Thank you for such a comprehensive consideration (and I’m glad you seem to like my newly-coined neologism sapioseparatism enough to use it, even though you disagree with the concept itself :-) ).
I’ll try to address some of your points. Firstly, there is a very good journal article on utilitarianism and biodiversity that I think you might enjoy reading: Why biodiversity matters: A review of the arguments, and counter-arguments, for the conservation of the diversity of life, Abstract
The impact of human activities on the biosphere has accelerated rapidly during the last 200 years, and particularly so since the second half of the 20th century consequent upon an exponential rate of population growth combined with scientific and technological developments. Advances in technology continue to facilitate the exploitation of the world’s organic resources and the manipulation of its physical environment. This has called for increased efforts towards the conservation of the world’s biodiversity so as to reduce the rapid rate of species extinction and decline. This review paper explores the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward for the conservation of biological diversity. The ultimate purpose of the review is to broaden the horizon on the value of biodiversity, which will help in diminishing the narrow, humanistic valuation of biodiversity largely responsible for the current biodiversity crisis. Indeed, one of the causes of the accelerated loss of biodiversity has been the utilitarian and human-centred argument that has largely been put forward as justification for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. The major weakness with a conservation system based on economic motives is that most members of the biological community do not have immediate economic value. Therefore, justifying species preservation for utilitarian purposes predisposes many seemingly useless species to extinction. Only a moral or ethical argument for the conservation of biodiversity in which nature is conserved for its own sake, combined with sustainable use, can ensure a more effective conservation of the world’s organic resources.
This paper also has a fascinating discussion of the utilitarian dilemma with respect to the ‘existence value’ of biodiversity:
Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma
Abstract Existence value has been argued to be a significant part of the total economic value of some ecosystems. However, its compatibility with the welfare economic foundations of economic valuation is very limited – it is difficult to logically conceive of changes in existence. Moreover, when applied to biodiversity, the concept of existence value gives rise to an instance of a more fundamental problem of economic valuation, termed here the utilitarian dilemma: it can be argued conceptually that biodiversity cannot have existence value; yet the results of empirical studies suggest that people in stated preference studies can be expected to assign existence value to it. The utilitarian dilemma arises as the analysing economist must deal somehow with ‘erroneous’ preferences. There seems to be no simple solution to the dilemma, but deliberative monetary valuation has the potential to alleviate it.
What rational justification is there for conceiving of all living things as possessing inherent worth? In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor draws on biology, moral philosophy, and environmental science to defend a biocentric environmental ethic in which all life has value. Without making claims for the moral rights of plants and animals, he offers a reasoned alternative to the prevailing anthropocentric view—that the natural environment and its wildlife are valued only as objects for human use or enjoyment. Respect for Nature provides both a full account of the biological conditions for life—human or otherwise—and a comprehensive view of the complex relationship between human beings and the whole of nature.
This classic book remains a valuable resource for philosophers, biologists, and environmentalists alike—along with all those who care about the future of life on Earth. A new foreword by Dale Jamieson looks at how the original 1986 edition of Respect for Nature has shaped the study of environmental ethics, and shows why the work remains relevant to debates today.
Author information
Paul W. Taylor (1923–2015) was professor emeritus of philosophy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
Reviews
“When it first appeared, Respect for Nature was at once recognized for the important, groundbreaking work it was. It was deservedly a major influence in the then newly developing field of environmental ethics. Time has only confirmed this first opinion and it is good to have the book back before us.”—Michael Ruse, editor of Philosophy after Darwin
“Paul Taylor notes that just as we would not ask ‘What is a human being good for?,’ so also should we not ask ‘What is nature good for?’ This is surely right. His Respect for Nature is a systematic working out of the consequences of this observation. It is even more relevant today than when it first appeared twenty-five years ago.”—Stephen Darwall, Yale University
Thank you for such a comprehensive consideration (and I’m glad you seem to like my newly-coined neologism sapioseparatism enough to use it, even though you disagree with the concept itself :-) ).
