Paul Taylor The Ethics of Respect for Nature

Taylor goes in this paper touches on various points to formulate his argument on the ethics of respect of nature. He states that adopting the attitude of having respect for nature should be an ultimate moral attitude. His paper focuses on a “life centered view” or bio centric view of nature, and how this contrast with anthropocentric views and holistic views. He refers to us having this moral obligation that are owed to wild plants, animals, and other living beings as members of the earths biotic community. He assigns us humans a sense of responsibility; we must protect and promote their good for their sake. This obligations she states, ties into the recognition of their inherent worth. He goes on to break down what “the good of a being” means and the concept of their intrinsic worth. What makes an entity good is “what does it good”, therefore what enhances its life and well being. As humans we have the capabilities to hinder or help them in the realization of this good. We are the ones who regard entities possessing inherent worth, they have duties, obligations, and responsibilities that that are owed to them. We understand ourselves as having certain moral relations to these animals and creatures. He states that according to the principle of moral consideration these living beings are deserving of the concern and consideration of all moral agents simply because their being members of earths community of life. The realization of other living beings good has intrinsic value. He states that we must adopt a certain ultimate moral attitude toward the natural world. When we adopt this moral attitude we make a commitment to live by certain principles. Paul distinguishes the difference between having a love for nature and a respect for nature. Respect for nature is an attitude we ought to possess as humans, regardless of our love for it. He makes an important that we cant point out a specific property in living beings which gives them inherent worth, it can not be discovered by empirical observation and scientific investigation.
There are many points that Taylor states, that I agree with. For example we ought to have a certain moral attitude and respect for nature, other animals, creatures, living beings, ecosystems, etc. because they are worthy of that respect. The problem in today’s world is that we don’t care enough, because often, were not experiencing the consequences of destroying nature directly. Two points that Paul isn’t clear about that concerns me, is whether particular organisms have a lesser value than other species and human life. In today’s world, we do put human life over the life of other species and organisms, because many people live with the perception that that human life comes first and we are superior.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”

Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization p...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more