Is nature's value only instrumental value for human beings or does nature also have intrinsic value? Can traditional anthropocentrism be defended or must we move to a new, physiocentric moral position? This study develops a critical taxonomy or and "map and " of thirteen arguments for the conservation of nature. It defends the moral intrinsic value of sentient animals, but not of nonsentient nature. The arguments are phrased in a simple, plastic, and concise language.