Paul Taylor's Environmental Ethics: A Critical Evaluation
This essay critically examines philosopher Paul Taylor's biocentric environmental ethics, specifically his claim that all members of Earth's biological community deserve equal moral consideration. While acknowledging the emotional appeal of Taylor's philosophy, the paper argues that species equality is fundamentally untenable — biologically, politically, and internationally. The essay contends that environmentalism is a uniquely human construction, that self-preservation is the natural and necessary foundation of any viable environmental ethic, and that practical international cooperation requires prioritizing human welfare. Ultimately, the author maintains that a human-centered approach to environmental ethics is more politically workable and more likely to succeed than a philosophy of strict interspecies equality.
- Introduction: Taylor's Biocentric Ethics and Its Central Flaw: Taylor's species equality argument introduced and challenged
- Environmentalism as a Human Construction, Not a Natural Impulse: Environmentalism as uniquely human, not natural altruism
- Self-Preservation as the Foundation of Environmental Ethics: Self-preservation as necessary basis for viable environmental ethics
- International Environmental Policy and the Limits of Species Equality: Species equality undermines international environmental diplomacy
- Conclusion: Human Priority in a Living World: Human priority essential; Taylor's philosophy politically untenable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The essay opens with a clear, direct thesis that concedes the emotional appeal of Taylor's position before mounting a structured critique — a rhetorically sophisticated move that establishes intellectual fairness.
- Each body paragraph addresses a distinct dimension of the argument (biological, philosophical, and geopolitical), giving the critique logical breadth rather than relying on a single objection.
- The use of a concrete policy example — U.S. negotiations over Japanese whaling limits — effectively grounds the abstract philosophical critique in real-world international relations.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates philosophical refutation through pragmatic counterargument: rather than attacking Taylor's ethics on purely theoretical grounds, the author tests the philosophy against practical constraints — biological instinct, political viability, and international diplomacy — and argues it fails on all three fronts. This technique of applying a philosophical claim to real-world scenarios is a standard move in applied ethics writing.
Structure breakdown
The essay follows a classic five-paragraph argumentative structure adapted for philosophical analysis. The introduction presents Taylor's position and a clear counter-thesis. Two middle paragraphs address the biological and ethical dimensions of the critique, respectively. A fourth paragraph shifts to international policy as a third line of argument. The conclusion synthesizes the position without introducing new claims, restating the author's human-priority stance and warning against the political consequences of strict biocentrism. Total length is appropriate for an undergraduate-level philosophy or environmental ethics course.
Introduction: Taylor's Biocentric Ethics and Its Central Flaw
One key ethical issue — contentious among environmentalists today as well as those 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 equally. The philosopher Paul Taylor argues that environmental ethics should emphasize the interdependent nature of 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 writes, "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 humanity has attempted to preserve the earth for the existence of other species, much less to recognize a "self-evident" moral obligation to them. Self-preservation must be the guiding philosophy of the human animal, not a holistic philosophy that equalizes all species. To embrace the denial of human superiority is to deny the value of the very tools necessary to preserve the environment — namely, human intellect and the capacity for cooperation among individuals and nations.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.