The Influence Of Biocentric Viewpoints On The Environment

The biocentric viewpoint is where all life has moral standing. There are many people like Paul Taylor or Albert Schweitzer that have their own theories about biocentrism as well. The biocentric viewpoint says that all life has moral standing, but is this the correct viewpoint to take in order to determine how people ought to act in relation to the environment? This is the correct view point in regards to the environment because this view give all life moral standing. Allowing an environment to be protected due to protecting the plants and animals living in the environment. However, I do believe that this is an excellent viewpoint to hold in regards to the environment, due to all life deserving a chance to live, without humans killing everything that it sees as a way to
better their lives.
Like the “reverence to life”, which is a fundamental emotional attitude of awe and wonder toward living things. The biocentric viewpoint is a great viewpoint to follow when dealing with the environment, with some arguments on how this can harm an environment, like the naturalistic fallacy to Paul Taylors view. I do believe that this is a great viewpoint to follow, by the reverence for life view, with an opposition to it being, doesn’t life exists through the taking of life? The biocentric viewpoint, looks at how all life has moral standing. This can include anything from grass, all the way to an ape. One argument that agrees with all life has moral standing, is Paul Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism viewpoint. The biocentric egalitarianism viewpoint looks at if a plant or animal has an objective good of its own, then the plant or animal has moral
standing. His viewpoint, mentions how in order to have an objective good of its own an entity must be a teleological center of life, meaning that they must be aiming towards a goal, like growth, development, and reproduction. This applies to all life, giving all life moral standing. One argument against Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism, would be that Taylor’s view commits the Naturalistic Fallacy. Meaning, the way the world is by itself does not say anything about what we ought to do. An example of this would be an invasive species invading an ecosystem. The invasive species is introduced to an environment by humans, but nature does not say what we ought to do about the invasive species. According to a plant or animal having an objective good of its own, you would protect an invasive species that are killing off all the native plants and animals, because it has an objective good of its own, but you ought to remove the invasive species, in order to protect the native plants and animals. However, people that follow, Paul Taylor’s view could argue that we are not the ones killing the native animals. So, we do not need to interfere with the invasive species, because they also have an objective good of their own, and it would be wrong to interfere with their lives. They are many people that believe that protecting all life in an environment can be very bad for not only the other life forms living in the particular environment, but the ecosystem made up of the life forms living together. Like mentioned before what if an invasive species, has the potential to harm an ecosystem, that contains many native plants and animal species, shouldn’t we protect those animals? Shouldn’t we protect the ecosystem that pieces all other life together, if threatened by something that shouldn’t be there? The ecocentric viewpoint is where ecosystems that contains life forms working together, has moral standing. They believe that the wellbeing of an ecosystem is important in regards to protecting an environment because everything is connected to one another, which can include plants and animals having moral standing as well. Meaning if one plant or animal is affected, then one or more other plants or animals in an ecosystem could be affected as well. However, the biocentric viewpoint could look at a utilitarian standpoint, and argue how we shouldn’t harm the invasive species because they can feel pleasure or pain. Shouldn’t we protect all life for pain? Someone that looks at most ecocentric viewpoints would then argue that we should interfere with the invasive species. They would argue that we should interfere, because what about the other plants and animals living in the ecosystem. Shouldn’t we bring the greatest overall amount of happiness to a community if the pleasure is fair greater than the pain you are causing to the invasive species. An argument of how the biocentric viewpoint would not necessarily be the best idea for the protection of the environment, would be the ecocentric viewpoint because this viewpoint looks at the wellbeing of entire ecosystem, which includes everything including plants and animals, and not just individuals. I believe that this is a great viewpoint to follow, in regards to protecting that environment. I like Albert Schweitzer view of biocentric ethics. Schweitzer came up with the view Reverence for life, which is a fundamental emotional attitude of awe and wonder toward living things. With the basic moral principle for the view being, it is good to maintain and encourage life, it is bad to destroy or obstruct it. An objection to this view, however, would be asking the question, doesn’t nature exists through the taking of life? Meaning that for life to live, certain plants or animals must either die or kill for life to continue. Another question that would go against this view would be, what if an animal threatens my life? Meaning that, shouldn’t you protect self even if you are violating the moral rights of another life form. Then someone could argue that, even though we must kill to live, we don’t need to kill excessively. Instead, they could argue that humans have a choice to live lightly in the world. Meaning that we live as low on the food chain as possible or take life only when necessary. I believe that the biocentric viewpoint is a great way to protect the environment if, people followed the reverence for life view, by living by the bare minimum to survive. With all life being valuable in some way. Someone could ask, if the biocentric viewpoint is the correct viewpoint to take in order to determine how we ought to act in relation to the environment. Paul Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism view looks at how all life has an objective good of its own, giving all life moral standing. An argument to this, however, would be how this protects all life including invasive species, which can cause major problems to all life living in a certain ecosystem. The opposition to this would be from a utilitarian standpoint, saying we should not harm animals because they can feel pain. I also believe that this could be a great view to follow, if people looked at Shweitzer’s reverence for life view, which states that people to live by the bare minimum requirements to survive. The biocentric viewpoint is a great view to protecting the environment.