NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy 69-81

CONTEXTUALISING PAUL WARREN TAYLOR’S BIOCENTRIC EGALITARIANISM AS A VIABLE REMEDY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRISES

DAMIAN TERSOO ANYAM, PhD & GODWIN AGENA Department of Philosophy Department of Philosophy, Benue State University, Makurdi Benue State University, Makurdi [email protected] [email protected]

Abstract The paper examined biocentric egalitarianism as construed by Paul Warren Taylor. The paper adopted a qualitative research design. Data were sourced from books, journals, periodicals and the internet. The expository, analytical and evaluative methods were used. The expository method excavated the thoughts of Taylor. The analytical method presented the thoughts of Taylor on biocentric egalitarianism in detail, while the evaluative method assessed his thoughts vis-à- vis current environmental crises. The work found out that environmental has played an important part in challenging the historically dominant and deep- rooted (-centeredness) of conventional ethics, but the ethics of biocentrism (life-centredness), with particular reference to Paul Taylor, in his 1986 book, titled, Respect for : A Theory of , argues that all living things have inherent worth and should be respected as such. For Taylor, to recognise this inherent worth in all living things and give them due consideration is to have “respect for nature” (which covers all life forms). The implication is that there is a need for a proper attitudinal change to nature, making of laws, and effectual environmental policies that are pragmatic in quelling environmental crises. The work, therefore, concluded that Taylor's biocentric egalitarianism is worthy of attention, with the target of resolving environmental issues and also articulating new environmental concerns and considerations. Keywords: Biocentrism, Egalitarianism, Environmental Crises, Reverence

Introduction From time immemorial, there have been various concerns about environmental challenges. Recently, there seem to be intensified concerns from varying individuals, groups and organisations, ranging from policymakers, environmental professionals, foresters, conservation biologists, ecologists, philosophers, economists, sociologists, historians, developers, business persons, citizens, etc., all with an ethical concern about human uses of and relations to the natural 70 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

environment. In addition to the above, theories have been propounded which present apt responses and remediations towards the preservation of the environment for posterity. Consequently, this paper focuses on biocentric- egalitarianism as adequately captured by Paul Taylor. The paper clarifies the key concepts and contextualizes Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism as a viable remedy for environmental crises, evaluates the theory and carefully proposes recommendations and draws a conclusion. Clarification of Concepts For a clearer understanding of the study, the following concepts shall be explained: Environmental Ethics, Biocentrism and Biocentric Egalitarianism. Environmental Ethics is a field in applied ethics that asks fundamental questions about and the environment. It examines the moral basis of environmental responsibility. Environmental ethics is a diversified discourse, with different competing ideas and perspectives. It is concerned with “the moral relations that hold between humans and the natural world. The ethical principles governing those relations determine our duties, obligations, and responsibilities with regard to the ’s natural environment and all animals and plants that inhabit it.”1 Generally, discourse on environmental ethics can be categorized into five schools of thought: anthropocentrism, /rights theory, biocentrism, (which includes the , deep and the theory of nature’s value) and eco-feminism. Furthermore, environmental issues span from climate change (global warming), the depletion of stratospheric ozone (the ozone hole), the acidification of surface waters (acid rain), the destruction of tropical forests, the depletion and extinction of species, the precipitous decline of , to population growth, increased emissions, among many others. Biocentrism: Etymologically, the term “biocentrism” is traceable to two Greek words, βίος (pronounced ‘bio’, meaning ‘life’) and κέντρον, (pronounced ‘kentron’, meaning ‘centre’). Put together, both terms form the English ‘biocentrism’ which connotes a ‘life-centred’ environmentalism.2 Biocentrism, in the light of the above, amounts to moral extensionism; that is, an extension of moral worth from humans to non-human animals and plants. Biocentrism maintains that all life forms are ‘moral patients’ – entities to which should be

