Taylor Flashcards
Deontological approach
respect for nature - life centered
All individual living things have inherent value
(177)
the good of a comunity is talked about as the average good of the individual members (179)
three main parts of Taylor’s ethic of respect for nature
- 4 part biocentric outlook belief system
- ultimate moral attitude of respect
- prima-facie rules of duty
2 basic ideas necessary for biocentric outlook (178-179)
- good of a living thing
- inherent worth
- these ideas are closely tied to the i mportant point 3 of the four-part biocentric outlook
Good of a living thing
- can be benefited or harmed
- the good is the full development of its biological powers (178)
- can act as a being’s interest without it taking an interest in its well being (179)
- is biological good defined in terms of surviving long enough to reproduce?
inherent worth
principle of moral consideration
- every individual living thing, as a member of earth, is worthy of some moral consideration (180)
- principle of intrinsic value
principle of intrinsic value
the realization of an organism’s good is intrinsically valuable (180)
- the good of the organism is prima-facie worthy of consideration
attitude of respect for nature
- ultimate moral commitment (180)
- three traits of respect attitude (181)
three traits of respect attitude (181)
- disposition towards organism’s good
- views actions that promote o’s good as obligatory
- feelings of care for conditions favorable to organisms
justifiability of the respect attitude
biocentic outlook is a belief system that cannot be proven
but it is a coherent philosophical world-view using scientific ideas (182)
4 part biocentric outlook
- humans are members of earth’s community of life
- the natural world as an organic system
- individual organisms as teleological centers of life. relates back to i nherent worth
- the denial of human superiority
humans as members of earth’s community of life
- humans are animal species
- all living things bound by genetic laws
- humans are very recent arrivals (184)
- human destruction might be good for the rest of nature
Natural World As Organic System
- Biosphere is a complex unified web of interconnections.
- Ecological equilibrium crucial to well-being of animals and plants.
- See the important passage—holism is not a moral norm (p. 185).
Teleological Centers of Life
- Deep understanding reveals “perspective” of other living things (186).
- Organisms have a biologically definable good..
Example: the botanist!
Taylor argues against 2 broad ways of asserting human superiority:
- comparative merit judgements
2. greater inherent worth of humans
comparative merit judgements
moral and non-moral
the denial of human superiority
merit judgements: humans are superior because they excel in some capacity (187)
- what is the problem with this approach
Humans have superior non-moral abilities that merit their superiority (187-188)
- humans have distinctively human capacities such as reason, artistic abilites, and autonomy/choice
- these capacities, when fully exercised, lead to the best kind of life possible (most superior life)
- almost all animals and plants completely lack these capacities
- therefore, humans are superior to, or better than, animals and plants
valuable characteristics
- cheetahs don’t need reason, but excel in speed. dogs have excellent olfactory abilities
- cactus plants can live for long periods of time without water
- some trees can live hundreds of years
Moral superiority? (188)
humans are morally superior to other living things because they have the capacity to be moral agents. they make moral choices, and make moral improvements
Taylor’s reply
- animals and plants cannot be morally deficient (immoral)
- can’t apply moral standards to beings who lack moral capacities (217(
- so, the moral superiority argument is based on a conceptual confusion
humans simply have greater inherent worth
- inherent worth different than merit (188)
- equality is key
equality within human ethics:
reject idea that social class makes one a more valuable human
3 traditions that defent greater inherent human worth
- greek tradition
- cartesian tradition
- chain of being
greed traditon
human reason (189)
- humans have rational capacities other animals lack
- assumes human life as valuable, does not prove it
cartesian tradition
souls (190)
- humans have immaterial souls lacking in other living things
- how do we know about such souls?
- why does being immaterial mean more valuable?
- human perspective
chain of being
closer to god (in his image) (190)
- how does one know these claims?
- if pure faith, then how could it be incumbent on those outside the traditon to believe it?
connections
attitude of respect comes from denial of human superiority (191)
Moral rights/competing claims
- Taylor does not want to say that all living things have rights. Why?
- How do you settle conflicts between humans and other living things?
Rules of conduct towards nature
- the Rule of Nonmaleficence
- the Rule of noninterference
- the Rule of Fidelity
the rule of nonmaleficence
do no harm
the rule of noninterference
hands off
the rule of fidelity
moral agents should not betray the “trust” placed in them
Priority principles
- principle of self-defense
- principle of proportionality
- principle of minimum wrong
- principle of distributive justice
- principle of restitutive justice
The Principle of Self-Defense
a person is morally permitted to harm others in order to defend his/her life. Only take measures necessary to remove the threat.
The Principle of Proportionality
Greater weight ought to be given to the basic interests of any organism than non-basic interests.
The Principle of Minimum Wrong
When humans seek their special values (such as art, knowledge, etc), they should strive to minimize the wrong done to other organisms.
The Principle of Distributive Justice
Competing basic interests should be satisfied fairly.
The Principle of Restitutive Justice
Humans have an obligation to restore imbalances that they created between their interests and the basic interests of organisms.
the key
the key issue is what constitutes a “basic” and “non-basic” interest
