Paul Taylor The Ethics Of Respect For 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.

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

are, thus establishing a common basis for kinship. Taylor also recognizes that we are “relative newcomers” on this planet who are “dependent upon the ecological soundness of many plant and animal communities” but who in turn share no such reliance upon us.
Taylor’s second premise, all species exist as a “complex web of interconnected organisms”, is the fundamental concept in ecology and a “biological reality” (p.634) which is empirically supported. He states “the integrity of the entire biosphere…is essential to the realization of the good of its constituent communities, both human and nonhuman”. Essentially, our well-being is dependent upon our relationship with other organisms.
His third premise, organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a way in which to pursue it, helps Taylor introduce the principles of moral consideration and intrinsic value. He posits that because organisms are goal-directed and strive to preserve themselves and to realize their own good, they have welfare interests. It is possessing the capacity to be benefited or harmed that gives an organism “as a unique irreplaceable individual” (p.635), moral consideration. Because sentience or the ability to feel pain is not a contingency of receiving moral consideration, all living things are worthy of it. In turn the principle of intrinsic value extends to all organisms in the Eath’s community and states that their “good is deserving of concern and consideration”(p.632).
In his fourth and perhaps most premise, the claim that humans are superior to other species is unfounded, Taylor cites a number of reasons to accept his position. First, “humans are claiming human superiority from a strictly human point of view”(p.636). We have a inclination to claim our dominance because we possess characteristics other species do not. While this may be true, other species possess traits we do not (the ability to fly, hibernate, regenerate limbs, ect.) which are equally important to their survival as our “human traits” are to ours. Taylor makes the analogy that our evaluation of other species is akin to hierarchical class-structured societies. Instead, he believes the doctrine of species impartiality should be embraced because it engenders an attitude of respect and equality “the biocentric outlook recommends” (p.640).
Taylor proposes that his “biocentric outlook on nature” (p.632) is a “philosophical world view” based upon the principles of moral consideration and intrinsic value which apply to each individual organism equally.

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

us
Throughout his argument, we see that Taylor utilizes elements of natural law theory, which states that morally appropriate actions are the ones that follow nature’s directives. The first three premises reflect a belief that all of nature, including mankind, is interrelated and directed toward achieving specific ends that are part of the rational order of life (Vaughn, 2013, p. 71). Taylor also draws from Kantian ethics, extending the scope of the means-end principle to include all living organisms as being creatures of equal intrinsic worth. In turn, our duties to the natural world must reflect the equal status of all, and we can “no longer simply take the human point of view…from the perspective of our own good” (Vaughn, p.630).