Instructions: Carefully review Paul Taylor’s arguments for his “life-centered” approach to environmental ethics, which involves acknowledging that all living organisms have “inherent worth” and promoting the good of living organisms for their sake (you may wish to review my summary in addition to the article itself). Then, address the following in your post:
A critical part of Taylor’s argument is that there is no good reason not to extend Kant’s principle of “respect for persons” to other living organisms. Like us, they too have “goods” of their own and “inherent worth.” Because this is so, we ought to cultivate not just “respect for persons” but “respect for nature” as well. This will mean supplementing exclusively human-centered thinking with a willingness to “see” from the perspective of other organisms, which should inspire sympathy for them and their interests.
Questions:
What might be the practical benefits to society if a large sector of the population were to embrace Taylor’s notion of “respect for nature”? What kinds of policy changes would we be obliged to implement?
Do you agree that we should extend Kant’s principle of “respect” to nonhuman organisms as well? Do their lives, like ours, have “inherent value”? Do they possess an “inherent value” equal to ours?
What would be the consequences of adopting Taylor’s “respect for nature”? Does it, for instance, mean that we cannot kill spiders or roaches that enter our homes? Does it mean that we should not swat mosquitoes or flies or kill copperheads or water moccasins that encroach too far into our living space? Does it mean that we are obligated to extend the same advances in health care we enjoy to our pets – or to other ill or injured animals we might come across?