Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The ethics of animal rights
Introduction to Ethics Quizlet
Ethics philosophy reflection
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. To support his first premise, humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are, Taylor cites the fact that we are only one species among many. Humans are subject to “the [same] laws of genetics, of natural selection, and of adaptation” (p.633) that all other livings …show more content…
He provides us with a virtue ethics approach toward the natural world, how we should act toward other living things must reflect the equal worth each individual possesses. While Taylor admits “such a belief system cannot be proven to be true” it does provide a “coherent, unified, and rationally acceptable picture of a total world” (p.632), and to this end, I believe he was successful. While his species egalitarianism goes against our moral experience, especially as it pertains to nonsentiant beings, it does give us an alternative position to anthropocentrism. The idea that our respect for other species should not be contingent upon their relationship to
The bond between humans and nature, it is fascinating to see how us has humans and nature interact with each other and in this case the essay The Heart’s Fox by Josephine Johnson is an example of judging the unknown of one's actions. She talks about a fox that had it's life taken as well as many others with it, the respect for nature is something that is precious to most and should not be taken advantage of. Is harming animals or any part of nature always worth it? I see this text as a way of saying that we must be not so terminate the life around us. Today I see us a s experts at destroying most around us and it's sad to see how much we do it and how it's almost as if it's okay to do and sadly is see as it nature itself hurts humans unintentionally
He goes on to describe how this common ancestry means that we still have a lot in common with everything on this planet. Thomas says that "we still share genes around, and the resemblance of the enzymes of grasses to those of whales is a family resemblance" (3). Thomas relates to the reader that he has been trying to conceive of the earth itself as a type of organism, "but it is no go" (4). The earth is just too big, too complex for such an analogy. But then it came to him. The earth is most like a single cell (4).
Kohak, Erazim V. "Part II." The Green Halo: a Bird's-eye View of Ecological Ethics. Chicago,
In the spirit of Karen Warren, Gould's perspective on environmentalism 'feels right' to me, as I can connect with acts of respect and benevolence towards humans and can easily extend that feeling to the rest of the earth (especially on a personal level where I see the golden rule as the basis for my religious beliefs). However, upon closer examination, I find the suggestion to 'just follow the golden rule' as an environmental ethic problematic when examined in a practical, non-idealized light. Harkening back to the problems encountered in previous discussions of biocentric and ecocentric ethics, I am troubled by the potential outcomes of an environmental ethic such as this.
Perhaps the most important question moral philosophy can ask is: who or what is entitled to moral rights? When we discuss differing moral philosophies such as utilitarianism or deontology we do so with the underlying assumption that human beings are centric to the moral code. Should we assume this? Historically speaking humans have only been present on this planet for 100,000 years. The planet itself has been around 4.6 billion years, so the environment and animal life existed long before intelligent human life emerged. Why then, is morality generally accepted to be applied solely to humans? To answer this question I intend to discuss some of the basic tenets of morality, such as the moral community. What does membership in the moral community entail? Does not being a contributing member to the moral community mean that you are not entitled to moral consideration? The way humans deal with the topics of animal rights and environmentalism hinge upon the answer to these questions.
The book gives us the vision that we have a way now to change other species and even our destiny. Everyone should be aware of this new-found ability and they should be aware of its ups and downs. It is hard to define what is natural today. Organisms have always influenced each other in subtle and significant ways. The difference is the artificial selection; human came in and added unnatural tools with human purpose and desire.
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.
After a thorough close reading of this novel “Creation” I have asked myself a lot of question. First of all when I took a look at the quote book “Is there an “earthborn, yet transcendental obligation we are both morally bound to share” we all have a role to play in the conservation
We change the power on the microscope to look at Rollin's argument for a sentientist approach. With this view, the moral category includes all sentient beings, not just human beings. Rollins believes that any being possessing an awareness of the senses that does not involve thought or perception has intrinsic value and is an end-in-themselves. He contends that animal interests must also be considered when determining our environmental oblig...
Leopold defends his position the advent of a new ethical development, one that deals with humans’ relations to the land and its necessity. This relationship is defined as the land ethic, this concept holds to a central component referred to as the ecological consciousness. The ecological consciousness is not a vague ideal, but one that is not recognized in modern society. It reflects a certainty of individual responsibility for the health and preservation of the land upon which we live, and all of its components. If the health of the land is upheld, its capacity of self-renewal and regeneration is maintained as well. To date, conservation has been our sole effort to understand and preserve this capacity. Leopold holds that if the mainstream embraces his ideals of a land ethic and an ecological consciousness, the beauty, stability and integrity of our world will be preserved.
(i) Plumwood tries to provide a rational for environmentalism by saying that nature, in her experience with the crocodile, provides “a humbling and cautionary tale about our relationship with the earth, about the need to acknowledge our own animality and ecological vulnerability” (Plumwood, p. 271). Maintaining an ecosystem’s integrity is important because it entails the preservation and respect of animals that may prey upon us (acknowledging our ecological vulnerability), which acts as a test for the strength of our identity of being just another animal on the earth (acknowledging our animality). She says that maintaining the environment is important because it humbles and reminds us of our place in the world—we are not above the rest of the animals, and we must be conscientiousness of the inaccuracy of our own internal narrative, which provides this illusion (Plumwood, p.
In this essay, I will discuss and define both speciesism and moral individualism in Paola Cavalieri’s book, The Animal Question. Additionally, I will provide my opinion on which is the strongest argument for speciesism and why I still disagree with it. Speciesism is the belief that humans are inherently superior to all other animals, solely based on their species membership. This widely held belief is used to justify the blatant discrimination of nonhuman animals, resulting in a lack of moral rights and the exploitation of defenseless beings. This view, that humans are of special moral status, is constantly attempted to be rationalized in various ways.
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.
It would be desirable to live one’s life, having a reverential stance on all forms of life. This is because we all inhabit the same area, relatively speaking, and life forms are frail and often break and are destroyed. Living like this is desirable, as it would mean, that the life that we often have control or influence over wouldn’t be taken for granted. When we look at how nature in different parts of the world are treated, such as clear cutting forests that dramatically damage not only the inhabitants of the biosphere, but also cause vulnerabilities to the land itself such as increased landslides, and more. Although an example, the idea behind it could be extended further, in reverence for all life, and that without