Ethics and Morality of Paul Taylor\'s View

¶ … ethics and morality of Paul Taylor's view of the environment

One key ethical issue, contentious amongst environmentalists today as well as those activists who oppose the ethical philosophy of environmentalism, is whether environmentalism should be focused on improving the lot of the human animal on earth, or should attempt to benefit all species upon earth in an equal fashion. The philosopher Paul Taylor argues that environmental ethics should emphasize the interdependent nature all individual members of earth's biological community. He states that environmentalists should embrace the idea that no single species is superior to the others. However, although Paul Taylor's philosophy is commendable in its emotional intensity when he says, "we have a self-evident moral obligation to the individual members of the Earth's biotic community to protect and promote their good for their sake" (518), his philosophy of species equality is fundamentally flawed. Environmentalism is a human ideological construction. No species before has attempted to preserve the earth for the existence of other species, much less to recognize a "self-evident" moral obligation. Self-preservation must be the philosophy of the human animal, not a holistic philosophy that equalizes all species of animals. To embrace a lack of human superiority denies the value of the tools necessary to preserve the environment, such as intellect and connections amongst human members and nations of the international community.

First of all, rather than a naturalistic philosophy, where "each organism is a purposeful center of life," environmentalism itself is a constructed philosophy of human altruism, rather than a natural mental manifestation found in other species' minds present the animal kingdom. Historically, in nature, all animals have attempted to preserve their own young and own species, not the young of others. Apparent altruism, such as animals cleaning the backs of others, is taken out of a desire for food or shelter, not out of a sense of morality. Thus to posit the equitability of all species and all beings in theory is neither politically appealing to most humans, nor is it tenable to he instincts of the human animal or any other animal.

Thus, self-preservation is the natural impulse of the human species and must continue to be so. This does not mean that individuals should destroy the earth. Self-preservation can be a part of what Taylor calls "life-centered" environmental ethics (518). It is vitally necessary to preserve our own species that we preserve the environment. But to accept equality between species it so embrace other aspects of environmentalism, such as vegetarianism, that posits the equal value of all species, and logically requires those who embrace Taylor's ethics to assume, for instance, that it is equally vital to preserve the spotted owl than it is to create an environmentally healthy apartment complex within an inner city that can sustain children's environmental lives. Prioritization is necessary, and accepting self-preservation is necessary to a life-centered ethics of environmentalism that will be politically and morally tenable for humans.

Lastly, on an international level, it is vitally important that the United States bind with other countries in international alliances to create a state of world environmental homeostasis. Presupposing species equality is unlikely to benefit, for instance, the United States in negotiating limits upon whaling in Japan. Rather, the preservation of a livable world for humans that cannot exist in an ecological balance without the continued preservation of certain species is the best strategy to take. Also, in exploring environmental issues with developing nations, the human problems of famine and drought must be addressed in conjunction and given a priority to species preservation, if these nations are to be responsive to U.S. claims upon their territory in terms of limiting poaching and destroying the rain forest.