Analysis Of Paul Taylor 's ' Respect For Nature '

In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments”, Thomas Hill explores the idea that those who would destroy natural environments may lack necessary human virtues. He lays out this idea through these claims:

It is our moral responsibility to tend life on earth, not destroy it. Weak or strong--every creature is beautiful and essential for the health of the world, and it is our moral obligation to see that the other creatures share this world with us. Live and let live should be our motto. Every life is

Anthropocentrism are people who have centered view of our relationship with the environment. People who follow this ethic are described as those who deny, or overlook and devalues the notion of nonhuman things. Biocentrism is defined as intrinsic value to certain living things or to biotic realm in general. In this life the human life and nonhuman life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems which consists of living and nonliving elements and their interrelationships (Wihgottt & Laposata, Environment, page

Growing up in Switzerland and Oregon, I learned that nature is greatly valued and it is necessary to respect the environment to prevent impending environmental collapse. Living in a society whose morals and ethics include

In Paul Taylor’s essay, “The Ethics for Respect for Nature,” he argues that… In this paper I will first describe Taylor’s concept of “respect for nature.” I will then explain the part this attitude plays in rationally grounding a biocentric outlook on environmental ethics. Lastly, I will present Rosalind Hursthouse’s criticism of Taylor’s view, and state how Taylor might respond to this criticism.

Anthropocentrism describes a human-centered view of our relationship with the environment. An anthropocentric denies or ignores the notion that nonhuman entities can have rights. In contrast biocentrism ascribes value to certain living things or to the biotic realm in general. In this perpective human life and non human life both have ethical standing. Ecocentrism judges actions in terms of their effects on whole ecological systems, which consist of living and nonliving elements and the relationships among them.

Human beings are part of the animal kingdom, and therefore part of nature. If that is true, then everything they create or destroy is by default "natural". I agree with the statement.

To keep our environment healthy, all these element need to work together. There are no global laws protecting the environment and that is why everyone should practice good ethics when it comes to the environment. Environmental ethics is the part of environment philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from only including hum and to non-humans. There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. Humans are been considered of rational agents because they have clear preference, models uncertainty via expected values, and always to perform the action with the optimal expected outcome of itself. The action of the rational agent performs depends on the

Camus explanations of the Myth of Sisyphus, presented the concept of the absurd by outlining the beliefs that an individuals life has worth but only his live in a world that denies such worth to survive. Therefore, the absurdity in the statement, explains the fact of a clash between the orders through which an individuals mind hard for, likewise the lack of order that we as humans find in the world.

On the other hand, nearly all organisms can exist without humans. There are some exceptions to this, such as endangered species or pets but, in general, most wildlife does not need human presence in order to survive. This is a fact of life and is accepted as an ecological truth. Accepting and understanding our equality with and interdependence on the Earth’s community of life is the first step in adopting the attitude of respect for nature.

In life we are all confronted with the idea of nature along with society. Although both have their pros and cons they work together to give us freedom and order among individuals.

Most humans tend to be in this trouble middle when it comes to their relationship with animals. They are concerned about the cruel ways animals are treated, but still contribute to it by eating animals, keeping them as pets or watching bullfights. They are aware of how unethical these actions are but continue to do it for their personal gain or enjoyment. Some also have complicated reasoning such as thinking it’s acceptable to eat certain types of animals and not others. Typically this type of reasoning varies depending on the region where one lives. For example, most people who live in the United States of America (U.S.A) think it is appalling to eat a dog while it is completely acceptable in places like China. Similarly, it is acceptable to eat beef in the U.S.A, but not in India due to their religious belief of the cow being sacred. These different cultures and religion have resulted in it being acceptable to eat certain animals in some places and unethical to do so in others. To avoid this troubled middle, all animals should be treated equally so that if it is unethical to eat one type of animal it should be unethical to eat all types of animals.

Another adjustment to the microscope, and we can examine Leopold's biocentric opinion of how environmental ethics should be governed. His approach enlarges the moral category to include soils, waters, plants and animals and claims our obligation is to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. Philosophers Devall and Sessions further define the biocentric view with the concept of deep ecology. Devall and Sessions argue that "the well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes." (503)

Nature as w e know it means different things to different people. To an economist, natural is often seen as a resource to be transformed and put in readiness for human use. An alternative view is that humans are stewards who should care for natural things as well as making use of nature’s bounty. Another view is that nature of animism, which sees nature as a living thing, something to be respected and not controlled. Some native American’s view the earth as a sacred place could be called animist. Another alternative view is that the entire planet earth is a self correcting system based on a symbiotic relationship between the earth and the living beings(Peacock,

Ethics is the study of what is right and wrong in human conduct. Environmental ethics studies the effects of human’s moral relationships on the environment and everything within it (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). The ethical principles that govern those relations determine human duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the Earth’s natural environment and all of the animals and plants that inhabit it (Taylor, 1989). The purpose of this paper is to reveal environmental issues that are threatening the existence of life on Earth, and discus our social obligations to refrain from further damaging our environment, health and life for future generations. I will discus the need for appropriate actions and the ethical