Taylor pushes this further and asserts that humans are non-privileged members of the earth’s community of life. Humans, just like all other living organisms, have biological requirements to live. Moreover, “[w]e, as they, are vulnerable. We share with them an inability to guarantee the f... ... middle of paper ... ...r nature and this requires that one recognize the equal inherent worth of all TCL’s (element three). Moreover, it is moral agency which allows for one to adopt the attitude of respect for nature.
However, anthropocentrism states that the human race is superior to all other species, so humans have the moral right to take advantage of other species and exploit nature as they want (Muir 190). To start off, humans cannot take advantage from other species because they have a moral duty towards the environment and all living things. One of the theories that defends this opinion is Leopold’s Land Ethics. Leopold’s theo... ... middle of paper ... ...to the harm done to this person because we did not help him or her (Mieth17). In this case, if we do not help sentient organisms and we take all the possible resources away from them, we should consider that we harmed them and if so, we did not respect the principle of equal treatment.
This paper is not meant to be a complete examination of environmental ethics; that would be beyond its scope. This question, however, lies at the heart of environmental ethics, and is certainly worth exploring. Must we go through life refusing to do harm to any other natural entity, "living in harmony" with it, or "respecting its rights?" Or, if it is not true that we must, is it true that we should? In "Environmental Ethics," Barbara MacKinnon explains that ecocentrists believe "that we ought ... to regard nature with admiration and respect, because of their view that nature and natural beings have intrinsic value."
As the reader, I took this as Kant saying that animals do not think like humans when it comes to repentance and compensation, and humans need to respect animals for their way of thinking and not take advantage of them for their lack of understanding. He then provides a quote from Aristotle, the exact contrast of his first quote that describes nonhumans as nothing but an existence for the good of the man in regard to his needed services and food. He then emphasizes the wild ones to take priorit... ... middle of paper ... ...le in freedom to the human rights system. If only all humans could recognize that we are truly treating animals today like we did in the years of civil rights for African Americans. Forcing animals to live in horrible conditions until they are slaughtered for cheap meat, in my opinion is truly comparable.
This refutes the possibility that animals are here only to serve under and function for the betterment of man. It is only through our intervention that we have dominated and controlled animal nature. Through our own perceived superiority, man has decided that animals are expendable for the greater good. As necessary as it may be to preserve human life, I don’t think it’s ethical to use animals as the testing ground for vanity products. When I say vanity products I’m referring to hair, body, and make-up accessories.
Each approach relies on Kant's principle to protect the interest of that which they deem worthy. Baxter's anthropocentric approach clearly states that our obligations regarding the environment are to be determined solely on the basis of human interests. Our welfare depends on breathable air, drinkable water and edible food. Thus, polluting the environment to the extent that it damages the air, water and land is unacceptable because it damages public welfare. Animals and plants are considered non-rational beings and are therefore not considered in the same moral category as humans.
Mengzi views nature as a “species-specific notion” (68) that separate us from lesser animals. More specifically, humans are distinct from animals because they are born with moral virtues. Mengzi believed that because all humans belong to the same species, all humans possess the same universal nature. He goes further by claiming that due to our collective universal nature, any differences demonstrated by mature humans are owing to an “external environment and individual effort” (69). For the purposes of this paper, let us assume that Mengzi is correct in his argument for the innate goodness of human nature.
Another problem is when you get near the top of the steps you hit a point where you should look at things threw an egalitarian point of view. Which can bring you back to where you started from because you are supposed to respect everything which intern you end up respecting nothing. In conclusion do to the arguments I have shown, we can conclude the existence of animal ethics depends on the existence of environmental ethics. I have shown this by demonstrating the individualistic ways in which Singer, Regan and Taylor look at this world will only save the rights of animals , and the world can not survive with just animals. I have also shown that by demonstrating the holistic views of Leapold, Westra, and Naess will preserve the rights of the environmental as a whole.
Only humans think in moral terms, Nietzsche believes –a prejudice of which “animals at least are free”. That is, animals do not believe in morality; and modern philosophers, as well as behavioral biologists, would have to agree. Nobody suspects their dog of trying to maximize utility, follow categorical imperatives, or do penance for his sins. Moral agency is uniquely human in this respect; only we maintain that our actions have some greater—moral—significance. Ethical theories try to provide us with a coherent and rational account of precisely this moral aspect of human thought and action.
The Case for Animal Right Recently, some philosophers began to take action on fighting for animal rights. One of them, philosopher Tom Regan, is well-known for his animal rights theories. In his book The Case for Animal Rights, Regan argues that animals should have their rights, and we should not allow speciesism to happen anymore. By using the term inherent value, which is referring to experiencing subject of a life, Regan starts his argument by saying that all of us, despite being human or non-human animals, have equal inherent value, which provides the basis for rights claims, yet inherent value and rights require equal respect. Thus, animals are deserving of equal respect.