Goodpaster argues for biocentrism, the view that all life is deserving of direct moral consideration, on the grounds that everything is so deserving that has interests. For a more recent and very sophisticated defense of this view, see Nicholas Agar's book Life's Intrinsic Value(Columbia University Press, 2001). On this view, drawing the line at sentience (or at subjects of lives, as Regan does) seems arbitrary.
There are, of course, some difficulties. One, which we have discussed, is that rocks and molecules can also sensibly said to have interests (in maintaining their structural integrity) in precisely the same, unconscious sense that plants and microbes do, though to a less active degree (and crystals even grow...). Thus the line between what is living and non-living might fall to the same sort of criticism as the biocentrists level at the line between sentience and vegetation.
A second problem is how we might go about fulfilling our duties to microbes, since if they have even a tiny bit of direct moral considerability, eating, moving, and breathing would amount to mass murder. A moral theory which demands that all moral agents cease to exist as soon as they realize that all life is valuable seems to ask far too much.
Thirdly, biocentrism does not, after all, resolve the question of the nature and origin of our moral responsibilities for the ecosystem as such. Some further line of reasoning will still be required to make that out, as with the previous theories we have discussed.
Plato's Dialogues
my most recent book
Bridges to Autonomy; Paradoxes in Teaching and Learning, by Matt Silliman and David Kenneth Johnson (click on book for more information)
11 comments:
Biocentrism: Give peas a chance!
in Jainism, they believe that karma is a sticky substance that is attached to every action, both positive and negative. some such eccentric consequentialists that they carry brooms with them to make sure they don't step on any insects and wear face masks to keep insects from flying into their mouth. i trust their intentions, but i see it as a futile endeavor. the Naskape native American tribe does a satisfying job of determining the importance of their actions. they believe that when they have a successful hunt, that they are being rewarded for their respect and treatment of what they catch. they waste nothing and think the animal allows itself to be captured and killed for food by the Naskape because it will be respected and utilized. this is close to the example of the idea i had in class of "okam's utilitarianism" though slightly less esoteric. if you kill more than you can eat, share, hunt in groups in case you kill more than you can carry. the intelligence of a hunter should be gauged by the lack of waste he produces, not by the ability to eliminate the breeding stock.
life (sapience/sentience/ etc) is only, but cannot be judged by the current time and place of the object. i used the example in class of the rock that breaks down into soil and those nutrients feed a plant, which feeds an animal which then feeds us. i would not say that the rock is alive, but nothing has ever existed independent of the work of God (Nature/ the Source/ etc)... but because in the micro-scope knowledge/ awareness is limited, we may be ignorant to the relativity and magnitude of consequences, i apply the felicific calculus to determine the scope since the on a macro-scope level, nothing we do could read on that scale... unless each and every system is a scope relative to the universe, in which case the most minute instance can be translated to reflect the current state of the universe in it's entirety.
"...and think the animal allows itself to be captured and killed for food by the Naskape because it will be respected and utilized."
How lucky they are to have found such cooperative victims, willing to sacrifice their lives to fill the stomachs of some other species!
i don't understand how difficulties with fulfilling duties to microbes would render them invaluable.
In ethics ought implies can, so we can't have a duty to do something impossible. Supposing we had obligations to individual bacteria, it is very difficult to see how we could possibly fulfill them, or live our lives at all (even in the gentlest way imaginable) without violating bacterial rights -- e.g. murdering them by breathing, eating, or moving. Some have argued that the degree of moral considerability of each individual bacterium would be very small, but I wonder how we could be said to give any consideration at all something that we destroy.
Although biocentrism is an ideal way of life, it still encounters many problems. We kill countless microbes every time we breathe, walk, sit down, etc. Is one supposed to stop breathing in order to save the microbes? Everything we do directly or indirectly effects (and potentially kills) some type of life on this planet. Although biocentrism is at least recognized as an adequate way to go about ones life, it is almost impossible to adhere to.
I would say living one's life as a principled biocentrist is flatly impossible, and in no way a useful or beautiful ideal, even as an inspiring though unattainable goal.
Dear Anonymous,
I'm glad you are finding the site of interest. As you may have gathered, it is at this point primarily a discussion mechanism for our course in environmental ethics, but anyone may contribute thoughtfully who likes.
I agree with Professor Silliman that biocentrism is absolutely impossible. Our moral responsibilities to the ecosystem as a whole cannot rely on this method of discovering what is morally relevant. As it has been mentioned before, breathing, walking, eating, etc. would violate the ideals of biocentrism, and not doing so would violate our very existence.
I think our best bet of resolving the question of where our moral responsibilities lies in ecocentrism. The Earth is an ecosystem of itself, everything is interconnected to something else. Regan's criticism of Leopold view as "environmental fascism" is a little extreme, in my opinion. Is there a way to balance the importance of the biotic community as well as the individual? I think it is the individuals that make the biotic community, and the biotic community that makes us. Wouldn't it be easier to see it in this light?
Humans are, seemingly by nature, selfish, we do anything in our power to keep ourselves at the top. But what if we were to somehow realize that our moral responsibilities to the ecosystem rely on us just as much as we rely on it?
It is true that we are killing countless amounts of microbe and tiny organismic life, which is something that comes with the natural order of life. If we are going to go ahead and count everything as valuable, than that would ultimately bring no significant value to anything in paticular.This is where biocentrism runs into some issues.
greenleaf particulars unichem sparkle willie withthe gendered inaccessible cultural foreseeable collar
semelokertes marchimundui
Post a Comment