Class Note for PHIL 160 at UMass(3)
Class Note for PHIL 160 at UMass(3)
Popular in Course
Popular in Department
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Friday February 6, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to a course at University of Massachusetts taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 14 views.
Reviews for Class Note for PHIL 160 at UMass(3)
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 02/06/15
Philosophy 1600 Fall 2008 jayme johnson Unit 3 Handout 1 DesJardin s Environmental Ethics Chapter 6 Biocentric Ethics and the Inherent Value of Life Introduction So far we have focused on attempts to extend traditional ethics in an effort to diagnose and solve our environmenml problems Desjardin calls this ethical extensionism But all such attempts seemed suffer from three core problems Three Problems for Ethical Extensionism 0 1 The principles and concepts used in the applications of such theories are too narrowly focused 0 They are at bottom still too human focused if not entirely anthropocentric O Moral consideration in ethical extensionism is still determined by comparing entities to rational adult humans and extending moral consideration on the basis of those similarities 0 2 Ethical extensionism is still individualixt O Focusing on individuals might extend our ethical considerations to include none humans but it will still only consider them as individuals This leaves out species habitats and the relationshipinterconnectedness of nature out of the moral sphere 0 3 Ethical extensionism is not and was never intended to be a comprehensive environmental ethics 0 It tells us what not to do but not how to live a good life In short ethical extensionism is a negative and critical offering no positive solutions 0 Some of the stuff it leaves out ofmoral consideration matters morally eg global warming pollution species extinction In light of these problems Desjardin suggests that we need to do more than to extend traditional ethical theories based on old philosophical assumptions What we need to do is adopt the point ofview of an environmenmlist or more simply ofa concerned citizen seeking to articulate develop and defend a coherent and comprehensive environmental philosophy Where we start 0 Revisit the quote on the bottom ofpg 127 0 These facts startle us make us concerned but why 0 Answering this question is our starting ground for a new environmental philosophy Instrumental Value and Intrinsic Value Central to a comprehensive environmenml philosophy is a consideration of the nature and scope of value 0 Instrumental Value a function ofusefulness An object with instrumental value possesses that value because it can be used to attain something else ofvalue The instrumental value of an object lies not in the object itselfbut in the uses to which that object can be put 0 Emphasizing only the instrumental value of nature means that the environment is held hosmge by the interests and needs of humans 0 Intrinsic inherent Value a value that is to be found or recognized rather than given To say that an object is intrinsically valuable is to say that it has a good ofits own and that what is good for it does not depend on outside factors or judgments It has a value in itself and is not to be valued simply for its uses The value of such things is intrinsic to them 0 The kind of concern that is evoked when one considers the passage on pg 1277128 suggests that many of our environmental concerns rest on the intrinsic value we recognize in nature 0 To say that human activity degrades the environment is often to say that our respect for intrinsic value has eroded or been lost entirely Thus an acceptable environmenml philosophy is one which requires a reigrowth of awareness and respect for the intrinsic value ofboth the things which compose our environment and of the environment as a whole Biocentric Ethics and the Reverence for Life Biocentric Ethics refers to any theory that views all lzfe as possessing intrinsic value Biocentric means lifeicentered An early Biocentric thinker Albert Schweitzer 0 Schweitzer s reveremefor lzfe principle 0 Schweitzer sought to reestablish the connection between ethics and nature and thought that it was the intrinsic value ofliving things being ignored that severed the connection 0 Schweitzer believed that the most fundamental fact of human consciousness is the realization that I am zfe wbieb wills to live in the midst oflge wbieb wills to live and that it is around this fact that ethics should be built 0 Schweitzer was not however a philosopher and as such did not develop his View or consider the many objections that could be raised Eg does reverence for all life mean that I count as much as the mosquito whose trying to bite me Does it mean I ought to let her drink and not smack the little bugger Toylor s Biocemric Ethics Paul Taylor in his 1986 RevyjeetforNature provides a more comprehensive account ofa Biocentric ethics Taylor s goal a systematic comprehensive account of the moral relations that exist between humans and other living things Taylor s reason for thinking that all forms oflife deserve moral consideration all living things have a good of their own because they are teleologiml enters oflge 0 To be a teleological center of life means that the actions ofyour life direct you toward some telos or distinctive goal Eg