Response To Taylor and Schmidtz

According to Taylor, all living things have moral standing. He says:

“Our duties to respect the integrity of natural ecosystems, to preserve endangered species, and to avoid environmental pollution stem from the fact that these are ways in which we can help make it possible for wild species populations to achieve and maintain a healthy existence in a natural state. Such obligations are due those living things out of recognition of their inherent worth.”(83)

Here Taylor suggests that human beings have a responsibility to ecosystems, endangered species, and various wild species solely because such systems and creatures are alive. In addition, he suggests a four piece platform to summarize his overall mentality in which (1) every organism, species population and community of life has a good of its own which moral agents can intentionally further or damage by their own actions, (2) nature has inherent worth, (3) organisms are teleological centers of life which must be allowed to pursue good in their own way, and (4) the claim that humans are a superior to other species is challenged. Soon thereafter, David Schmidtz posed a thoughtful criticism of Taylor’s “species egalitarianism” which is particularly subversive in that it demonstrates that a hierarchy of species clearly exists through the utilization of a route his ideological opponents would likely use themselves. For instance, he says:

“Vegetarians typically think it is worse to kill a cow than to kill a carrot. Are they wrong? Yes they are, according to species egalitarianism. In this respect species egalitarianism cannot be right. I believe we have reason to respect nature. However, we fail to give nature due respect if we say we should have no more respect for a cow than a carrot.”(97)

Through this statement, Schmidtz in a sense, is able to beat Taylor at his “own game” in that Taylor would likely endorse Vegetarianism as a likely consequence of his belief that all life is valuable and subsequently, large animals are particularly valuable and should thus be preserved. However, Schmidtz cleverly explains that humans inevitably need to eat, and will at some point be faced with the option of consuming either a plant or animal that is living. But this is hardly a dilemma. Clearly, a hierarchy within all ecosystems exists in which animals are more worthy of being preserved than are plants. Ironically, the radical thinker Pete Singer, an animal liberationist would be more likely to concur with realist thinker Schmidtz over fellow radical thinker, Taylor on this subject in that Singer prefers to consume plants over animals, in order to preserve animals.

Response To Pete Singer & Mark Sagoff

Mark Sagoff’s “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce,” is a refreshing response to Pete Singer’s “All Animals Are Equal.” He says:
“Singer does not stop with the stultifying platitude that human beings ought not to be cruel to animals. No; he argues the controversial thesis that society has an obligation to prevent the killing of animals and even to relieve their suffering wherever, however, and as much as it is able, at a reasonable cost to itself.”(39)

Here, Sagoff effectively contrasts what is likely the most reasonable course of action, that is, consuming animals as food while treating such creatures with respect as opposed to Singer’s proposal, which appears to elevate the right of an animal’s to life and comfort over the rights of humans to consume the meat of animals to meet their nutritional needs. Sagoff then proceeds to dismantle the effectiveness of Aldo Leopald’s argument by introducing the biological reality of natural selection. He says:

“The principle of natural selection is not obviously a humanitarian principle; the predator prey relation does not depend on moral empathy. Nature ruthlessly limits animal populations by doing violence to virtually every individual before it reaches maturity; these conditions respect animal equality only in the darkest sense.”

In this instance, the credibility of Aldo Leopald’s “community of organisms” with moral obligations to one another is severely diminished as the natural world is unconcerned with moral distinctions. Instead, organisms must either kill or escape being killed in order to survive. Unfortunately, within the midst of the wilderness, genteel philosophical notions are omitted. Consequently, Sagoff presents an inverted application of the traditionally heralded ideal of equality, that all organisms are confronted with either predators or disease before they reach maturity. Thus, the suffering and danger organisms suffer inside of the wilderness is an equalizing factor among them. However, equality as such is a sharp deviation from the genteel notion of equality which desires equality of treatment and of opportunity for organisms.

Environmental Ethics Lecture, 01/06/2009

Environmental Ethics, 01/06/2009

textbook is on reserve
biocentrism: nature has intrinsic moral worth/value
anthropocentrism: instrumental value, natural materials: wood is useful for building, etc.
theocentrism: natural world is valuable because it is the creation of the Almighty, next:
where is the locus of value?

Levels of organization
1. individual organisms
1a. organs
1b. cells
1c. macromolecules
1d. molecules
1e. atoms
1f. Subatomic particles
2. species
3. ecosystems


2 ways/same thing
Don’t lie: rule
Be Honest: moral character/virtue

Ethics, how should we conduct ourselves?
Sustainability: practical solutions
Technology: environmental problems from cutting down trees, damming rivers-all applications of technology

Responsible Agency
1. norms/values
2. practical knowledge: carbon cycle, river flows, relationship between logging practices with respect to soil erosion
What matters/what works: practical facts of things. It may help to take a tightly wound friend out that never has fun out for a drink but you wouldn’t do that for a friend with a drinking problem.

Approach
1. analyze/clarify-understand
2. evaluate

Vegetarian is Native American for “Bad Hunter.” LOL

Last Man Thought Experiment
intuition pumps
one dude left
one last redwood tree
is it morally permissible to cut down the last tree just because?
cut it, out of spite?
something objectionable about wanton destruction-biocentric, nature has intrinsic value

Sell To Main Street
1. Future Generations
2. Man is a steward of the earth, Genesis

Vitamin C: instrumental value, objectively
last redwood, definitely has instrumental value. Intrinsic value?
What makes us valuable?

Please Consider Purchasing Blackspot Sneakers: Union Made, Hemp Sneakers

Environmental Ethics Lecture, 01/04/2009

biocentrism: life itself has intrinsic moral worth

instrumental value: means to an end, timber for making houses, fish for eating, glasses for seeing, shoes.

anthropocentrism:

What really matters?

What/who is a moral patient? “The one who is acted upon”

What has moral standing?

What really works?

-practicality
-cause & effect
-incentive
-probabilities/predictability

Locus of value
-individual
-species
-ecosystems

A Worthwhile Book: Cradle To Cradle