Paul Taylor's The Ethics Of Respect For Nature

1072 Words3 Pages

In order to feed the growing population of the world, nontraditional farming and ranching techniques have been used to increase food production. For example, animal mass harvesting systems and feed lots used for chickens and cows allow for faster growing and harvesting of the animal. But are these practices moral? In Paul Taylor’s “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, he illustrates how this treatment of animals is immoral, because of his biocentric view. Bonnie Steinbock would disagree with Taylor due to her speciesic view, illustrated in her article “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, that places human needs over animal needs in this case. Taylor’s biocentric approach says that all organisms are equal, whether it is a tree or a person. He proposes that there is a basic “respect for nature” based on equal inherent worth and humankind must always be committed to respecting nature. Taylor breaks the biocentric viewpoint into four basic concepts. First, he believes that humans are members of the Earth’s community of life. Meaning that humankind must help support the Earth’s combined ecosystem and should avoid destroying life. Second, Taylor …show more content…

Taylor believes that no organism can morally kill another. So how are humans and animals are supposed to eat? Humans have no way to get energy without eating other organisms. This is not a problem when it comes to the speciesic view because killing of other organisms is moral if it is necessary for survival. The extremes of the biocentric viewpoint hurt its credibility because it is impossible to fully implement a biocentric viewpoint. However, the speciesic viewpoint is actually very similar to Society’s viewpoint on the subject, and is very practical when it comes to implementation. The practicality of these viewpoints plays an important role, because if it doesn’t work in reality it cannot be

Open Document