I can provide some example form my classmates work.
In our readings for this module, we considered the utilitarian approach to environmental problems. According to this theory, moral harm is always a matter of pain and suffering. This means that any sentient creature must be considered when we are trying to figure out the morally right thing to do in a situation involving nonhuman animals.
However, if the animal does not feel pain, or if the living creature that is damaged is incapable of feeling pain, then we have no moral obligation to consider how the creatures will be affected by our actions. Using this approach to environmental ethics, explain how we would view the problem of habitat destruction. You may also evaluate the approach, but the main point is to demonstrate that you can construct an argument by applying this specific approach to an environmental issue.
In your replies to others, consider how perspectives might change depending on whether you were in charge of a development project as opposed to being involved in protecting public health or promoting tourism.