1 Paul Taylor. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 256-310 2 Yu Mouchang and Yi Lei. “Biocentric Ethical Theories”. In Environment and Development Journal. Vol. II. (Np: np, 2009), 423 71 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

accorded moral consideration. Human beings, therefore, have a duty towards all forms of life. As wrote: The essence of goodness is to maintain and cherish life, and the essence of evil is to destroy and damage life. All living beings have the will to live, and all living beings with the will to live are sacred, interrelated and of equal value. It is, therefore, an ethical imperative for us to respect and help all life forms.3

Biocentric ethics, as environmental ethics, considers that all living things have their own "good" and, therefore, proposes expanding the status of the moral object to non-human living things. It includes Schweitzer’s ethic of “Reverence for Life”, Singer’s ethics of “Animal Liberation” and Taylor’s ethics of “Bioegalitarianism”. Its main points are: (1) All living things have an instinct to resist the process of increasing entropy, for keeping their own organization, maintaining their own survival and the wholeness of life. (2) Maintaining their own survival is a central aim for all living things, that is an intrinsic value and “good”, and (3) Although different living things have their own ways of organisation and survival (different ways of self-organisation and maintaining survival with different ), their values are intrinsically the same, and, therefore, they should have equal rights in , which means they should be given moral acknowledgement, concern and protection. Biocentric Egalitarianism: Biocentric egalitarianism is simply a theory which states that “all living things have equal and inherent worth.”4 The concept of biocentric egalitarianism is discussed herein to illustrate Paul Warren Taylor’s non-anthropocentric ethics, which has given more substance and credibility to environmental ethics. It is noted that Taylor's conception of an ethics that is life- centred rather than human-centred had been largely influenced by various circumstances and notable scholars. An examination of his theory shows such links to other philosophers who may have influenced his biocentric thought; key among whom is Immanuel Kant (via the principle of respect for persons). Also easily traced are the thoughts of Arne Naess (deep and shallow ecology), Kenneth Goodpaster (moral considerability), Albert Schweitzer (reverence for life), ( and equality) and ( or non-violence).

3 Albert Schweitzer. Civilization and Ethics, trans. John Naish (London: A. & C. Black, 1923), 65 4 Paul Taylor. Biocentric Environmental Ethics: What is it? wordpress.com/2012/12/18/biocentric-environmental-ethics-what is it 72 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

Justin Oakley acknowledges such influence and states that Taylor is “a renowned Kantian scholar.”5 Biocentric Egalitarianism, widely known as the ethics of “respect for nature”, is a complicated but compelling thought on the environment which was first announced in Paul Warren Taylor’s article, titled “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, published in 19816 and well-grounded in his 1986 book, titled Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Taylor’s biocentrism synthesizes Classical and Kantian virtue ethics, with elements of Albert Schweitzer’s ethics of reverence for life, Peter Singer’s egalitarianism and Kenneth Goodpaster’s account of moral considerability. He begins with the view that all living things have inherent value, and so are deserving of moral respect, equally. For Taylor, all that is required to have inherent value is to be alive – essentially. He grounds his view on the idea of Respect for Nature, which is an extension of the Kantian principle of respect for persons. In other words, Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism is an outright rejection of anthropocentrism (which centres strictly on man) in order that moral relevance is extended to all life forms. Taylor, therefore, establishes his biocentric egalitarianism on two basic foundations: (a) All living things have a good of their own - that is, all living things can be benefited or harmed (b) All living things have inherent worth - This implies respect for nature which requires that we accept all living things as possessing inherent worth. Taylor concedes that "we cannot see the point of taking the attitude of respect" until we understand and accept the biocentric outlook. However, he insists, "… once we do grasp it and shape our world outlook in accordance with it, we immediately understand how and why a person should adopt that attitude [of respect] as the only appropriate one to have toward nature."7 The next section discusses how Paul Warren Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism can be employed as a viable remedy for environmental crises.

