Human Beings have a Moral Responsibility to preserve Biodiversity on Earth

First of all, I should like to extend my appreciation for Belle's thoughtful response in presenting her argument, and by "thoughtful" I mean to indicate that she seems to have given the issue considerable thought. But while I think she takes the issue seriously, I also think she has failed to recognize the rational weakness of her argument. It is convincing only to the already convinced because unfortunately, and against my hope to the contrary, her argument has indeed begged the question. Belle had proposed to debate the notion that humans do not have a moral responsibility to preserve biodiversity on earth. Think of that as being her conclusion (for that is what a debate resolution amounts to). Now if that proposition is the conclusion to be reached, then what is the means by which she reached it? After stating her case, how did she go about making her case? Notice that she seems to be basing her case on the principle of "moral obligation." And also notice that her debate proposition refers to "moral responsibility." I am going to assume for the sake of argument that these two expressions are being used to say the same thing (otherwise she might be guilty of being disingenuous and misleading). According to her argument, whether or not humans have a moral obligation is prescribed by a set of values; [1] that is to say, we have no moral obligation to that which has no value. We must pay attention to that, that her entire argument is based upon a certain set of values, which I had highlighted in Round 1 when I said "her entire argument is built upon a certain ethical stance." [2] As she has implicitly demonstrated in her argument, she holds to a 'strong' anthropocentric (human-centered) instrumental value system; i.e., if something is not instrumentally valuable to human benefit and well-being, then it has no value [3] (an astonishing medieval arrogance, that since only humans really matter on Earth they may utilize and consume everything else to their advantage with impunity, [4] a mindset we still combat to this very day). If her entire argument is based on the idea that we have no moral obligation to that which has no value, then she cannot simply assume that nonhuman entities of Earth's ecosystem have no intrinsic value because—by her own argument—the truth or falsehood of that is the very question upon which the issue rests! Consider: if nonhuman entities of Earth's ecosystem do have intrinsic value, then her entire argument collapses. Yet simply assuming that "nothing is intrinsically valuable" is precisely what she has done. She did nothing toward proving that; she simply assumed that 'intrinsic value' is false, dismissing it with a wave of her hand while proceeding to her conclusion on a question-begging premise. That will not do. I am willing to grant her that moral obligation is determined by a set of values, but if that is the basis upon which her argument rests, then it is illegitimate [5] for her to presuppose the falsehood of a specific set of values which compete against hers. With moral obligation being tied so inextricably to values, sound reasoning requires that she prove, not assume, the falsehood of 'intrinsic value' before attempting to employ 'instrumental value' in drawing her conclusion about moral obligation. ==== REFERENCES ==== 1. See the last item near the close of her argument. See also: Diane Jeske. "Special obligations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 19 May 2008. Web. (http://plato.stanford.edu...). 2. 'Ethics' is that branch of philosophy dealing with the study of values and morals, which her argument itself recognizes when she posits that morals are determined by values. See also: James Fieser. "Ethics." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 10 May 2009. Web. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...). 3. See where she said, "There is no reason for humans to value something that does not benefit them in any way," that our moral obligation to non-rational beings "is ultimately trumped by the needs of the only true moral agents on earth, human beings," a view reflected in Kant's essay "Duties to Animals and Spirits" in Louis Infield's (trans.) Lectures on Ethics (New York: Harper & Row, 1963). See also: Andrew Brennan and Yeuk-Sze Lo. "Environmental Ethics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3 Jan 2008. Web. (http://plato.stanford.edu...). 4. Lynn White Jr. "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis." Science, 55:1203-1207, 1967; reprinted in D. Schmidtz and E. Willott (eds.) Environmental Ethics: What Really Matters, What Really Works. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Print. This human arrogance is still relevant even in our time, e.g., as explored in films like James Cameron's epic film Avatar, or the Wachowski Brothers' film The Matrix in which Agent Smith said to Morpheus, "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed, and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague. And we are the cure." 5. I am using the term 'illegitimate' here in the logic sense, viz. "not in accordance with the principles of valid inference," Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. (http://dictionary.reference.com...).