Moral Biocentrism

 

I.                    Introduction.  Kenneth Goodpastier and Paul Taylor are moral biocentrists who wish to expand the moral community to include all living things; as Goodpastier puts it, “nothing short of the condition of being alive seems to me to be a plausible and nonarbitrary condition” (106).  Moral biocentrism can be expressed as follows:

For all A and X, X deserves moral consideration from A if and only if X is a living thing.

II.                 Arguments for Moral Biocentrism.

A.                 Taylor’s Interests Argument.  This argument attempts to extend Singer’s argument that animals have moral standing to all living things.  The idea, as will be recalled, was that beings have moral standing because they are vulnerable to harm – that is, because they have interests that can be harmed.  According to the interests argument, all living things are vulnerable because they have interests that can be harmed.  Thus, the argument from interests can be expressed as follows:

1.                  X has moral standing if and only if X is vulnerable.

2.                  X is vulnerable if and only if X has interests.

3.                  Therefore, X has moral standing if and only if X has interests.

4.                  All living things have interests.

5.                  Therefore, all living things have moral standing.

QUESTION:  How would Peter Singer respond?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.                 Goodpastier’s Argument from Evolution. 

1.                  As an evolutionary matter, the value of consciousness is as an adaptive means to the end of continued life (i.e., consciousness evolved because it promotes survival).

2.                  If 1, then the evolutionary value of continued life is more important than the evolutionary value of consciousness.

3.                  Therefore, the evolutionary value of continued life is more important than the evolutionary value of consciousness.

4.                  For all X and Y, if X has more important evolutionary value than Y, X has greater moral value than Y.

5.                  Therefore, the moral value of continued life is more important than the moral value.

OBJECTIONS: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III.               Question:  Suppose I am the last person left on earth and there is no possibility of any more animal life.  There is one last rose left.  If I leave it alone, it will survive and reproduce.  If not, there will never be another rose.  Would I be doing wrong if I killed it?  What is the significance of the answer to this question?