In
Paul W. Taylor’s The Ethics of Respect
for Nature, Taylor outlines his biocentric outlook on nature and justifies
his viewpoint. The biocentric outlook on nature consists of four points: 1.
Humans are members of Earth’s community of life. 2. The Earth’s natural
ecosystem is interconnected in many complex ways. 3. Each individual organism
is thought of as a teleological center of life, pursing its own good. 4. All
the points mentioned prior implies that humans are not superior to any other
species. Taylor makes the claim that all things have inherent worth regardless
of their consciousness. “The idea of a being having a good of its own, as I
understand it, does not entail that the being must have interests or take an
interest in what affects its life for better of for worse” (176). This claim
that Taylor makes supports the idea that human superiority is non-existent. Taylor
then goes on to explain, “the inherent worth of an entity does not depend on
its merits” (179). At the very end of
his essay, Taylor states that even though all things have inherent worth, this
does not imply equal that all things have moral rights.
Questions:
I know that Taylor makes it clear
in his essay that he does not want to touch on moral rights at the moment, but
I am curious. What does the biocentric outlook on nature imply in terms of our
responsibility towards animals and plants? If everything has inherent worth,
why do we have the right to kill other animals for our own wellbeing? Or do we
have this right?
Also, Taylor states that we only
have the ability to use reason because that is how we adapted for our survival.
But doesn’t this ability give us some sort of right to use other animals? Other
species use other animals to promote their wellbeing. Through evolution we gained the
ability to use other organisms to our advantage, just as other animals have,
therefore shouldn’t we take advantage of our abilities? On the other hand,
being the only organism to possess reason, are we bestowed with a
responsibility to take care of other organisms and take action to promote their
wellbeing?
Although he doesn't go too far into the moral implications of biocentrism, I think that the point he makes at the end is important to your second question. Whether or not he thinks we have the right to use other animals, he makes it clear that that "our deepest moral commitment" should involve "sharing the Earth's bounty with other creatures" (182). He also says that if we are to adopt biocentrism, then we have to protect nature out of respect for it, even if we do not think that non-human beings have moral rights. It seems to me that this would mean adopting an attitude similar to that of many Native American tribes, where plants and animals are used an eaten, but also deeply respected. We could then justifiably eat animals, but only because it can be considered part of our natural life cycle and not because our reason makes us somehow superior.
ReplyDelete