Biocentrism vs Virtue of a Rational Nature; Which Philosophy Will Protect The Environment?

In a Case Study in Environmental Ethics for Canadians a discussion is held on the notion of Taylor's biocentric egalitarianism versus Kant's belief in a fundamental dignity. The first used to set a framework mindset which applies to all livings things a moral concept and the other which holds above all a responsibility to dignity all moral agents are require to adhere.

Assesing Our Ecosystems

As the most heavily addressed philosophy in this chapter it makes sense to pit biocentrism against a colliding position in this case study to determine if the reasoning of fact holds up against the strong moral philosophies of Kant. A summary of kant's philosophy follows the introduction in which it is noted he believed we all possess a dignity in virtue of our rational nature and at the bottom of moral duty to respect persons is the recognition that we all ought be treated similarly, as we are all human. This is to say we all posses a dignity in good moral action which can be seen as our understanding of similarity, which we should extend that to all and each lifeform in respect. Williston pokes a hole in this philosophy however by suggesting that despite such a claim it is difficult for anyone to feel such respect for a plant if the concept is rooted so deeply in rationality and autonomy.

Results of Ignorance

The argument continues with an attempt to draw what Williston declares a worthwhile position; being able to separate our concept of respect from rationality and autonomy. This would allow an appreciation for all branches of life while retaining the 'motivational force'. This is attributed to be the position of Taylor who bashes humans through their effect on the surrounding environment, which becomes the headscape for the topic of the copper mining operations. A dump of nearly 5 billion litres of toxic slurry is used to demonstrate our ignorance of our strong damaging effects to nature, proving for many it is not in fact their highest priority, says Kynoch. Megan Thompson's makes an attempts to argue a position contrasting that of Kynoch which is a position stating that there are many things in the tailings that could have entered and the spill itself and they all may have long term impacts we have no idea about. Williston finishes with a conclusion drawn from the repercussions of our industrialism, in the case of the Mount Polley Disaster enough ignorance is observed to suggest that we should in fact make a concious effect to start thinking about and acting towards all living things with respect.

14.5 million cubic meters of Tailings from mine pooring into nearby lake

Closing Statement

Overall the argument may be hard to spot. It seems as though both philosophies are making an argument for the defense of life. The issue Williston looks to resolve is why. I join him in the belief that Kant's philosophy, (which require us to do well unto others as we have a rational virtue which entails we empathize with human aspects found in other life) doesn't necessarily give good reason to respect all of the environment. We are better to adopt a true biocentric worldview, rather than protect wildlife because we see some aspect of us in them which we can personify.