I’ll try to address some of your points. Firstly, there is a very good journal article on utilitarianism and biodiversity that I think you might enjoy reading: Why biodiversity matters: A review of the arguments, and counter-arguments, for the conservation of the diversity of life, Abstract
The impact of human activities on the biosphere has accelerated rapidly during the last 200 years, and particularly so since the second half of the 20th century consequent upon an exponential rate of population growth combined with scientific and technological developments. Advances in technology continue to facilitate the exploitation of the world’s organic resources and the manipulation of its physical environment. This has called for increased efforts towards the conservation of the world’s biodiversity so as to reduce the rapid rate of species extinction and decline. This review paper explores the arguments and counter-arguments that have been put forward for the conservation of biological diversity. The ultimate purpose of the review is to broaden the horizon on the value of biodiversity, which will help in diminishing the narrow, humanistic valuation of biodiversity largely responsible for the current biodiversity crisis. Indeed, one of the causes of the accelerated loss of biodiversity has been the utilitarian and human-centred argument that has largely been put forward as justification for the conservation of the world’s biodiversity. The major weakness with a conservation system based on economic motives is that most members of the biological community do not have immediate economic value. Therefore, justifying species preservation for utilitarian purposes predisposes many seemingly useless species to extinction. Only a moral or ethical argument for the conservation of biodiversity in which nature is conserved for its own sake, combined with sustainable use, can ensure a more effective conservation of the world’s organic resources.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tanyaradzwa-Chigonda/publication/328048844_Why_biodiversity_matters_A_review_of_the_arguments_and_counter-arguments_for_the_conservation_of_the_diversity_of_life/links/5bb4d93692851ca9ed3777ee/Why-biodiversity-matters-A-review-of-the-arguments-and-counter-arguments-for-the-conservation-of-the-diversity-of-life.pdf?origin=publication_detail
This paper also has a fascinating discussion of the utilitarian dilemma with respect to the ‘existence value’ of biodiversity:
Existence value, biodiversity, and the utilitarian dilemma
Abstract
Existence value has been argued to be a significant part of the total economic value of some
ecosystems. However, its compatibility with the welfare economic foundations of economic
valuation is very limited – it is difficult to logically conceive of changes in existence. Moreover,
when applied to biodiversity, the concept of existence value gives rise to an instance of a more
fundamental problem of economic valuation, termed here the utilitarian dilemma: it can be
argued conceptually that biodiversity cannot have existence value; yet the results of empirical
studies suggest that people in stated preference studies can be expected to assign existence value
to it. The utilitarian dilemma arises as the analysing economist must deal somehow with
‘erroneous’ preferences. There seems to be no simple solution to the dilemma, but deliberative
monetary valuation has the potential to alleviate it.
https://www.ufz.de/export/data/global/138112_DP_2017_2_Bartkowksi.pdf
I also recommend: Respect for Nature
A Theory of Environmental Ethics − 25th Anniversary Edition
Paul W. Taylor
In the series Studies in Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400838530
About this book
What rational justification is there for conceiving of all living things as possessing inherent worth? In Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor draws on biology, moral philosophy, and environmental science to defend a biocentric environmental ethic in which all life has value. Without making claims for the moral rights of plants and animals, he offers a reasoned alternative to the prevailing anthropocentric view—that the natural environment and its wildlife are valued only as objects for human use or enjoyment. Respect for Nature provides both a full account of the biological conditions for life—human or otherwise—and a comprehensive view of the complex relationship between human beings and the whole of nature.
This classic book remains a valuable resource for philosophers, biologists, and environmentalists alike—along with all those who care about the future of life on Earth. A new foreword by Dale Jamieson looks at how the original 1986 edition of Respect for Nature has shaped the study of environmental ethics, and shows why the work remains relevant to debates today.
Author information
Paul W. Taylor (1923–2015) was professor emeritus of philosophy at Brooklyn College, City University of New York.
Reviews
“When it first appeared, Respect for Nature was at once recognized for the important, groundbreaking work it was. It was deservedly a major influence in the then newly developing field of environmental ethics. Time has only confirmed this first opinion and it is good to have the book back before us.”—Michael Ruse, editor of Philosophy after Darwin
“Paul Taylor notes that just as we would not ask ‘What is a human being good for?,’ so also should we not ask ‘What is nature good for?’ This is surely right. His Respect for Nature is a systematic working out of the consequences of this observation. It is even more relevant today than when it first appeared twenty-five years ago.”—Stephen Darwall, Yale University