Suppose, as biocentrists do, that even microorganisms have a good of their own – that is, some objective form of welfare. Still, human welfare is vastly greater and more valuable. If it were infinitely greater, individualistic bio-centrism would be pointless. But consideration of the facts of evolutionary history and of the conceptual relations between infinity and incommensurability reveals that there are no infinite welfare differences among living things. It follows, in particular, that there is some very large number of bacteria whose aggregate overall welfare is not less than the welfare of a human being.
NoltJ.2004. ‘An argument for metaphysical realism’. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie35 (1): 71–90. Crossref.
11.
NoltJ.2006. ‘The move from good to ought in environmental ethics’. Environmental Ethics28 (4): 355–374. Crossref.
12.
NoltJ.2009. ‘The move from is to good in environmental ethics’. Environmental Ethics31 (2): 135–154. Crossref.
13.
NoltJ.2013. ‘Comparing suffering across species’. Between the Species16 (1): 86–104. Crossref.
14.
NoltJ.2015. Environmental Ethics for the Long Term. London: Routledge.
15.
O'NeillJ.1992. ‘The varieties of intrinsic value’. Monist75 (2): 119–137. Crossref.
16.
RobinsonA.1966. Non-Standard Analysis. Amsterdam: North Holland.
17.
RolstonH.1988. Environmental Ethics: Duties to and Values in the Natural World. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
18.
RussellB.1963. ‘On scientific method in philosophy’. In Mysticism and Logic and Other Essays. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble.
19.
SingerP.1990. Animal Liberation, revised ed. New York: Avon Books.
20.
TaylorP.1981. ‘The ethics of respect for nature’. Environmental Ethics 3. Reprinted in A. Light and H. Rolston, 2003. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
TaylorP.1986. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