Contextualizing Taylor’s Biocentric Egalitarianism as a Viable Remedy for Environmental Crises While ethics’ traditional concern has been with the duties among human beings, the emergence of environmental ethics has extended the scope of ethical inquiry beyond the level of human interaction, community and nation to include non- human species and, in fact, the whole of nature. Fundamentally, environmental

5 Justin Oakley. “Applied Ethics”. In Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. X. Canfield, John V. (Ed.). (London: Routledge, 2005), 257. 6 Paul Taylor. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”. In Environmental Ethics. 3(3), (np: np, 1981), 197-218 7 Ibid. 1981, 99. 73 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

ethics has played an important part in challenging the historically dominant and deep-rooted anthropocentrism (human-centredness) of conventional ethics. In other words, whereby the material condition for anthropocentric ethics is respect for persons, environmental ethics has begun to emphasize respect for nature. An early proponent of this notion is Paul Taylor, the American Philosopher, an advocate of a new environmental ethics. In his famous book, titled Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, he differentiates two types of natural : those that have never been exploited by humans (free of human intervention) and those influenced by human labour. He argues that human beings are obliged to work out an appropriate environmental ethics, which is independent of the ethics obligating within the individual and social life of human beings. Taylor then points to the difference between a human-centred theory of environmental ethics (anthropocentric) and life-centred (biocentric) ethics, of which he is an advocate. Analyzing human-centred and life-centred theories, Taylor presents two concepts closely connected with them: of a moral agent and a moral subject. He writes: “A moral agent, for both types of ethics, is any being that possesses those capacities by virtue of which it can act morally or immorally, can have duties and responsibilities, and can be held accountable for what he does.”8 Defining moral subjects, he writes: “Moral subjects must be entities that can be harmed or benefited”.9 He then distinguishes between material and formal conditions which require both in traditional human ethics and environmental biocentric ethics. To further construe the above assertion, biocentrism considers all living beings to have moral value and humans to be one among innumerable species of organisms that live on the earth. In , however, it refers to the life-centric nature-view. It means that all living beings on the earth, including humans, have moral value. It recommends the well-being of all life in the . But it may be noted here that biocentrism also refers to the scientific position that life and consciousness form the basis of observable reality and, thereby, is the basis of the universe itself. Taylor further states that: i. Humans are members of a community of life, along with all other species, and on equal terms. ii. This community consists of a system of interdependence between all members, both physically and in terms of relationships with other species.

8 Paul Taylor. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 257 9 Ibid 1986, 257 74 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

iii. Every is a “teleological centre of life;” that is, each organism has a purpose and a reason for being, which is inherently “good” or “valuable”. iv. Humans are not inherently superior to other species.10

It should also be noted here that biocentrism transcends anthropocentrism. While anthropocentrism argues in favour of a world-view centring solely on humans and recognizes value only in human beings, biocentrism regards every living being in nature as having intrinsic value and thus goes beyond speciesist anthropocentricity. This view asserts that we have an obligation to the whole biotic community. The central claim of biocentrism is that our moral obligation extends beyond humans to include all living beings. This obligation is direct, not merely indirect obligation to the living beings via humans. We are morally obliged, for example, to preserve endangered species, not only because present and future humans would find a life of diminished value, but also because they are living beings with intrinsic/inherent value, the fact that demands our moral respect. In Taylor’s postulation then, biocentrism refers to all environmental ethics that extend the status of the moral object from human beings to all other living things in nature. In a narrow sense, it emphasizes the value and rights of organic individuals, believing that moral priority should be given to the survival of individual living beings. Thus, it is a kind of ethics of . The environmental ethics advocating holism, such as "land ethics," is often known as eco-centrism, which holds species and ecosystems to be more important, so that moral priority is given to them. Stressing further on egalitarianism, in his essay entitled “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, published in 1981, Taylor notes that “first, the good (well- being, welfare) of a living thing, and the second, the idea of an entity possessing inherent worth.”11 The argument, for Taylor, is that all living things possess inherent worth and should be respected as such. To recognize the inherent worth of living things and to give them their due consideration in this light is “respect for nature.”12 In particular, Taylor's principle of respect for nature has resonated through the approaches to environmental ethics that are generally grouped under the title "biocentric egalitarianism". For this reason, he elaborates a belief-system and normative principles to foster the adoption of the moral attitude of respect for nature. His proposal of environmental ethics is life-centred rather than human-

