U.S.

—died October 14, 2015, Hamilton, New Jersey), American philosopher best known for his book Respect for Nature:
A Theory of Environmental Ethics (1986), which promulgated the biocentric viewpoint in environmental ethics and was a
foundational work of environmental philosophy.
Taylor served in the United States Marine Corps from 1943 to 1946. After he was discharged, he obtained an undergraduate
degree (1947) and a doctorate (1950) in philosophy from Princeton University. He also taught at Princeton University from
1949 to 1950. He spent the remainder of his career (1950–90) as a faculty member in the Department of Philosophy at
Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. In 1990 he became an emeritus professor in the department.
In Respect for Nature, Taylor supported a biocentric viewpoint in environmental ethics. Biocentrism in general prioritizes
individuals in nature, including humans, but does not assign humans higher priority. Respect for Nature came at a time
when environmental philosophy was a new subdiscipline heavily scrutinized by mainstream philosophers, and the rigour
Taylor used to outline his theory of biocentrism built credibility for the field.
A key strength of Taylor’s theory was its use of commonly understood norms in human ethics to build a foundation for
environmental ethics. He argued that humans are members of Earth’s community of life, that Earth’s ecosystems are a
complex web of interconnected elements, that each individual organism, like each individual human, is a teleological
(purposeful) centre of autonomous choice, and thus that each organism is an end in itself. In addition, just as German
philosopher Immanuel Kant posited that every person possesses inherent worth, Taylor posited that each individual
organism is inherently valuable and worthy of equal moral consideration.
Taylor saw as groundless the claim that humans, by their very nature, are superior to other beings simply because they are
rational forms of life. However, he acknowledged that humans have a moral responsibility (due to their unique decision-
making faculties) to act in the best interest of other forms of life. He argued that biocentrism obligates humans to follow
rules regarding nonmaleficence (the duty to not cause harm to any entity in the natural environment imbued
with intrinsic worth), noninterference (the duty to refrain from placing restrictions on the freedom of individuals as well as to
refrain from interfering with the functions of ecosystems and biotic communities), fidelity (the duty to remain faithful to the
trust between humans and wild animals [because wild animals can be deceived and thus exploited by humans]), and
restitutive justice (the duty to restore the moral and ethical balance between humans and animals that has been wronged
by human activities).

His two other books, Normative Discourse (1961) and Principles of Ethics: An Introduction (1975), cover more traditional
philosophy.

Biocentrism, ethical perspective holding that all life deserves equal moral consideration or has equal moral standing.
Although elements of biocentrism can be found in several religious traditions, it was not until the late decades of the 20th
century that philosophical ethics in the Western tradition addressed the topic in a systematic manner.
Historical Roots

Much of the history of environmental ethics can be understood in terms of an expanding range of moral standing. Traditional
Western ethics has always been anthropocentric, meaning that only presently living human beings deserve moral
consideration. As environmental issues such as nuclear waste disposal, human population growth, and resource depletion
came to the fore, many ethicists argued that moral standing should be extended to include future generations of human
beings. The animal welfare and animal rights movement argued for an extension of moral standing to at least some animals,
and arguments followed to extend moral standing to plants and then to such ecological wholes as ecosystems, wilderness
areas, species, and populations.
The philosophical challenge throughout that process was to articulate and defend a nonarbitrary criterion by which the
question of moral standing could be decided. On what grounds does one decide that objects deserve to be considered in
moral deliberation? Supporters of extending moral standing to future generations argued that temporal location, like
geographical location, was an arbitrary ground for denying equal moral status to humans not yet living. Defenders of animal
rights cited characteristics such as having interests, sentience, being conscious, and being the subject of a life as the most
appropriate criteria for moral standing. Biocentric ethics argues that the only nonarbitrary ground for assigning moral
standing is life itself and thus extends the boundary of moral standing about as far as it can go. All living beings, simply
by virtue of being alive, have moral standing and deserve moral consideration.
Roots of biocentric ethics can be found in a number of traditions and historical figures. The first of the five basic precepts
of Buddhist ethics is to avoid killing or harming any living thing. The Christian saint Francis of Assisi preached to animals
and proclaimed a biocentric theology that explicitly included animals and plants. Some Native American traditions also hold
that all living things are sacred. The Romantic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries defended the intrinsic value of the
natural world against the tendency of the technological age to treat all nature as having mere instrumental value.
In the 20th century, preservationists such as John Muir held that the intrinsic value of natural areas, particularly wilderness
areas, creates responsibilities for humanity. Preservationists argued that the intrinsic value of nature imposes duties to
respect and preserve natural objects. However, the preservationist ethic can go beyond biocentrism in that it is not life itself
that always carries moral value. Wilderness areas and ecosystems, after all, are not alive. Similarly, scholar Christopher D.
Stone’s argument that trees should have legal standing would not strictly be biocentric in that Stone also advocated legal
standing for mountains and rivers. This observation suggests that biocentrism is essentially an individualistic ethic. Life
would seem an attribute of individual living things. Many environmentalists argue that holistic entities such as ecosystems,
wilderness areas, and species all deserve moral consideration. To the extent that such entities are not alive, strictly
speaking, environmental holism differs from biocentrism.

