GALILEO'S THEORY that the earth was only one of several planets revolving around the sun seemed to indicate that God placed His chosen people on a less imposing place in the universe. Nonetheless, human beings are of the highest import and our concern has always been human values. The question now arises as to whether the non-human natural world, collectively called the environment, has values. While the Western world has been centered on human ethics there are those who suggest that we need a new Galileo theory to change our beliefs as to the place of humans in the universe.

An increasing number of people today believe there is a basic and principled interest in the earth's surroundings, in its species, its wilderness, and ecological structure. On this basis, Lawrence E. Johnson, writing "A Morally Deep World," lays the foundation that human beings ought to be of moral concern in a moral universe, predicated on the belief that such is humanity's due because it has interests. These interests are part of life's process and are deeper than pleasure and yearning. Johnson believes that animals, plants, ecosystem, and species have interests, are each morally important, and extend beyond the human sphere. The argument to this opinion says that boundaries can be drawn so as to largely coincide with those of the human race, to which Lawrence answers that there is no acceptable method of depicting morally important interests in support of that tenet.

To those who question whether there is a moral universe Johnson replies that he would hate to live in a world where the only difference between him and an Adolph Hitler is a difference of opinion. Even though we cannot specifically define morally significant human interests or put them in proper balance, we ought to recognize their import and take them into account as best we can. We cannot ignore the interests of another, family, sex, or social group, and so accepting we have come a long way toward acknowledging that there must be interests in the non-human world.

It is conventional wisdom that there is a balance in nature. As we understand and accept that individual organisms are constantly changing so we must come to believe that the ecosystem is the site of complex relationship between beings and their nonliving environment. Nature is replete with examples: the forage-deer-mountain lion balance, the lightning-fired burning of junipers in the valleys of the Sierra Nevada to prevent their crowding out the slow growing oak trees, burning of the under growth brush to protect the large fire-resistant trees. When man interferes with nature's balance, he often makes a mess of things, even though he follows public policy. Man neither understands ecosystems or acts properly toward them; instead he must consider them as a whole with their own interests and not an individual collection.

Since what we do affects the earth and its atmosphere, whether driving a car, moving a lawn, or lighting a fire, we are morally obligated to act as moral agents. Cancer is a natural phenomenon and develops in the organism in accordance with its nature. In riding unchecked through our natural resources we are not unlike cancer in our attack on the biosphere. Humanity, unlike cancer, can always turn benign. We cannot defend our exploitation of the rest of the world on the grounds that we act in accordance with nature. An evolutionary trend has been toward a greater balance involution, a mix, which fortify and improve the complexion of ecosystems and other living things. Any abuse of the environment by humans cannot be defended because it is in accordance with the natural world.

Sooner or later man must harmonize with the world around him and there is prima facie evidence that we do so before we further deplete or seriously destroy the ecosystem and its species. We can still drive automobiles and plow fields and shoot ducks, but we must preserve the species and preserve the biosphere unless they is sufficient evidence to the contrary. Chopping down a tree is one thing; destroying and not replanting an entire forest is another.

There are cases where we need show no restraint in mass destruction. We have virtually destroyed the small pox organism, the poliovirus; the hookworm and typhoid must be obliterated. The case for human beings is strong when we purge a disease. This is because human interest outweighs that of the disease and the ecosystem is not weakened.

Johnson does nor advocates a set of moral rules, but rather an attitude of respect and consideration for the interests of all entities. We live in a world abound with such entities, with beings that count, that are not just objects. Human beings are morally significant and we live in a world, which, at different levels, are morally significant. That we are rational and feeling has much to do with our interests, yet we are much deeper than that, and it is in those depths that our well being interests have roots. To live efficiency we must fulfill our own well being and live in harmony and balance with the world around us.

ARGUMENT ANALYSIS

"The depth of moral significance extends at least to the depths of the living world. While individual organisms, be they human or protozoa's have their own particular degree of moral importance, often to a very high degree, it is not individual organisms alone that have moral standings. There in a moral value on many different and diverse levels that can be separated only artificially. (1) [We live in a world of life and all life processes of whatever sort, define interests that count morally. The absence of an effective moral algorithm does not excuse us from our responsibility to give due consideration and respect to the varied and invariably significant interest of very different entities. (2) To live effectively we must fulfill our own well-being needs, living in harmony and balance with ourselves and with the world around us. Morally, we ought as best we can, to allow the living world and the entities thereof, in their diversity, to thrive in richness, harmony, and balance. In all things we must ask whether our actions are conducive to or at least compatible with the fullness of well being of life. Thereby we may better live deep and worthwhile lives in a deep and valuable world.

Premise 1: We live in a world of life and all life processes of whatever sort define interests that count morally.

Premise 2: To live effectively we must fulfill our own well-being needs, living in harmony and balance with ourselves and the world around us.

Conclusion: (We must ask whether) our actions are conducive to or at least compatible with the fullness and well being of life.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Premise 1 implies that all living beings have their own interests that count morally. This departs from those who believe that the interests that count morally are the exclusive property of homosapiens. Morality, however, is identified with good and evil. In this context all life processes have interests which may be in order (good) or disorder (evil). In this context, different entities have their own interest and thus their own goodness or badness. Teleological, all objects of our experience consist of formed matter moving or changing in a purposeful pattern. This is an important philosophical perception that includes the "significant interest of very different entities." The premise does not answer the question as to whether or not there should be a trade-off between the value we place on human needs and the desire to protect endangered species and atmosphere. It can be argued that the need to "balance the environment" must be examined in the context of whether man is the beneficiary.

Premise 2 is based on the contention that the survival of the specie depends on the collaboration with all living creatures which calls for a state of symmetry in nature. Scientific wisdom indicates that extinction of one genus can disturb the equilibrium of the whole, just as the breakdown of the environmental balance in the world can wreck havoc on all living creatures. If the hypothesis is correct that within the definition of morality the environment should not be self-centered but that the living world must exist in a state of equanimity.

If the conclusion is sound and our lives are compatible with the fullness and well-being of the environment, then the world belongs not only to "creatures great and small" but to all living matter and gives validity to the maxim of John Donne that "no man is an island unto himself."