will argue in favor of Russow's claim that the aesthetic value we have for a species is actually the aesthetic value we have for individuals of that species. Aesthetic value cannot apply to a species because the term species is just a word to classify the individual members within it. Just as it would be wrong to attach aesthetic value to the word impressionist painting, you would instead apply aesthetic value to individual works of art that fall into that category. So when we talk about why we must morally protect a species, it is for the aesthetic value of individual animals and not for the entire species. “We have a moral obligation to protect things of aesthetic value and to ensure their continued existence, so we have a duty to protect individual animals and to ensure that there continue to be such animals.” Again, connections can be drawn between museums and the way they protect and care for individual works of art differently based on aesthetic value, the Mona Lisa for example has a $7.5 million room all its own itself in the Louvre, compared to how we...