Paul Taylor: Biocentric Egalistarianism Main Question: What is our moral relationship to the non-human world?

Moral Systems We’ve seen: Kant—a moral system that is founded on the absolute value of humanity. What is most valuable is humanity in a person and everything else that is valuable is valuable because of its relationship to that. Utilitarianism—a egalitarian moral system founded on the value of happiness. (Hedonistic views: Happiness=pleasure and the absence of pain). Kant’s is more anthropocentric—because humans are the only creatures we know to be persons. Utilitarianism can include sentient creatures and potentially may be However, preference-utilitarianism (a standard kind) would be anthropocentric—because many living things do not have preferences.

Biocentrism Life-centered/biocentric views do not put humans at the center of the moral system. A human centered environmental ethics (e.g., Baxter in “People or Penguins”) can value the environment and even require people to sacrifice for the environment but the ethical value the environment has derives from the value of human beings. (E.g., the forest is valuable because it has resources for us, because we get pleasure from walking in it, etc.)

Can we ascribe moral value to the non-human world for its own sake? Taylor: If we are anthropocentric, it is just a contingent fact that we value the natural world—we value it because it benefits us. Life-centered moral theory: “We are morally bound (other things being equal) to protect or promote [the good of non-human living things] for their sake…” These duties are prima facie. (This means ‘on the face of it’ but they are not absolute duties.)

Moral Attitudes Behind the Biocentric View Living things have a good that can be damaged by others. This good is: Full development of its biological powers. It realizes its good when it is strong and healthy. Good of a population or community (species, e.g.)=the population or community maintaining itself from generation to generation as a coherent system of genetically and ecologically related organisms whose average good is at an optimum level for the given environment.

Comparison With Traditional Views Having a good does not require that the being have an interest in its own good. It does not require that it is sentient. The good of a tree is to be healthy, to live a natural life span, to grow. Q: Can machines have a good? Taylor does not answer this question but suggests that living things are, to an important degree, independent of human purposes and so they do not have a good of their own.

Attitude of Respect for Nature What is it to respect nature? “We take that attitude toward wild living things (individuals, species populations, or whole biotic communities) when and only when we can regard them as entities possessing inherent worth.” We have binding, duties and obligations toward these species and these are owed to them as their due.

Two Principles (1) Moral Consideration Principle of Moral Consideration: “Wild living things are deserving of the concern and consideration of all moral agents simply in virtue of their being members of Earth’s community of life…no matter what species…” As action-guiding principle: Act in such a way to preserve good of any organism whose well being you can affect. [Is this the right formulation?]

Principle 2: Principle of Intrinsic Value Every member of the community of life is intrinsically valuable, i.e., valuable for itself…”it’s good is worthy of being preserved or promoted as an end in itself and for the sake of the entity whose good it is. Insofar as we regard any organism, species population, or life community as an entity having inherent worth, we believe that it must never be treated as if it were a mere object or thing whose entire value lies in being instrumental to the good of some other entity.” (p. 142)

Similarity to Kant Kant requires us to value the humanity in the person as worthy of absolute respect. Our duties are derivative of this respect. We can never use anyone for our own purposes without considering their ends. (For Taylor, it is the good of the being we must consider.) Taylor argues something similar about natural beings. However, he is not an absolutist about this.

The Attitude of Respect WHY should we respect living beings as intrinsically valuable? What is the attitude of respect? The attitude of respect for nature is analogous to the attitude of respect for persons. It is a basic attitude, i.e., it is ultimate and not derived from some more basic attitude or principle. It is moral because it is disinterested. Like Kant’s view, the requirement to obey the principle doesn’t depend on how we happen to feel but on the value of the thing we are respecting: It is a law for all rational beings.

How are we shaped by the attitude of respect? The attitude of respect shapes our dispositions—our way of feeling and interacting with the world. If we have this attitude we will (a) Be disposed to act to promote the good of organisms, even if it doesn’t promote our own good (b) We will regard actions that do this as prima facie obligatory (c) We will have positive and negative feelings about actions and events because of how those things affect organisms.

