Taylor's Biocentrism Argument Analysis

1094 Words5 Pages
As previously mentioned, Taylor’s biocentrism argument positions non-human animals as teleological centres of life with an objective good of their own. In accordance with Taylor’s biocentric outlook on nature, non-human animals have legal rights. While he does not claim that these non-human animals have moral rights, he believes that these moral rights should be applied to nonhuman animals (Taylor, 218). If animals can be seen as teleological centers of life, then they ought to have legal rights. Since Taylor states that all living things have equal inherent worth, humans, acting as rational moral agents, are required to respect the moral equality of teleological centers of life and give the same respect to non-human animals that they do to human beings. If animals are harmed for…show more content…
These five principles represent considerations one must take into account when adjudicating competing rights or conflicts between humans and non-humans, and can serve as an outline for reaching decisions about what duties outweigh others. The principles of proportionality and minimum wrong can be applied to cases in which there is a conflict between basic interested of animal or plants, and non-basic interest of humans. When referring to “interest” it refers that whatever objects or events serve to preserve or protect the good of a living organism. This refers to whether or not an organism likes or dislikes something, feels pain or pleasure, or has any sentient desires, goals, or is concerned with what happens to it. One must take into account the degree to which the interest holds. This means the interest of an organism can vary in degrees of comparative importance. A basic interest is the very basic or essential goods an organism requires in order to live and survive, while a non-basic interest involves things such as culture, art, and
Open Document