10 Ibid 1986, 99 11 Paul Taylor. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”. In Environmental Ethics. 3(3). (1981), 199. 12 Ibid 1981, 40 75 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

centred or sentience-centred because every living being has a good of its own which finds expression in its struggles for existence. The biocentric theories are anti-anthropocentric: man has moral duties toward nature; it cannot be “used” as a means to achieve our ends because it has an inherent value, not merely instrumental. If in the anthropocentric view, man, as a rational animal, is the source of value and, for this reason, he considers himself as superior to other living beings, in biocentrism, instead, man discovers himself as member of the Earth’s Community of Life. Paul Taylor establishes a structural symmetry between human ethics and environmental ethics. Human ethics has three components13: 1. a belief system in which others are conceived of as persons like oneself; 2. the attitude of respect for persons; 3. a system or rules and standards that embody the attitude of respect for persons.

The symmetry between human ethics and environmental ethics requires that the latter have three components: 1. The belief system Taylor calls "the biocentric outlook on nature", in which one identifies oneself as a member of the biotic community, perceives each organism as "a teleological (goal-oriented) centre of life" and rejects the idea of human superiority; 2. The attitude of respect for nature, which requires that one “judges the good of each member of a non-human species to be worthy of being preserved and protected”; 3. A system of rules and standards that are morally binding on all moral agents. Of particular importance are rules that determine conditions under which the interests of one organism override the interests of another organism under conditions of conflicting interests.14

The ethics of respect for nature attempts to defend all individual living beings. Though independent of human ethics, it juxtaposes the more traditional human ethics as its needful extension, a sort of appendage aiming to match and conciliate the problematic and conflicting relationships between the civilized man and nature. In other words, an innovative ethical reflection that does not restrict environmental ethics to an ethics applied to the environment. On the contrary, it considers its principles sufficiently expansive to guide moral agents' judgments in their relations as with humans and as with all other entities of nature.

13 Ibid 1981, 41-42 14 Ibid 1981, 44-47 76 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism follows Kantian deontological tradition. Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism argues why humans should have more respect for nature and why we should take a less anthropocentric view of environmental ethics. To have respect for nature means an attitude we believe that all moral agents (humans) ought to have simply as moral agents. What this means is that, as humans, we are the ones who have moral values, and because of this, we have the responsibility to show respect towards other living things that are non- human, even if we do not have affectionate feelings for those other creatures. As moral agents who have a binding responsibility to show respect for nature, Taylor emphasises that we commit to living by certain normative principles that constitute the rules of conduct and standards of character that are to govern our treatment of the natural world. This means that respect for nature influences how we interact and treat nature, and how we make rules about how to do so. Evaluation Some biocentrists (Goodpaster 15 and Varner 16 ) take issue with Taylor’s egalitarianism. They agree that all living organisms deserve moral consideration, but deny that being morally considerable entails having equal moral significance. These critics reject Taylor’s egalitarianism in favour of a hierarchical account of moral significance. Other critics object to Taylor’s stated view that “it is the good (well-being, welfare) of individual organisms . . . that determines our moral relations with the earth’s wild communities of life.”17 Taylor’s focus on individual welfare fails to address the actual concerns of environmentalists. Most environmentalists are not concerned with the welfare of individual mosquitoes, dandelions and microbes; rather, they are concerned with species preservation, ecological integrity, and pollution. These critics insist that holistic ethics are better able to address these environmental concerns. The idea of extending equal moral consideration to every living organism, including every insect and plant, strikes most people as not only too demanding but outright absurd. How can people live their lives, if they must give plants and insects the same moral consideration as humans? Taylor tries to mitigate this objection by formulating a complex set of principles which include: ((i) Self-