Justifiability of the Attitude of Respect How do we show that this is an obligation we all have? The inherent worth of things is not something that we see or feel. (p. 143) We discover it through inner rather than outer sense. It depends on a belief system that is coherent, well-ordered and consistent with our scientific outlook. However, it cannot be proven to be true. This belief system is ‘the biocentric outlook on nature.’

The Biocentric Outlook How to interpret Taylor: He seems to be arguing that the justification of these moral principles are available if one takes up a particular world view—the biocentric one. This suggests that it can’t be proven to those who refuse to take up this view, that they should have it. But if you do take it up, will you see that the view is so compelling that you have these obligations? And will it be a rational process—as Taylor seems to assume--or does it depend on developing a deeper emotional affinity for the natural world?

The Biocentric Outlook 4 components of the biocentric outlook (1) Humans are thought of as members of the Earth’s community of life, holding that membership on the same terms as other nonhuman members. (2) The Earth’s ecosystems are an interconnecting totality, in which each being is dependent for its functioning on the others. (3) Each individual organism is conceived of as a teleological center of life, pursuing its own good in its own way. (4) Humans are not superior to other species. And in light of 1-3 our bias toward ourselves is irrational.

The Biocentric Outlook (1) We see ourselves as biological creatures, created by evolution, dependent on the environment, subject to natural laws. Our good is different in content but not different in kind. We’ve been around a very, very short period of time. If the existence of algae (600 million years—predated by protozoa by several billion years) were the length of a football field then sharks would be ¾ of the field, reptiles in the center, mammals in the last third, hominids in the last two feet and homo sapiens in the last six inches.

The Biocentric Perspective (1) Membership in the community of life: Humans are destructive to other life forms as well. We depend on them. They do not all depend on us. We disrupt the health of ecosystems. We are not needed. Plankton matter a lot more, in terms of ecosystems.

(2) Biological interdependence Taylor emphasizes a different way of seeing the earth: To see “the Earth’s biosphere as a complex but unified web of interconnected organisms, objects and events. The ecological relationships between any community of living things and their environment form an organic whole of functionally interdependent parts…” (p. 147)

Biological Interdependence This ecological equilibrium cannot be destroyed without our well-being (all living things)--and possibly our lives being disrupted. What’s the moral relevance of our interdependence and our dependence on the natural world? (One possibility: Reciprocity? It is like a society. Our social interdependence gives us duties towards others in our society. Does it matter that our duties are based on their voluntary participation in the social case?)

(3) Teleological Centers of Life Scientists develop an appreciation for the unique value of organisms. Experience/familiarity, etc. gives rise to a view about the value of other beings. “The final culmination of this process is the achievement of a genuine understanding of its point of view…conceiving of it as a center of life, one is able to look at the world from its perspective…” (p. 148)

Humans Are Not Superior In Value to Other Life Forms In what sense are humans superior to other animals? From what point of view are they judged to be superior? Capacities? Other animals have capacities we lack. The value of capacities? But to whom are these capacities valuable and on what grounds? Merit? There is moral and nonmoral merit but all such judgments depend on human values and it is hard to explain why this is the only criterion that matters. Why is math better than the ability to climb a tree?

Do humans have a greater inherent worth? History shows that we have been mistaken in the way we assign worth to other humans. Example: Inherited titles, the class system. We now accept egalitarianism, equal human rights, the fundamental idea that each person has the same basic value as any other.

Reasons for the belief in the greater worth of humans Rationality: Humans are rational creatures that live on a higher plane, if they so choose. Taylor: This is arbitrary. Rationality is a good trait if you are human but animals have other traits that are valuable to their way of life that are not accessible to us. Dualism (Descartes) Animals are automatons. They lack souls and don’t think. Taylor: Animals do think if you include consciousness. And it is not required to be conscious for an organism to lead a good life for it.

Reasons for Human Superiority The great chain of being: Humans are made in God’s image. Taylor: There are problems with this view. And unless you want to say that the arbitrary arrangement of genes is of the greatest moral value, you are forced to fall back on this view.

Q: So if we take up this view, how do we change our actions, society, etc? Taylor: We could grants other life forms legal rights (and protections).