Comparison of the American Indian Concept of Moral Community with Singer and Taylors View - Book Report/Review Example

30 July Comparison of the American Indian Concept of Moral Community with Singer and Taylor’s View American Indian concept of moral community When making sense of their world, tribal groupings such as Native Americans tend to have relatively comprehensive methods of collecting information. They do not discard any data as irrelevant, and assume that individual experiences are just as important as collective ones. Dreams, visions, prophecies, information gathered in former generations as well as findings from plants, birds and animals are all vital sources. This data is then arranged and evaluated to become a unified source of knowledge. Plants, and birds are regarded as a critical part of the ethics, economics or even government of the land, unlike western scientific philosophies that often think of these areas as highly unreliable. American Indians are largely interested in finding their path in life and living by it. They think of the universe as a moral entity, and this is proven by the growth cycles inherent in every living things life. In this community, a moral universe has events and actions that all have meaning or are interrelated. The world thus gives man direction upon which he can use in order to develop moral understanding. Traits of moral life are thus derived from the world around them and not from a value-neutral conception which exists prior to the moral values (Hester and Cheney 353). Comparison Native Americans tend to think of the universe as something which is alive, and this is why it has attributes like other living creatures. They derive this perspective from the observable facts of the planet. Valleys, continents, plants, rivers and even people appear to be smaller forms of life. However, they do not attempt to give the living world human characteristics; they instead embrace this aspect owing to the observations they made and then fit it into a ceremonial world (Hester and Cheney 354). In fact, it is this perspective that causes American Indians to place man at the lowest rank in the pyramid of life. By placing man last, it is possible for him to learn from other creatures like animals and birds. Man thus has the responsibility to respect all life and simply play his part. One may contrast this to the moral concept defined by Singer known as sentience (77). He explains that ethics towards other things in the universe may be defined on the basis of the thing’s ability to experience suffering. Morality comes into question when a being is capable of perceiving this aspect, and this why kicking a stone would not be problematic but doing the same thing to a mouse would. In this school of thought, man has the responsibility to take away suffering as long as it can be experienced; when this is not the case, then the matter is not a moral question. The above perspective sharply differs from the American Indian one as the latter group considers all things in the universe in their own totality. They do not attempt to give human characteristics to things in the universe because doing so would suggest that man is a superior being. This last dimension has led to a human-centric definition of morality, often used to define relationships between man and his universe in the western world. Unlike traditional communities, sentience uses man’s traits as a gauge for assessing moral behavior against other creatures. Native Americans have a more holistic view of morality because they respect all life forms irrespective of whether they can perceive pain or suffering. Likewise, in biocentrism, man ought to perceive all living things as significant. Taylor challenges the notion that man is superior to other species because he has a kinship to these creatures (152). According to the bio-centric outlook, man’s genetic makeup is not better than that of other beings; it is simply more complex. Instead, the elements of the natural world including the environment, ecology and living beings all form one coherent union. The functional relationship between these various components of the earth is what leads to ultimate fulfillment among those species. Animals, plants and the things around them can only realize their own good if they live in harmony. When understood in this light, one can assert that biocentrism is relatively close to the American Indian concepts of moral community. Both schools of thought acknowledge the interrelated nature of human and non human worlds and the need for harmony between all species. Rejecting the aspect of human superiority in both perspectives is the nemesis of the speciesist perspective. Respect for other species is an important quality for Native Americans because they are all members of the living universe. Man must let other species find fulfillment in themselves, so inconsiderately infringing others’ rights is simply unacceptable. Human beings ought to communicate and enter into agreements with other forms of life in order to maintain their perception of morality (Hester and Cheney 354). Singer goes on to challenge those human beings who adopt a speciesist perceptive because it causes them to put their interests above those of other creatures (78). For instance, modern man mostly interacts with animals by eating them, and will often do so in order to satisfy his taste buds. The author even adds that despite man’s ability to meet his protein needs from plants, he chooses to keep domestic animals in cruel conditions that eventually culminate in their merciless slaughtering. It is for this reason that he believes man has violated his morality principles especially as defined in the sentience school of thought. As long as the creature is capable of experiencing pain, then it should not be treated in this sense. In this regard, the respect for other species is common among Native Americans and modern western thinkers; however, their justifications for doing so are quite different. Singer claims that this should occur in order to eradicate suffering for a creature that can feel it while Native Americans believe that it should be done in order to respect other members of the moral universe. Taylor emphasizes the fact that the attitude of respect is fundamental to the bio-centric perspective of morality (153). Man ought to deny his superiority and thus be unbiased when considering other aspects of nature. In this regard, biocentrism echoes the same sentiments portrayed by Native Americans as they also think of the universe in a holistic way. Conclusion Sentience appears to contrast sharply from Native American moral community because it uses man’s traits as the standard for assessing the value of other creatures. Conversely, biocentrism acknowledges the interrelatedness of all aspects of the universe and thus accepts all elements of nature as valuable in their own right. For this reason, biocentrism is more in tandem with American Indian morality as it does not judge others’ values on the basis of man’s traits. It instead thinks of all parts of the universe as significant in their own right simply because they belong to it. Works Cited Hester, Lee and Jim Cheney. “Truth and Native American Epistemology.” Social Epistemology 15.4(2001): 319-334. Print. Singer, Peter. A utilitarian defense of animal liberation. Thomson Wadsworth, 2008. Print. Taylor, Paul. “Biocentric egalitarianism.” Environmental Ethics 3(1981): 139-155. Print. Read More