Analysis Of The Essay 'Are All Species Equal?' By David Schmidtz

Biocentrism and Respect for Nature

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

argument. In this paper I will argue that though biocentrism and respect for nature are important, species egalitarianism is an unnecessary concept. Schmidtz is on the right track by saying so, but leads a few invalid arguments in his case.
My first argument will compare the species of the world to a classroom full of elementary school children. Each subject (species and the children) share one common goal with members of the same group. For students in a classroom, it is to pass the class; for species, it is to stay alive and thrive. The classroom is made up of many diverse beings all raised differently. They were taught different things, in different houses, and were rooted with all different levels of thinking. Any good teacher knows and respects that no two children learn the same way. Therefore, the teacher will take the time to get to know the students and learn the best way to teach them in order to help achieve the goal. As time goes on, students achieve their goals by adapting to their surroundings and learning how to use their individual traits to their advantage. This is not criticized, and neither is one child for learning more than another. Species work in the same way. No two species live exactly the same way. Each have their own diets, habitats, communication and special skills and traits. Who or what is to say that one species is better than the other because of a trait it attains from trying to adapt? Sure, some traits may be viewed as obviously more convenient, such as a bird’s ability to fly compared to a dog who can’t fly. One may argue that flying is more desirable but for a dog whose responsibilities are on the ground, flying doesn’t make sense. It is important to assess each specific case individually rather than judge everyone off of the same standards because at the end of the day no two is the same and neither will achieve their goal in the same one another did.
This leads to my second argument that Schmidtz isn’t necessarily right when he disagrees with Taylor’s views on ranking certain abilities more valuable than another. Taylor is right to say that one’s ability to think does not make it superior to a being that can’t. It begs the question to say one trait of a specific species is more valuable than that of another, because that assumes that one specific trait is in fact better to have. Schmidtz then adds that having certain trait (a, c) together is superior. Even though having more than one admirable trait seems like a better idea, it still leads to the idea that specific traits make you superior. Who is to decide which trait precedes another? Is there a quality all living things possess that can be the basis for judgment on superiority? The answer is no. Apart from living in general, there is no common trait that every living being shares with every other one. Plants don’t think the way humans and animals do. Animals don’t hold the same importance as plants. Humans don’t contribute to ecosystems the way animals do. It’s all about keeping each species separate and judging it based on its own standards.
I will now argue Schmidtz’s point about respect.

Schmidtz does in fact argue that we need to respect and be respected, but that the respect need not be equal nor universal. This is why I disagree. To be a moral person you need to respect things and people around you. You cannot call yourself a respectful person if you pick and choose who and what you respect, because it is disrespectful to disregard those. Plus, how does one choose who or what gets an amount of respect, if any at all? This goes along with the topic of racism. An example used in the article was killing tuna and keeping dolphin alive. Both serve the same purpose and essentially have the same qualities, so why say that one can be killed but not the

other?
To conclude, David Schmidtz’s views on biocentrism and respect for nature are logical arguments. Species egalitarianism is a concept that is too drawn out and begs too many questions. Schmidtz’s criticism should have been a little but more sensible but overall coincide with Taylor’s ideas about biocentrism.