Biocentrism

Historical development

The usual starting point is Albert Schweitzer’s “reverence for life”, set out in Civilization and Ethics (1923). The ethical person, Schweitzer wrote, “shatters no ice crystal that sparkles in the sun, tears no leaf from its tree.” Kenneth Goodpaster argued in “On Being Morally Considerable” (1978) that being alive, and not the capacity to feel, is the sensible test for moral consideration.

Paul Taylor’s Respect for Nature (1986) is the fullest statement. Taylor grounds an “attitude of respect” in what he calls the biocentric outlook. Humans belong to Earth’s community of life on the same terms as other organisms. Every organism is a goal-directed centre of life. There is no argument for human superiority that does not assume its conclusion. From this Taylor derives four duties, of nonmaleficence, noninterference, fidelity and restitutive justice, and a set of priority principles for settling conflicts.

Principal claims

• Every organism has a good of its own and therefore inherent worth.
• Humans are not superior to other living things in any way that would give them greater moral worth.
• Moral agents owe living things respect. That respect takes the form of rules against interfering, harming and betraying trust.
• Conflicts between human interests and the good of other organisms should be settled by principles of self-defence, proportionality, least wrong, distributive justice and restitution. Human priority cannot simply be assumed.

Policy implications

Taylor’s priority principles let people meet their basic needs at the expense of other organisms, but they restrict the pursuit of non-basic interests. That bears on sport hunting, luxury consumption and destroying habitat for convenience. The duty not to interfere argues for restraint in managing ecosystems. In general biocentrism supports strong protection for wild organisms and their habitats, and caution about killing wildlife.

Internal disagreements

Biocentrists disagree about whether all organisms count equally. Biocentric egalitarians say they do, while Robin Attfield and Gary Varner allow different weights for different capacities. They also disagree about whether plants literally have interests. A practical problem is how the duty of noninterference fits with restoration, or with removing invasive organisms, which are also living things with goods of their own.

Criticisms and controversies

Critics say biocentrism is impossible to live by, since every action kills organisms. They say it cannot explain why ecological wholes matter, and that having a good of one’s own does not entail moral standing. Ecocentrists add that it is an individualism badly suited to conservation, which deals in populations, species and processes, and that its rule of noninterference would forbid the management conservation needs. Many who share Taylor’s broader outlook find his egalitarianism implausible.

Relationships to other traditions

Biocentrism shares deep ecology’s and ecocentrism’s belief in intrinsic value but places that value in individuals. In conservation practice it is closer to compassionate conservation and animal protection than to ecosystem management. It opposes anthropocentrism and conservationism’s tradition of sustained yield.