15 Kenneth Goodpaster. “On Being Morally Considerable”. Journal of Philosophy 78(6): (Np: np, 1978), 308-325 16 . “Biocentric Individualism”. In Environmental Ethics: What Really Matters, What Really Works. Eds. David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott. (Oxford: Oxford University Press., 2002), 108- 120 17 Paul Taylor. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 198 77 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

defense (ii) Proportionality (c) Minimum wrong (harm) (iv) Distributive justice and (v) Restitutive justice).18 i. Self-defence: This principle of self-defence allows moral agents to protect themselves against harmful or dangerous organisms (even to the point of killing them). The implication is that where the rights and/ or the life of a certain organism is under harm, such (living being) has the right to standing up in defence of self at whatever cost. ii. Proportionality: Proportionality in the ethics of Taylor prioritizes basic over non-basic interests, regardless of the species. Hence, the aim is to live in harmony with all non-humans (life forms), decisions taken must reflect all interests. Just as humans have interests that are pivotal or basic to them, so do non-humans have interests that are crucial to them too. The non-basic interest of man could be, in like terms, a basic interest to a non-human organism. What this entails is that needs of all life forms are proportional to another, notwithstanding the kind of organism in question. Therefore, our treatment of nature should largely be considerate of all life forms. iii. Minimum wrong (harm): Taylor attempts to consider the superiority of intelligibility of some life forms, (specifically humans’) ability to dominate nature when threatened and thus, shows some lenience to the interests of humans and allows that when important human interests are at stake, and when they have adopted an attitude of respect for nature, they are unwilling to set aside those interests even when their pursuit will lead to animals and plants suffering harm. Nevertheless, they can go ahead to pursue those interests, but on the condition that they do so in a manner that involves fewer wrongs (minimum harm) or violations of duties than would result from any alternative method of furthering those interests. iv. Distributive justice: The principle requires an equal share of to be allotted to all individuals (whether human, non-human animal or plant) when their basic interests require access to them. This is where again we would largely see the pragmatics of Paul Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism. As long as an organism is living and there are resources

18 Paul Taylor. Biocentric Environmental Ethics: What is it? wordpress.com/2012/12/18/biocentric-environmental-ethics-what is it 78 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

available that should reach them, they must be equally allotted such resources for the sake of “genuine fairness.”19 v. Restitutive Justice: The principle of restitutive justice requires compensation proportional to any harm perpetrated following any form of (minimum) harm caused any other organism in pursuit of interests.

However, even with these principles in place, Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism remains extremely demanding, since the principle of proportionality dictates that the basic interests of plants trump the non-basic interests of humans. Whether these objections to Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism prove insuperable remains to be seen. Regardless whether his ethics prevails in the end or ultimately forces us to look elsewhere for an adequate environmental ethics, Taylor’s biocentric outlook helps those who accept it to have a greater appreciation and respect for nature. He contends that one who adopts the ultimate moral attitude of respect for nature will become an environmentally virtuous person, by virtue of having adopted that attitude. He identifies environmentally appropriate ethical conduct with the kind of conduct that an environmentally virtuous person—one motivated by respect for nature—would manifest. Such environmentally virtuous conduct would promote the flourishing of all living organisms. Conclusion In conclusion, it is evident that Paul Warren Taylor had perceived anthropocentrism as an injustice and total neglect of other forms of life and thus set out to initiate a biocentric egalitarian community so that all life forms are given due concern and moral consideration. His work, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, becomes very much relevant in a time when there is little or no value attached to other forms of living beings so that the end product becomes incessant destruction of moral objects (other forms of lives) by moral subjects (man). The environment is not for man alone, and, as construed in this work, the continued projection of man-centred philosophy (anthropocentrism) is glaringly detrimental to life in general. There is, therefore, the need to focus more on life in general, so that it includes other forms of life so that posterity does not adjudge man unjust. To this end, Taylor's biocentric egalitarianism remains fundamental in the evolving concern for the environment and life in general.

