PHIL302
the potential to allow in
marginal cases, plants and
ecosystems. Consider the
following scenario:
An astronaut named Hank
has
visited
countless
planets and found no signs
of life. He has surveyed 99
per cent of the ground on a
particular grey, dusty, sand
dune of a planet, when
he comes across a green
plant-like organism with a
purple flower. Hank grabs
the flowering plant and pulls
it out of the ground to look
at it more closely. He then
drops it on the floor and
walks on.
arises from it having no
teleological goals other
than that of the individual
members. Many would
contend that ecosystems
can flourish and can be
harmed. But as Cahen
(1988) argues, the overall
effect of an ecosystem
flourishing cannot be proven
to be goal-directed or driven
by the community interest.
The equilibrium and stability
reached by a
particular
system is a
The actions of Hank the
astronaut
are
wrong
because the plant has moral
standing and deserves not
to be treated in that way.
The flower has intrinsic
value and has been
harmed
by
being denied the chance
to pursue its interests:
“the full development of its
biological powers,” (Taylor,
1986, p. 84). It follows from
the criteria we are using that
this is an injustice. Whether
it is one plant or a whole
rainforest, we can see that
the interests of non-sentient
organisms should not be
harmed.
The problem for the
inclusion of ecosystems
115
by-product of individualistic
behaviour. Each entity
is striving to achieve its
own flourishing through a
dynamic interaction with
its environment. Therefore,
if an ecosystem can have
no goals in itself, then
justice cannot apply to it. It
is further argued by Cahen
that ‘organismic ecology’
no longer has the standing
amongst ecologists and
evolutionary
biologists
it once did; the
prevailing thought
is
individualistic
rather than group
selection.