I've encountered the idea before that regardless of one's agency within an action, one must still reason that they had agency in order to exist within the system. For example, regardless of whether I believe that I have an impact on how my grades will pan out, I still need to act like I do in order to continue my life in a socially acceptable way. I think that this concept is a double edged sword, as it gives an explanation for why we should bother making decisions if we lack free will, but can also be 'overextended' (at least in my eyes) to consider that people who had no agency within an event should be held accountable for the outcome.

I wonder how many ethical frameworks advocate for the rights of nonhuman individuals. This indigenous concept of equality for the land reminds me of Peter Singer's utilitarian views, which he infamously extends to animals fully. It makes me think about where the line of a 'moral agent' lies and who/what we need to accommodate for in our ethics.