19 Stanley Shostak. “Review of Paul Taylor's Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (25 Anniversary Edition)”. PDF. 79 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

Recommendations Having discussed Paul Warren Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism as established in his Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, the paper sees his theory as pragmatic enough in quelling environmental crises and thus recommends that all living organisms deserve protection. At least, in principle, all living beings are equal (they all have a life with inherent worth). And with man being the higher organism as a moral agent, he is thus duty-bound to protect other organisms too. Taylor himself noted that: There is no reason, moreover, why plants and animals, including whole species populations and life communities, cannot be accorded legal rights under my theory. To grant them legal protection could be interpreted as giving them legal entitlement to be protected, and this, in fact, would be a means by which a society that subscribed to the ethics of respect for nature could give public recognition to their inherent worth20

There is, therefore, the need for policymakers, environmentalists, foresters and like minds to formulate a set of rules that protect all life forms, a system of rules and standards that are morally binding on all moral agents, so that even organisms going into extinction because of the anthropocentric tendencies of man will be preserved for posterity. Of particular importance are rules that determine conditions under which the interests of one organism override the interests of another organism under conditions of conflicting interests. Also, Paul Warren Taylor, in his five-point principles in defence of his egalitarian biocentrism, emphatically talks about compensation where harm is caused by other organisms. This is another instance where his theory proves pragmatic in enforcing environmental justice. Often than not, trans-national companies who explore natural resources tend to be grossly anthropocentric, thereby destroying the habitats that have been home to both human and non-human life forms for thousands of years. Again, some exploration companies are ethnocentric and show disregard for the welfare of the local community. The result is usually a state of environmental injustice by which the host community bears the heavier burden of the exploration (particularly the harmful effects, such as in the case of the Niger-Delta), while the exploration companies bear the (economic) benefits. But justice demands that the burdens and benefits be shared equitably; so when this is not the case, a moral paradigm is needed to

20 Paul Taylor. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 218. 80 Anyam & Agena Vol. 5 No. 1

conscientise the offending party. This is where Taylor’s biocentric egalitarianism again proves handy and commendable. The fourth thesis which rejects superiority of human beings (distributive justice) can be extended to cover two relationships: that between man and nature, and that between a transnational company and a host community on whose grounds exploration is taking place. When this is applied as a principle, corporate policies, strategies and techniques, as noted above, will be put in place to prevent wanton and unwarranted destruction of the host community’s habitats. Also, the duty to pay adequate reparations when gross harm is caused becomes easier to comprehend and practice. Above all, in the , there is naturally a symbiotic relationship among organisms, although the parasitic relationship among organisms exists too. However, there is a need to recognise the existence of one organism for the beneficial need of the other and vice versa. In view of this, there is a need for the admittance of this mutually enriching relationship, so that all life forms are better respected and preserved.

81 NAJOP: Nasara Journal of Philosophy

Bibliography Goodpaster, Kenneth. “On Being Morally Considerable”. Journal of Philosophy 78(6): np: np, 1978. Mouchang, Yu and Yi Lei. “Biocentric Ethical Theories”. In Environment and Development Journal. Vol. II. Np: np, 2009. Naess, Arne. "The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement: A Summary". in Inquiry. Vol. 16, 1973. Oakley, Justin. “Applied Ethics”. In Routledge History of Philosophy. Vol. X. Canfield, John V. (Ed.). London: Routledge, 2005. Schweitzer, Albert. Civilization and Ethics, trans. John Naish. London: A. & C. Black, 1923. Shostak, Stanley. “Review of Paul Taylor's Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (25 Anniversary Edition)”, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/10848770.2013.816151 Taylor, Paul. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986 ______. “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”. In Environmental Ethics. 3(3), np: np, 1981. ______. Biocentric Environmental Ethics: What is it? wordpress.com/2012/12/18/biocentric-environmental-ethics-what is it Varner, Gary. “Biocentric Individualism”. In Environmental Ethics: What Really Matters, What Really Works. Eds. David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.