Proving if something is intrinsically value is almost impossible! I really don't think any arguments for it have actually proved anything. How do you place value that isn't instrumentally valuable without anyone to put that label on it. I like the Omega man example. Omega man and the other man are the last people on earth. The other guy puts Value on Omega man not as an instrument but he actually valued him as a person. When the other guy dies and Omega man does not put value on himself, is he actually intrinsically valuable? I believe that since he is living he has intrinsic value. So even though Omega man is a self loathing man, he is still valuable.

It seems as though corporations are keeping people out of the know in order to keep us ignorant. It isn's well known how meat and other products are processed and produced. How they treat their animals and how they treat their customers is just wrong. Keeping customers out of the know seems to be a common theme. In Wall-e the company Buy n Large was keeping their consumers in a shroud of ignorance. Basically ignoring what was going on, on earth. Pixar does a fantastic job depicting most cooperations. It's up to us, the people with the knowledge, to spread the word about companies like BnL and what they are willing to do for the sake of profitability. Exploiting land and animals in such a way should really not be tolerated. It makes me think how the media influences policy in Washington. Political action committees or POCs help fund politicians to get them into power and then they lobby the politicians into passing bills in their favor. The POCs accomplish that by using the media to influence voters. This directly affects the EPA because corporations usually fund POCs and use their power of the media to prevent bills from being passed. Back to BnL I noticed that the president  of the company actually looks like he is in a presidential roll, just showing another metaphor corporate power in politics.

I used to hunt with my dad on occasion, I never actually found turkey whilst hunting but still in the act of holding a gun in a forest with the intent to shoot an animal. Did I feel bad about it? No I did not, but I always wondering if I was doing the right thing. Many times have I asked myself the question of was it morally alright to do such a thing, end an animals life. Now that I'm thinking back on those days I'm not so sure I was doing the right thing at all. I believe that animals are of moral consideration. However I will be continuing to eat them. all through this class I've been conflicted with my thoughts about my actions. If I believed that animals were on an equal consideration then I most defiantly not eat them. I guess it's because I can separate the relation that It has with me in my mind so I can eat them without having to feel bad. I'm trying to figure it out. This doesn't mean I don't think that animals aren't able to be morally considered. It just means I'm a little bit morally confused.