In my first paper, I examined humans have a moral obligation towards animals and nature, mainly focusing my critique on the ethics of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes. I agreed with some of the tenets these two prescribed, but took umbrage to a good portion of their ideas as well. My conclusion and thesis were somewhat convoluted as I seemed to experience a Socratic paradox as I thought more and more about the topic. The subject of value of nature and non-human organisms just has such a multitude of opposing and agreeing theories to the extent that I felt overwhelmed, prompting me to give a basic, speculative statement on my views of the topic, centering on an examination of Kant and Hobbes. I view Kant’s idea of treating animals non-maliciously as a model toward action in society as productive towards and positive plausible moral code, but disagree with his notions of value, citing the debate between Reverend Sepulveda and Bartolome de las Casas as an example of the contradictory nature of Kantian value. I reserved further censure for the works of Thomas Hobbes in regards to his ethics on nature. Hobbes did agree with Kant that the natural world provides a certain value and utility to humans, but he estranged me when he brought theology into the equation, affirming that God created nature solely for the explicit use of humans, denying it any value past utility. I find this assertion inconsistent with Hobbes’ view that humans have intrinsic value because they were created by God, so why wouldn’t nature? To segue this pondering into my definitive thesis statement, I would like to bring attention to a quote by Holmes Rolston III on the relationship between theology and science concerning the natural world. “The interface between science and religion is, in a certain sense, a no-man's land. No specialized science is competent here, nor does classical theology or academic philosophy really own this territory. This is an interdisciplinary zone where inquirers come from...