Briefly explain the anthropocentrist and ecocentrist philosophies. What decision would each argue for in this debate? Describe what you feel would be the best argument each side could make. If this was your decision to make alone, what would you do, and why?

Anthropocentrism has a claim that protects human interest alone while ecocentrism has a claim for not just human interest but also other living things

Explanation:

Anthropocentrism Philosophy is that which has a claim that humans are the central or vital element in the world.

Ecocentrism Philosophy opposes anthropocentrism, and claims that things are more valuable than human life. This Philosophy places value on not just humans but other living things in the environment and has it that humans doesn't make rules that would be harmful.

I would go with what ecocentrism claims because it places value on things around us and not just humans. An example is how the ecosystem has to be preserved. With the right choices made in ecocentrism, there tends to be a preservation of the environment for humans.

d. i assume the underlined word is "role." reformat if it isn't.

explanation:

role is closest to part because when replacing words, "playing a vital decision," "playing a vital activity," and "playing a vital dollar" don't make logical sense. the only meaningful choice is "playing a vital part."

this fits one of merriam-webster's definitions of role: "a function or part performed especially in a particular operation or process."

answer; degradation ceremony;