Derek Farnes

Philosophy 2300, Drexler

Who is who in the Moral Circle

When considering who does or who does not belong to the moral circle I would like to
heavily consider the thoughts of Paul Taylor in his writings from The Ethics of Respect for
Nature. He clearly states that though humans may have abilities that nonhumans may not,
those same nonhumans have abilities that humans do not. This fact does not remove either
from the moral circle, but rather proves the fact that both humans and nonhumans have
intrinsic value.
The capacities that humans judge concerning the Moral Circle are based off of those
aspects that are valuable to humans. Taylor stated clearly it is from the human standpoint
that they are being judged to be desirable and good (Taylor pg. 79). Though these capacities
are valuable to humans and our existence, animals possess many capacities that humans do
not that are critical to their own existence. As Taylor spoke about this subject, Humans are
claiming human superiority from a strictly human point of view, that is, from a point of view
in which the good of humans is taken as the standard of judgement (Taylor pg. 79). This
belief of human superiority is clearly taught in our culture, even from childhood. Even when
reading childrens books such as the Lorax, the humans believed that their wants and needs
were superior to the wants and needs of animals and plants.
The question that naturally arises at this juncture is; why should standards that are
based on human values be assumed to be the only valid criteria of merit and hence the only

Derek Farnes
Philosophy 2300, Drexler

true signs of superiority?(Taylor, pg. 80) By this Taylor is asking the question, how can we
decide who to include in the moral circle and who to leave out based on human values when
we are not comparing human vs. human, but nonhuman vs. human. As humans we do have
the need to be able to comprehend math, science and other types of academics. But just as
humans need such things for survival, a monkey does have the need to be able to effectively
and quickly climb a tree. A cheetah needs its incredible speed to be able to hunt and survive.
If we humans value mathematics more than tree climbing, that is because our conception of
civilized life makes the development of mathematical ability more desirable than the ability to
climb trees(Taylor, pg 80). According to his thoughts here, it would only be fair to base who
is or who is not in the moral circle base off of the merits of that specific species to survive.
This changes it from comparing a nonhuman vs. a human, to comparing what has intrinsic
value which is the correct way to judge the moral circle.
Now lets consider the types of stories that we teach our youth. Going back to the
Lorax we can look at the moral circle and consider three different species; humans, animals,
and trees. The inherent worth of an entity does not depend on its merits. To consider
something as possessing inherent worth, we have seen, is to place intrinsic value on the
realization of its good.(Taylor pg. 80) If we are to place intrinsic value to the species in this
story based upon their good, who would be considered?
First you could look at the human species. We look at how they interacted with the
trees as a main point in this story. The Onsler was using the trees to make his Thneeds to sell
to the people of what then became Thneeville. Did the humans do this concerning their wants,
or their needs? In the beginning they are just plucking the fir from the tops of the trees to

Derek Farnes
Philosophy 2300, Drexler

make their Thneeds, but throughout the story they progress to cut the entire tree down even
though the only part they needed, or were using, was the fir at the top of the tree. They even
went as far as to create machines that would cut the trees down for them, without paying any
attention to what was left. The dominant Western view is simply inconsistent with an
environmental ethic; for according to it nature is the dominion of man and he is free to deal
with it as he pleases (sinceat least on the mainstream Stoic-Augustine viewit only exists
for his sake), whereas on an environmental ethic man is not so free to do as he
pleases.(Sylvan pg. 14) At this point in the story the humans believed that their wants were
superior to the animals and or natures needs. They treated nature as if it was just there for
them and that they could do as they pleased with it. At this point in the moral circle if we were
to base the humans intrinsic value base on their good, they would not rate very well.
Perhaps some may say that they would not even be considered. They were living a principle
Sylvan called basic (human) chauvinismbecause under it humans, or people, come first
and everything else at a bad last(Sylvan pg.15). But, with the help of one little boy the town
of Thneedville realizes that they had made a huge mistake in what they had done. This
realization shows that even though they were putting their needs above all else, they still had
intrinsic value, they still had good left in them. They then put their effort toward fixing the
problems that they had created.
Next we can consider the animals in the story. All throughout they would only take
what they needed to survive. You can see how they cared for and respected nature and what it
had to offer them. Everyone was happy and things were working out for them and all
creatures had what they needed. These things show their intrinsic value and show the good

Derek Farnes
Philosophy 2300, Drexler

that they had which would include these animals, though different in merit than other species
such as humans, within the moral circle.
Lastly we look at the trees and other species in nature. The trees were providing for
the needs of the animals as well as the needs of the humans throughout the whole story,
almost to the point of extinction. The inherent worth of an entity does not depend on its
merits. To consider something as possessing inherent worth, we have seen, is the place
intrinsic value on the realization of its good. The trees and nature in this story would be
included in the moral circle because of their good.
At the conclusion of the story, the humans had a change in their beliefs and point of
view. They came to realize the inherent worth of the animals and trees seeing and realizing
that they had so much good. You can see the shift in mentality in the townspeople as they
have a new resolve to take better care of the animals and nature around them. They realize
that these other species, though different than them, are still part of the moral circle and
required consideration on their part.
So though humans may have different abilities and capacities than animals and plants,
all of these species should be included in the moral circle. Humans, nonhumans and nature all
have good, or intrinsic value, which would include them in the moral circle. The difference
in these does not remove them from consideration in the moral circle, but it rather proves that
they are all included.

Derek Farnes
Philosophy 2300, Drexler

Sylvan, Richard. Is There a Need for a New, an Environmental, Ethic? 12-21. Print.

Taylor, Paul W. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton UP, 1986. Print.