the telos of an acorn is to become an oak tree 0 When one sees living things as teleological centers oflife it is easy to make see that some things are good for that being and some are bad 0 Once we undersmnd the life cycle and know the environmental conditions an organism requires to ourish survive in a healthy state and help to propagate its species it is easy to see how such organisms can be kem ted or harmed by changes in their environmental conditions 0 So as teleological centers oflife all living organisms can be viewed as having a good of their own The neXt step that Taylor needs to make is to connect a living organisms intrinsic worth the good it possesses to the normative claim that we ought to take that value into our moral considerations Taylor notes that having a good of one s own is a necessary but not sufficient condition for having inherent worth The normative claim that living things have an inherent worth is to be explained and justi ed by reference to the Bioeerttrz39e Outlooe 0 The Biocentric outlook is a system ofbeliefs that provides a fundaInental view of the natural world and our natural world Recognizing the inherent worth of things from the fact that they have a good of their own is a natural rational inference from the Biocentric outlook The 4 Central Beliefs of a Biocentric Outlook 0 1 Human beings are members of Earth s community the same as all other species 0 2 All species are part ofa system ofinterdependence 0 3 All living things pursue their own good in their own ways 0 4 Humans are not inherently superior to other living things Practical Implications Taylor then draws out his View by suggesting that adopting a Biocentric View and thus having proper respect for nature leads to 0 4 general duties 1 nonmale cence 7do no harm not the same as keep safe 2 noninterferencegdo not interfere with the freedom of individual organisms 4don t manipulate control modify or manage natural ecosystems 3 delityi we cannot mislead or deceive or betray wild animals ie no more hunting trapping fishing 4 restitutive justice ihumans who harm other living organisms have to make some kind of comparable restitution to those organisms 0 these duties are ranked in order of importance nonmaleficence is our top duty and in the event ofa conflict of the other three duties justice takes precedent then fidelity then none interference One thing to note in order to be loyal biocentrists we cannot allow human interest to automatically take precedent when moral conflict arises To make sure that there is some account of how to prevent this Taylor argues for several formal or procedural rules to provide fair impartial solutions to moral conflicts These rules are selfidefense proportionality minimum wrong distributive justice restitutive justice Challenges and Developments 1 What exactly does it mean to not interfere with nature It seems to suggest a dichotomy between humans and nature one we are trying to get away from Can something noninatural even come out ofa natural thing Le why are the changes that humans make to the environment ethically different from the changes other species make to it 2 While it is not anthropocentric Taylor s ethics remains individualistic 0 Moreover it suggests an adversarial relationship between individuals That it is all about balancing the needs of competing individuals Thus it deemphasizes the importance of mutual dependency and cooperation that are important elements of ecosystems 0 A dilemma for Taylor can I dig up a chunk ofmy lawn and build a stone patio O Ifl am not allowed to build the patio then Taylor s view requires too much ofus It is too strict O lfl am allowed to build the patio then Taylor must explain how a nonibasic trivial human interest trumps the value of the lives of countless blades ofgrass and many insects 0 And he has to do it without appeal to retribution since one cannot give restitution to dead individuals and again as an individualistic theory he cannot claim that restitution should go to the species 0 Taylor view derives normative principles from a set of empirical facts Can you get an ought from an is this way We have argued many times throughout the semester that we cannot or at least that we should be highly skeptical of any view that relies on such an inference James Sterba s revision Sterba attempts to revise the Biocentric view so that it gets around many of the problems raised for Taylor s view Sterba calls his view Biocentric Pluralism to emphasize his attempt to bring ecological wholes such as species and ecosystems into the perspective A Summary of Sterba s Argument 1 Some object X has a good ofits own if it can be harmed or bene ted 2 le has a good ofits own then it would be wrong to harm it unless we have a good reason for doing so 3 There are no noniquestion begging reasons to assume that human interests always override the good ofX 4 Therefore Xs have moral standing X s are subjects to the same fundamenml principles ofjustice that govern human relationships 5 Liberal justice a balancing ofliberty and equality is the most defensible principle of social justice to guide humaninonhuman relationships Discussion Have the advocates of Biocentrism given any good reason to think that all living things have a good and that that good entitles them to our moral considerations
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'