Nathan Marino

The Moral Circle

PHIL 2300

The moral circle is an evolutionary-based construct that describes the objects to which one applies
moral consideration and inherently also describes those objects that do not receive moral consideration.
The reason that this construct is based in evolutionary thought is because it has been developed
throughout history and even incorporates a natural selection of sorts.

If we apply the moral circle to early man it becomes evident that this served a physical and
psychological need for survival. In this early state the circle of inclusion was likely limited to kin and
small clans as a way of identifying friends and foe or even resources and threats. The spread of early
population saw more territorial mindsets, and the lack of methodical development indicates that raw
resources were heavily valued. Competition dictated that early man's moral circle remain limited in
order to protect kin and posterity at all costs. As the human population evolved into civil structures and
larger, more diverse societies, the moral circle expanded to make civil order possible. Even still there
were limitations on the moral circle because resources were still limited and civilization did not occur
at the same rate globally. Humans have evolved to identify threats and uncertainty or differences were
often interpreted as threatening until proven otherwise. Thus skin color, language, culture, religion all
became an early point of identification and either inclusion or exclusion. Wars were fought on many of
these premises and an enemy excluded from moral consideration is much more easily faced. If we
follow the evolutionary progression of the moral circle into modern day we can see how the vastly
different state of humanity now affords us the luxury of examining more and more objects for
inclusion. No longer are we limited to kin, clan, or even country; instead we exist in a truly global

community. The impact of our moral decisions also is enacted on others just as their moral decisions
impact us. Our scope of consideration no longer includes only the resources and threats in immediate
proximity, but the butterfly effect that easily moves across our entire world. By examining certain
philosopher's perspectives on the moral circle we can see the evolution of thought and also discern
when some ideas were natural selected to come to fruition in a different historical setting.

To follow the chronology of this course we first examined two philosophers' overarching perspectives
on moral consideration. Emmanuel Kant and John Stewart Mills are easy to juxtapose in that Mills'
emphasis on Utilitarianism or the good compares and contrasts well with Kant's Deontology or the
right. These two perspectives are a poignant foundation for the assignment of value and moral
consideration. Utilitarianism voices that economics most deem worthiness for inclusion. Simply put,
does inclusion of that person or thing stand to benefit others or diminish them. Deontology, however,
states that the worth is inherent if the categorical imperative is satisfied. In Kant's Grounding for the
Metaphysics of Morals, he states Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own
person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as
an end. This stands in stark contrast of consideration to a strict Utilitarianism perspective. Kant's
acknowledgment or moral consideration came at a time primed for new perspective as the slave trade
would begin to be scrutinized and undergo much change less than a century later. Mills' utilitarian point
of view could be seen as an accurate observation as well, it would only assign change to a shift in the
greater good.

As we move forward from the aforementioned platforms of morality, we see how environmental
theorists have refined both perspectives as the evolution of human interaction with nature allows. To
give us a starting point for this flow of thought we begin centuries before Kantian Deontology with
Descartes, who in his famous statement, I think therefore I am. assigns inclusion o only those beings

that are capable of self awareness. All other objects were allowed to fall into instrumental capacity at
the feet of Descartes' anthropocentrism. The modern day theorist, Paul Taylor points out that Descartes
position is flawed in it's circular reasoning as it cannot apply human characteristics to non-human life.
Furthermore he also points out that it fails modern justice in many aspects of lower capacity human
life. This is another example of the evolution of the moral circle. In early times it likely was not
necessary to consider lower capacities of human life in the same way that modern civility dictates.
Simply put, caring for lesser beings is a luxury afforded by the development of distribution of
resources, and larger societal circles of protection. Further human evolution will then lead to factors
such as population expansion and technological impact. These factors will then transition the luxury of
inclusion to survival imperatives.

Carolyn Merchant is another modern environmental theorist that has closely examined the consequence
of anthropocentrism. When we begin to address the environment, we can see how the pendulum of
evolutionary need calls for a different environmental ethic and an expansion of the moral circle.
Industrialization was the fulcrum of how humans interacted with their environment. Industrialization
allowed for population distribution to no longer be tied directly to resources and the terrifying new
impact that humans could have on nature demanded a a new perspective on responsibility. Early
humans existed at the will of nature and many early cultures showed great respect for nature's
provision. Modernization followed a short-sighted version of Utilitarianism that raced to capitalize on
any and all resources left a gaping chasm in responsible stewardship. As our detrimental impact has
become further understood, we have gain valuable insights in moral duty to our environment.

As we struggle to reign the environment into the moral circle, we see many other factors of
consideration that follow. One such factor is that of animals. Animals had throughout most of human
history been discounted to currency, worth comparison, and simple food resource. Modernization has

caused a dramatic shift in the place of animals in many different ways. Vegetarian diets are much more
accessible to much of the world's population. Animal researchers have made substantial gains in
understanding animal life and the results are evident in new moral thinking about the value of sentience
as explained by Peter Singer. The detriments of modern farming techniques are better educated upon.
All of these factors have lead to much change in public attitude and are followed by demand for new
ethical framework of inclusion.

Following the trail of other forms of life leads us to the interconnectedness of all life. Aldo Leopold
gave credible insight into the concept of the biotic community. Early humanity did not have the
capability to measure the ecological factors that comprise nature. In modern times we have advanced
methods of examining how all components of nature interact with each other. Even the smallest insect
or a seemingly insignificant shrub can play a very important role in an ecosystem. Evolution has
designed this interconnectedness and for the finally the evolution of humanity is capable of seeing it.

The importance of seeing the moral circle as a dynamic construct rather than a fixed rule is integral to
how we implement our moral circle. Just as our understandings have transformed throughout the
history of human interaction with our planet we should carry that concept forward and allow the cell
walls of our moral circle to be permeable to new information and ideas that support our biotic
community on the the local, regional and global scale. The atrocities that we have committed against
our planet are hopefully avoidable in the future if we remain malleable to the needs of nature and listen
intently as nature communicates those needs to us.