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.