“Species egalitarianism is the view that all species have equal moral standing. To have moral standing is, at a minimum, to command respect” (Schmidtz, p. 1). All living things have morally relevant interests and by saying so also holds meaning that all living things deserve respect. On one hand we have anthropocentrism that gives exclusive consideration to the interests of humans that of which are placed above the good of other species. It is on a completely different hand that we describe biocentrism, “the belief that humans are not inherently superior to other living beings” (Schmidtz, p. 1). With a biocentric view also comes the belief that all species (including humans) are integral elemental in a system of interdependence. In other words, all organisms are pursuing their own good in their own way that join together to create life as a whole.
Paul Taylor, a species egalitarian, holds a unique view in saying that “a being has intrinsic worth if and only if it has a good of its own” (Schmidtz, p. 3). In response to Taylor, James Anderson, another egalitarian, argues that if we were to accept this way of thinking, then we are giving ourselves the license to notice differences among various species and what entails their “good of its own.” Just by granting ourselves the judge of the “good of its own,” marks us superior bringing us to the golden question of what would make any species superior to another? “According to the principle of moral consideration, wild living things are deserving of the concern and consideration of all moral agents simply in virtue of their being members of the Earth’s community of life. But the principle of moral consideration prescribes that, with respect to each being an entity having its own good, every individual is deserving of consideration. To say that it possesses inherent worth is to say that it's good is deserving of the concern and consideration of all moral agents” (Schmidtz, p. 5).
Now it is a common view of anthropocentrism to hold the belief that if one accepts our form of life as not being super then we are settling to regard it is inferior. However the best point one can make when defending a biocentric view is the fact that we do not have to compare the value of our lives at all- our forms of life are incomparable. Take for example that you find yourself in a situation of life or death with an enemy soldier, “If I kill my enemy to save my life, that does not entail that I regard my enemy as inherently inferior (i.e., as an inferior form of life). Likewise, if I kill a bear to save my life, that does not entail that I regard the bear as inherently inferior” (Schmidtz, p. 2). Species egalitarianism simply asks of us to avoid mortal combat whenever we can, and not solely with other humans but all living things. If we are to say that entities have a good of their own, we are to say that these entities can also be benefited or harmed. Therefore moral agents can internally further or damage by their actions, the good of each organism, species population, and community of life.
We can act in a being’s interest or contrary to its interest without its being interested in what we are doing to it in the sense of wanting or not wanting us to do it. It may, indeed, be wholly unaware that favorable and unfavorable events are taking place in its life. I take it that trees, for example, have no knowledge or desires or feelings. Yet it is undoubtedly the case that trees can be harmed or benefited by our actions. We can crush their roots by running a bulldozer too close to them. We can see to it that they get adequate nourishment and moisture by fertilizing and watering the soil around them. Thus we can help or hinder them in the realization of their good (Schmidtz, p. 3).
This is a prime example of how us as humans can use our cognitive abilities in order to help other species that we might not categorize as having consciousness, but having a good of its own. Trees are ultimately life. They are the one thing we need to survive. Our bodies can survive three weeks without food and three days without water. How long can we survive without air? Just three minutes. Therefore it is in our own best interest to take into account the best interest of trees. To hold the same respect for them as we do ourselves and other humans. Gas stations, banks, and business buildings cannot provide us with the bare necessities we need in order to survive yet we treat most of our man made creations as if they were gold. How ironic that we hold gold at a higher standing than trees. The saying “more precious than gold” should be replaced with “more precious than trees,” but then again nothing could possibly be more precious than the life that the oxygen of trees provide us.
The respect we hold for nature “has a central place in the foundations of a life centered system of environmental ethics” (Schmidtz, p. 1). By adopting an attitude of respect for nature as an ultimate moral attitude, then maybe finally the good of all individual organisms will be considered as entities holding inherent worth, positively effecting the moral relationship we have with the Earth’s wild communities of life. This “balance of nature” (Schmidtz, p. 2) is not currently the norm but if it were to be implemented, our general outlook on the natural world can drastically change for the better. Our duty to protect species other than human, is based solely on the inherent worth of themselves and is independent of its benefit toward humans. “Our duties to respect the integrity of natural ecosystems, to preserve endangered species, and to avoid environmental pollution stem from the fact that these are ways in which we can help make it possible for wild species populations to achieve and maintain a healthy existence in a natural state” (Schmidtz, p. 2).
Us as humans are morally bound, other things being equal as well, to protect and promote all individual being’s good for their sake. If we have an outlook on nature that holds that all things have a good (well-being/welfare) and or contribute to a greater factor, then all things deserve respect and hold inherent worth. We can no longer take the human point of view and look at our actions as exclusive from the perceptive of our own good, but rather acknowledge that we are a small part admits a whole. We need to accept a life that is centered around the morality of environmental ethics, “we would begin to look at the whole of the Earth’s biosphere in a new light” (Schmidtz, p. 2).
Citations
Schmidtz, David. “22. Are All Species Equal?” Journal of Applied Philosophy, vol. 15, no. 1, 1998.
Taylor, Paul W. “The Attitude Of Respect For Nature.” Respect for Nature, vol. 3, pp. 197–218., doi:10.2307/j.ctt7sk1j.6.