More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethics of respect towards nature paul taylor
The ethics of respect towards nature paul taylor
Essay on biocentrism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor develops the following four elements of the biocentric outlook on nature:
1. Humans are members of the Earth's community of life in the same sense and on the same terms as other living things.
2. The natural world is an interdependent system.
3. Each organism is a Teleological Center of Life (TCL) with a good of its own.
4. Humans are not inherently superior to other living things.
Taylor believes that if one concedes and accepts the first three components then acceptance of the fourth component is not unreasonable. He also suggests that in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature one must accept all four elements of the biocentric outlook. “Once we reject the claim that humans are superior either in merit or in worth to other living things, we are ready to adopt the attitude of respect. The denial of human superiority is itself the result of taking the perspective on nature built into the first three elements of the biocentric outlook” (Taylor 153). This is where Taylor is mistaken. I will argue in the subsequent paper that humans, as a condition of moral agency, are superior to other living things and that one does not need to accept Taylor’s fourth element in order to adopt the attitude of respect for nature.
Most would agree with Taylor’s first two elements of the biocentric outlook on nature. The first element it is undeniably true; humans are indeed members of Earth’s community. Taylor pushes this further and asserts that humans are non-privileged members of the earth’s community of life. Humans, just like all other living organisms, have biological requirements to live. Moreover, “[w]e, as they, are vulnerable. We share with them an inability to guarantee the f...
... middle of paper ...
...r nature and this requires that one recognize the equal inherent worth of all TCL’s (element three). Moreover, it is moral agency which allows for one to adopt the attitude of respect for nature. No other organism (TCL) can adopt the attitude of respect for nature.
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
John Muir, Gifford Pinchot, and Aldo Leopold all have moderately different views and ideas about the environment in terms of its worth, purpose, use and protection. At one extensively non-anthropocentric extreme, Muir’s views and ideas placed emphasis on protecting environmental areas as a moral obligation. That is to say, Muir believed that wilderness environments should be used for divine transcendence, spiritual contemplation, as a place for repenting sins and obtaining devotional healing, rather than being used for exploitative materialistic greed and destructive consumption, such as industrialism, mining, and lumbering. At the other extreme, anthropocentric, Pinchot views nature simply as natural resources. In other words, nature is explicitly
Just as Georgiana died when the hand that nature gave her was severed from her being, so too will we suffer if we sever ourselves too far from nature. At this moment in history, with climate change, pollution and population on an exponential rise, Hawthorne’s story is as relevant as ever. It reminds us that while science can serve us as a tool, it can neither bring us perfection nor sever us from the nature to which we belong and of which we are a part.
In the essay, “Are All Species Equal?” the author, David Schmidtz, stiffly denounces the views on species egalitarianism by philosopher Paul Taylor. Schmidtz explores Taylor’s views from all angles and criticisms and concludes that “biocentrism has a point but that it does not require any commitment to species equality.” (Schmidtz, 115). Schmidtz agrees with the major points of biocentrism; that humans live on the same terms as all other species in the community, that all species are interdependent and are all in pursuit of their own good. However, each species should not all be looked upon as the same and with the same level of contributions as every other species. There’s no way to compare one living thing to another unless the two are exactly identical. Therefore, instead of saying that every species is in fact on the same level, we should respect that each living thing should be evaluated differently. This is where respect for nature comes into play. Respecting each individual species for its own attributions is more just than saying that all should be treated equally. Schmidtz goes on to say that biocentrism and respect for nature do not go hand in hand with species egalitarianism, which to me, is a valid
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
Our awareness, our perception within nature, as Thomas states, is the contrast that segregates us from our symbols. It is the quality that separates us from our reflections, from the values and expectations that society has oppressed against itself. However, our illusions and hallucinations of nature are merely artifacts of our anthropocentric idealism. Thomas, in “Natural Man,” criticizes society for its flawed value-thinking, advocating how it “[is merely] a part of a system . . . [and] we are, in this view, neither owners nor operators; at best, [are] motile tissues specialized for receiving information” (56). We “spread like a new growth . . . touching and affecting every other kind of life, incorporating ourselves,” destroying the nature we coexist with, “[eutrophizing] the earth” (57). However, Thomas questions if “we are the invaded ones, the subjugated, [the] used?” (57). Due to our anthropocentric idealism, our illusions and hallucinations of nature, we forget that we, as organisms, are microscopically inexistent. To Thomas, “we are not made up, as we had always supposed, of successively enriched packets of our own parts,” but rather “we are shared, rented, occupied [as] the interior of our cells, driving them, providing the oxidative energy that sends us out for the improvement of each shining day, are the mitochondria” (1).
