Respect for Nature and Humanity's Egalitarianism

In this critical response essay, I will defend and elaborate on David Schmidtz’s response to Paul Taylor’s argument for species egalitarianism; that respecting nature does not require species egalitarianism and humans are inherently superior, contradicting Taylor’s 4th point to biocentrism. To think like a species egalitarian, one would believe all species on Earth are morally equal, each species demanding life on Earth just as much as the next. With that said, a species egalitarian would think the moral standing of a more cognitively developed living thing would have the same moral standing as a less to none cognitively developed living thing. Respecting nature, as phrased by Schmidtz, “means giving the same respect to a cow as to a potato” (Schmidtz, 59). Respecting nature takes species egalitarianism to the next step, merging plant and animal species together as a whole, with every individual inside being given the same amount of respect for what they are in the community and what they contribute. Taylor’s argument ignores the fact that some animal species truly are capable of more actions and emotions than others. Morality is defined as commanding respect as a living individual, differing from an unconscious object. If one animal is more capable of displaying their morality than another, they are not considered equal.

To David Schmidtz, this is when respect of nature comes in to show that regardless of moral standing, “We can have reasons to treat nonhuman species with respect, regardless of whether we consider them to be on a moral par with homo sapiens,” (Schmidtz, 62). Having respect for nature does not require a person to think as an equal to other species, since humans are clearly distinctive creatures, leaving an impact on the Earth that towers over any other. Paul Taylor’s 4th claim to biocentrism is that humans are not superior to any other beings, which can be contrasted by the effect’s human have on other living beings.

Humans have shown in the past to be able to wipe out populations of certain animals in incredibly short times, something no other species is capable of. On the contrary, wildlife sanctuaries that contribute to the regrowth of near-extinct species also exhibit human interactions that can change the outlook of a whole species, manipulating the population from on the hinge of extinction to flourishing. Humans also can counteract mother nature by doing several things including building huge dams to block the natural flow of water in order to regenerate the energy flow of the water into useable energy, create technological systems that can enable communication from one country to another immediately in the dimension of time, and destroying entire forest communities. No other animal species on the planet has shown the same abilities as humans, proving Schmidtz’s argument against Taylors claim that humans are not superior.

Schmidtz believes “Thus, a broad respect for living or beautiful or well-functioning things need not translate into equal respect. It need not to translate into universal respect, either,” (Schmidtz, 63). This belief can be incorporated into a human’s everyday life. For example, humans can respect dogs for their companionships and what they contribute to humans in the form of service dogs, not because people think dogs are of equal morality to humans. A cockroach that someone finds in their kitchen, however, might be a lot less respected than the dog. One would probably just crunch it up into a paper towel and flush it down the toilet or toss it into the garbage, but it wouldn’t be morally acceptable to most humans to do that same thing to a stray dog that they have come home to on their doorstep. To Schmidtz, it is up to the human to determine their own ladder of devoted respect to the animals that surround them. This is valid because humans are the only animal species on the planet to be able to establish cognitively a respect chain; where at the top is humans, where respect is equal, all the way down to the bottom where insects like mosquitoes would be, due to human’s only interactions with mosquitoes is usually to kill them.

Being able to have respect for nature begins with the person them self, and whether they are capable of respecting nature outside their communalistic beliefs. Schmidtz believes “for a human being to lack a broad respect for living things and beautiful things and well-functioning things is to be stunted in a way” (Schmidtz, 63). This is credible because humans are capable of a greater capacity of intelligence than any other species, and with that intelligence one can begin to realize calling humans equal to other species is already above all others, since other species try to dominate anything crossing their paths. However, humans can observe something and feel emotions towards that observation. In the case of someone observing a predator take down its prey, one can feel sympathy for the prey being eaten, but at the same time feel the accomplishment the predator feels from taking down its prey. This is having respect for nature, because you are respecting the natural cycle of life. In the case of humans, we eat animals ourselves, ranging from farm animals like poultry and beef to sea-bound fish, all in the intent to survive.

Respecting nature calls for humans to cognitively grip their understanding of the way the world works and realizing that the human species has all the difference in determining the outcome of their surrounding species. The first step to that is coming to the realization that humans are superior to all other forms of life, and then to turn that superiority into helpfulness and defensibility. Schmidtz’s argument against species egalitarianism in terms of respect for nature is defensible to the degree that humans have attributes that can be used for the bettering and sustaining of nature. Although humans attain these attributes, it’s the individual’s duty to use them in order to respect nature.