SMU – PHIL 3379 – ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS – FALL 2023 – JEAN KAZEZ – eesmu.blogspot.com

Wednesday, September 6, 2023

MODULE 1: Extending moral standing to plants

 AGENDA

  1. Quiz on Monday Sept. 11--there is page about it here and we will discuss Friday.
  2. Plants, Paul Taylor



Now we go on to plants....are they members of the moral community?

Arborcide--Sydney, Australia--who is wronged by the destruction of the trees?
  • Paul Taylor--Biocentric Individualism--THE TREES (and others)
  • Peter Singer--not the trees, because they don't suffer and don't have interests!




RESPECT 

As a starting point respect for nature may be holistic but ultimately we should respect individual organisms, including BOTH animals and plants.





THE BASIS OF RESPECT
An individual plant/animal has "a good of its own." Read p. 199 A&B

This doesn't require sentience or interests.  Read p. 199-200 C

A thing with a good of its own has inherent worth, and therefore we owe it respect.  Read p. 201 E

He's talking about wild plants/animals, and not taking a stand on the rest.  Read p. 200 D

He's advocating "biocentric egalitarianism"--so every organisms deserves the same respect. A humble outlook--
  • the rest of nature would be better off without us
  • humans are not superior
How to "walk the talk"? Next time: the problem of competing claims.


WILD VS. CULTIVATED

Apple trees--wild (top) vs. cultivated (bottom)
How different from a sequoia?



Root stock + Grafting




SMU'S LIVE OAKS

  1. They are cultivated and maintained, not wild
  2. So Taylor's not taking a position on them
  3. But what do you think?
    • Do these trees have "a good of their own"? Do they have "inherent worth"? Are they worthy of respect?
    • If someone cut one down, would the tree be a victim?


WALKING THE TALK

What kinds of obligations?  

"...[W]e have prima facie moral obligations that are owed to wild plants and animals themselves as members of the Earth's biotic community.  We are morally bound (other things being equal) to protect or promote their good for their sake." (p. 198)
What does he mean by a "prima facie moral obligation"? At first glance. Not absolute. Could be outweighed by other obligations.
Major impact

"If we were to accept a life-centered theory of environmental ethics, a profound reordering of our moral universe would take place.  We would begin to look at the whole of the Earth's biosphere in a new light." (p. 198)


The problem of conflicts. 

"If we accept the biocentric outlook and accordingly adopt the attitude of respect for nature as our ultimate moral attitude, how do we resolve conflicts that arise form our respect for persons in the domain of human ethics and our respect for nature in the domain of environmental ethics"  This is a question that cannot be adequately dealt with here." (p. 218) 

NEXT TIME: how he solves this problem in his book Respect for Nature.