Lawrence Buell’s four criteria are easily embraced as they are highly applicable to what we consider nature writings. For instance, one of the criteria suggest it should provide evidence that the consequences of the environment affect the interests of other aspects of the world beyond just human interests. For example, in ...
nature is not as in the plant and tree kind of nature, but on the nature of man at a
Although he believes that all beings have worth in and of themselves, Murdy does reject what he refers to as the “Franciscan” view that all types of life are equal. From a contemporary anthropocentric lens, to see the intrinsic value of all creatures does not mean that we as a species shouldn’t also interact with our environment by judging things in terms of instrumental value as well. In this line of thought, Murdy would likely approve of animal testing or the killing of a dangerous strain of bacteria, as while both non-human animals and microbes have undeniable value, these acts would be for the imperative benefit of humans. Here, Murdy expands on classical interpretations of anthropocentrism by not placing humans and nature in opposition to each other, and instead takes into account the complexities of life while still standing by his belief that anthropocentrism is a valid
In the poem “Cascadilla Falls” by A. R. Ammons, the poet writes about an evening where the narrator visited a stream below the falls. Although, man’s role in nature has always been questioned, humans have always been the center of the universe revolving around us. In the poem, Ammons makes a strong statement against humanism by relating natural occurrences in nature to human beings. The universe is a vast place with endless possibilities and we live on a planet that is teeming with life. Humans, however, have taken over this world and view other life forms as inferior and abuse nature for resources.
From the lone hiker on the Appalachian Trail to the environmental lobby groups in Washington D.C., nature evokes strong feelings in each and every one of us. We often struggle with and are ultimately shaped by our relationship with nature. The relationship we forge with nature reflects our fundamental beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. The works of timeless authors, including Henry David Thoreau and Annie Dillard, are centered around their relationship to nature.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways. One such defense is that we are not morally wrong to prioritize our needs before the needs of nonhuman animals for “the members of any species may legitimately give their fellows more weight than they give members of other species (or at least more weight than a neutral view would grant them). Lions, too, if they were moral agents, could not then be criticized for putting other lions first” (Nozick, 79). This argument, that we naturally prefer our own kind, is based on the same fallacy used by racists while defending their intolerant beliefs and therefore should be shown to have no logical merit.
Throughout history, many individuals wish to discover and explain the relationship between nature and society, however, there are many complexities relating to this relationship. The struggle to understand how nature and society are viewed and connected derives from the idea that there are many definitions of what nature is. The Oxford dictionary of Human Geography (2003), explains how nature is difficult to define because it can be used in various contexts as well as throughout different time and spaces. As a result of this, the different understandings of what nature is contributes to how the nature society relationship is shaped by different processes. In order to better understand this relation there are many theorists and philosophers
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
Thomas Aquinas for example, used this view to rebuke the criticisms of anthropocentrism, “We refute the error of those who claim that it is a sin for a man to kill brute animals. For animals are ordered to man’s use in the natural course of things, according to divine providence. Consequently, man uses them without any injustice, either by killing them or employing them in any other way” (Desjardins, 99). Not only has Aquinas claimed that animals are subject to man as a “natural course”, but also that anyway in which they are used is justified because of this. Aristotle takes this idea one step further, and claims that the sole basis for plants and animals’ existence is to serve humans. He later goes on to say that if nature makes nothing without purpose, then nature has made everything specifically for the sake of humankind. Both Aristotle and Aquinas based these beliefs upon the idea that only human beings are worthy of moral standing. This is due to the belief that humans alone have a “soul” capable of thinking and choosing. Since they thought animals not to have such a soul, animals must be morally irrelevant (Desjardins, 99). In this first example, the basis for environmental responsibility comes entirely from the belief that said the environment is meant to serve humans. Meaning that any obligations man has towards nature is entirely