Albert Schweitzer was another early 20th-century thinker who argued that life itself is the decisive factor in determining
moral value. Working in the most remote areas of Africa, Schweitzer experienced a diversity, complexity, and multiplicity of
plant and animal life-forms rarely seen within industrialized societies. Schweitzer used the phrase “reverence for life” to
convey what he took to be the most appropriate attitude toward all living beings. Life itself, in all its mystery and wonderment,
commands respect, reverence, and awe.

Only in the final decades of the 20th century did philosophers attempt to develop a more systematic and scholarly version
of biocentric ethics. Paul Taylor’s book Respect for Nature (1986) was perhaps the most comprehensive and philosophically
sophisticated defense of biocentric ethics. Taylor provided a philosophical account of why life should be accepted as the
criterion of moral standing, and he offered a reasoned and principled account of the practical implications of biocentrism.
He claimed that life itself is a nonarbitrary criterion for moral standing because all living things can be meaningfully said to
have a good of their own. Living beings aim toward ends; they have directions, purposes, and goals. Pursuing those
characteristic and natural goals—essentially what is the very activity that is life itself—constitutes the good for each living
being.

Biocentrism is a philosophical and ethical premise that all living organisms should be considered as equals. In this lesson
we compare this to the anthropocentric viewpoint that places humans at the center of moral and ethical decision making.

Ethics, Morals, and Biocentrism

Ethics and morals are concerned with concepts of right and wrong. We often weigh ethical and moral questions in relation
to what we consider to be right and wrong from a human perspective. For example, many humans consider it acceptable to
take the life of another animal to provide for their own sustenance, but would consider it wrong to take the life of another
human being for the same reason. We use the term anthropocentric to refer to ethics that are centered on a human
viewpoint.
When taking a biocentric view of the world, answering these types of questions from a human perspective is considered
to be too limiting, given our place on a planet with many diverse forms of life. Rather than giving priority to human concerns,
biocentrism is a philosophy that asks us to give equal priority to all other living organisms when making moral and ethical
choices.

Biocentrism in Historical Context

There are many examples of biocentric principles that can be found throughout history. This is particularly true when looking
at those societies where humans live in close connection to the natural world. For example, Native American traditions
emphasize the deep connection that binds all of nature together, with the view that all living beings and natural objects have
some essential sacred value.
Many mainstream religions also provide examples of moral and ethical thought that can be seen to align with biocentric
philosophy. In the Christian tradition, Saint Francis of Assisi preached what can be considered a biocentric theology of
respect for nature, and has been proclaimed as the patron saint of ecology based on those teachings. Similarly, the first
fundamental Buddhist ethic is the dictate that we as humans should avoid killing or harming any living thing.
Reactions to the effects of the industrialized world have fostered additional concerns about how man has come to interact
with nature. In the early 20th century, Albert Schweitzer was instrumental in popularizing and promoting what he referred to
as a 'reverence for life', which he had come to view as a complex interrelationship of plant and animal life forms. While he
did not use the term biocentrism, Schweitzer proposed that the entirety of life, not just human life, could be used to determine
moral value.
In 1986, Paul Taylor published Respect for Nature, a treatise that is considered to be the first rigorous, philosophical defense
of biocentric ethics. This book provided four basic tenets that outline what Taylor termed a 'biocentric outlook' on life:
1. Humans are equal members of the earth's community of life
2. Humans and members of other species are interdependent
3. All organisms are centers of life in the sense that each is a unique individual pursuing its own good in its own way
4. Humans are not inherently superior to other living things
Taylor argued that humans are not privileged amongst other life forms, emphasizing instead the complex relationships that
exist between humans and the whole of nature. Part of this argument points out that humans have inhabited the earth for a
very short period of time compared to many other organisms. And, while many organisms do not depend on humans for
survival, humans would likely become extinct very quickly without the support of many life forms.
In making these arguments, Taylor proposed that all other things being equal, we should give the same moral consideration
to the welfare of all other organisms as we do to our own human concerns. It is interesting to note that Taylor did not argue
for the moral interests of the environment as a whole, or for non-living entities, but placed the good of individual living
organisms at the center of this philosophical outlook.

Ethical Debates Around Biocentrism

Perhaps the most fundamental debate that arises from this philosophy questions whether it is even possible to adopt a
purely biocentric viewpoint of the world. Can we, as human beings, actually place ourselves outside an anthropocentric
viewpoint? In response, a biocentrist would argue that while we are intrinsically driven by human needs and desires, the
welfare interests of all living organisms need to be considered when making conscious choices, and that those interests
need to be given equal weight to human interests.

http://academia.edu/19620309/Paul_Taylor_s_environmental_ethics_a_biocentrism_to_be_revised

http://jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7sk1j

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691150246/respect-for-nat

https://www.questia.com/library/120075128/respect-for-nature-a-theory-of-environmental-ethics

http://philpapers.org/rec/TAYTEO-22