All three theories of Heidegger, Bookchin and Naess are based on the normative assumption: human beings perceive themselves as distinct from a world that unites both humans and non-humans. To better understand the distinctions that each author makes in his theory, I will reconstruct each of their hypotheses. We next explore the rational creation of integrative modalities and the problems it raises. In conclusion, there may be a reiteration of the assumption in our effort to act ethically according to the ecosystem. Heidegger's theory revolves around the idea that humans are mortal stewards of things on earth. He believes that humans should consider and respect non-human life forms as part of this global world in all dimensions of earth, sky, deities and their roles in their relative positions. Likewise, nonhumans share an indiscriminate relationship closely linked in a network by their functions and gifts. Because of this closeness, the management of humans should not promote egocentrism or superiority over nonhuman objects. This responsibility does not seek selfish coercion, but a deferential respect towards these elements to bring out diversity and life. His hypothesis here implies that humans are like tenants responsible for taking care of the rest of the earth as a shared home for all living things. Along with this heuristic, Heidegger advocates saving, preserving, inhabiting, building, and integrating our daily lives with respect to the whole earth. Likewise, Bookchin believes in a respectful community of co-evolution of life on earth. His theory of social ecology characterized humans as citizens of a community. Even if he doesn't insist on equality like Naess does in…… middle of paper…… life for all or do we try to use our power and values ​​to dominate? If the way we treat our species is considered unfair, consider what our treatment of non-human life forms must look like. As I mentioned earlier, the consequences of our actions and values ​​could backfire on us and pass on to future generations. Perhaps we are ignorant about the outcome of the transformation we impose on nonhuman life or perhaps, unfortunately, we are ignorant about the destruction of our own flourishing of life. Sessions cited work, George. “Arne Naess: The Deep Ecological Movement.” Deep ecology for the 21st century. Ed. Giorgio Sessioni. Boston: Shambhala Publication, Inc., 1995. 64-84. Print.Sessions, George. “Arne Naess: The Eight Points Revisited.” Deep ecology for the 21st century. Ed. Giorgio Sessioni. Boston: Shambhala Publication, Inc., 1995. 213-221. Press.