Paul Taylor, a professor at Brooklyn college, is known for his theory of biocentric egalitarianism. Biocentric Egalitarianism is the notion that “ all living beings have equal inherent worth in that each is a goal-directed system pursuing its own good” (VanDeVeer 21). Taylor emphasizes a life-centered approach to environmental ethics, as opposed to an anthropocentric human-centered approach. He argues that it is “the good of individual organisms, considered as entities having inherent worth, that determines our moral relations with the Earth’s wild communities of life” (201). We as humans have a duty to all plants and animals as they are also members of the biotic community. The well-being of species, including human beings, is something to …show more content…
One such idea is that every organism, species population, and community of life has a good of its own which moral agents can intentionally further or damaged by their actions (VV 24). This does not mean that these beings must have their own interests or feel certain levels of pleasure and pain but instead, that the actions of moral agents are determine the species’ overall continuation. The next idea is that all individuals have inherent worth. Specifically, “regardless of what kind of entity it is in other respects, if it is a member of earth’s biotic community the realization of its good is something that is intrinsically valuable” (VV 24). Basically, every being is worthy of moral consideration. Taylor also addresses the position of humans in a biotic landscape and the challenges that associated with conflicts between humans and …show more content…
These methodologies have the possibility to act as the groundwork for official policy solutions. This aspect sets Taylor apart from other environmental ethicists who tend to remain the abstract realm. In terms of his approaches, for me I see the most applicability in the principle of minimum wrong. Many times, the interests of humans and nonhumans are directly competing with each other. This, in our current state, seems unavoidable. But if we approach these situations with the minimum wrong mentality, we can hopefully search for the most environmentally beneficial solutions and avoid ecological catastrophe. This principle is especially important due to the fact that we are still not fully aware about how the systems of plants and animals work. For example there have been movements to assign plants specifically some sentience and mentality, however these movements have been traditionally denied (Plants as Persons). Especially with experiments as demonstrated in “Plant Thinking” that identified existential features of plant behavior and the vegetal heritage of human thought, now more than ever we need to respect non biotic creatures as they may be more intellectually complex than we have
When there are many biocentric individualists appealing to extend the moral standing to the other creatures than human, they always focus their minds on the every individual in the system no matter whether this individual is either conscious or non-conscious. Like the Taylor argued, “conscious or not, all are equally teleological centers of life in the sense that each is unified system of goal0oriented activities directed toward their preservation and well-being.” (taylor, 210). Gary Varner, as one member in the group of the biocentric individualism, is also having the similar argument that every non-conscious and conscious entity should have the moral standing in the different way. In this essay, I will first dispart and reconstruct Gary Varner’s argument into four premises and then indicate how it contradicts with the Peter Singer’s argument whose view is deviate from that of Varner in terms of the required conditions with which giving one entity moral standing.
In “Tree Hugger: The Tyranny Viewpoint,” attorney Gerry Spence argues that society wrongfully ignores the rights of nature because they are not viewed as living human things. According to Spence the reason being is due to the many ideologies humans are enslaved by. These ideas encircle the power of religion, corporations having rights but not living trees, and saying that humans must eat certain foods at certain times of the day.
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
William Baxter addresses the issue of pollution, using a human-oriented method by which all value assigned to flora and fauna is dependent on each entity’s benefits to humans. In this essay I will briefly explain Baxter’s anthropocentric approach, attempt to show the flaws in Baxter’s arguments, examine his possible recourse after revisiting these points, and then conclude by restating my stance regarding the importance of flora and fauna and the immorality of environmental pollution. Pollution is immoral not only because we have a duty to preserve the
In the introduction of Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston’s book , Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, the authors explain the basic concepts of ethics: more specifically environmental ethics, and how they apply to everyday life. The main concepts discussed include moral agents, moral patients, anthropocentrism, weak or broad anthropocentrism, indirectly morally considerable, and directly morally considerable. These concepts are the foundations to the environmental ethics that Light and Rolston wrote about; however, in regards to the short story written by J. Lanham titled: “Hope and Feathers: A crisis in birder identification,” the two terms most predominately relating to the text are moral patients and moral agents. Lanham, in this text, describes the epitome of what it means to be a good moral agent, as interpreted by Light and Rolston, where others failed.
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise,” said by none other, Aldo Leopold. In A Sand County Almanac, Aldo Leopold, an American environmentalist, brought a new idea to the environmentalist’s table: “land ethic.” His idea of a land ethic is a moral responsibility of humans to the natural Earth. Leopold’s idea has been discussed since the publication by a wide variety of people, from the public to scholars. Since
Personally, I am sympathetic to Paul Taylor’s idea that people should respect for every living organism. From his book “Respect for Nature”, he proposes a definition of environmental ethics called Biocentric Individualism. It basically means that humans are not superior to any living organisms. Humans are a part of nature, so humans should have moral relations and connections with every living organism in the world. Thus, human’s obligations, actions and responsibilities should be often determined with respect to those relations and connections. Moreover, he suggests that every organism has intrinsic value such as unique biological functions or natural goals. To maintain a good natural system, organisms have to contribute and function together. Hence, all organisms should have equal inherent worth.
Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.
“The Land Ethic” written by Aldo Leopold was critiqued by J. Baird Callicott. “The Land Ethic” in short explained the idea that humans are not superior to animals or species on earth, but humans should live on earth as simple members. (Leopold, 2013) Callicott found three things that lead to the confusion, contempt, and contempt of Leopold’s writings.
As human beings we’re all affluent to live on this fascinating place called earth. We live everyday normally just as every other human, animal or insect. But we eradicate insects and animals as if they aren’t as important as we are. Nature is being inherently demolished by humans who are oblivious to know that all living things on the earth have a purpose . However, Annie Dillard, well-known for her ambiguous nonfiction books help support the importance of nature and why we shouldn't intrude upon it. For example, Dillard’s excerpt from “The Fixed” about a Polyphemus Moth uses countless rhetorical strategies to construct a compelling message about the peace and beauty of nature, but it also illustrates how easily mankind can destroy it. Therefore, a part of nature is to be naturally
He says we should think about how people really are in a given society and then determining what would be the best is the right way to go about it. He believes that this will help if we think about how people are in a given society because we are more selfish then we think. We need to look at what human beings are actually like. “By showing a moral code like this is would not reject entitlements in favor of the greater moral evil rule (Famine Relief and the Ideal Moral code pg. 823)”. Which helps his argument on entitlement. We are entitled to what we do with our body, our right to life, our life to property, and our negative and positive rights, which in his view cannot be
Aldo Leopold is another American environmentalist who was dominant in the development of modern environmental ethics. Aldo was more for holistic ethics regarding land. According to him, “An ethic, ecologically, is a limitation on freedom action in the struggle for existence. An ethic, philosophically, is a differentiation of social from anti-social conduct.” He describes in his article that politics and economics are advanced symbioses in which free-for-all competition has been replaced by co-operative mechanism with an ethical content.” He thought that ethics direct individuals to cooperate with each other for the mutual benefit of all. Also he believes that community should be
Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another
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.
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