AGAINST BIOSPHERICAL EGALITARIANISM

Arne Naess and Paul Taylor are two of the most forceful proponents of the principle of species equality. Problematically, both, when adjudic ating conflict of interest cases, resort to employing explicit or impl icit species-ranking arguments. I examine how Lawrence Johnson's criti cal, species-ranking approach helpfully avoids the normative inconsist encies of ''biospherical egalitarianism.'' Many assume species-ranking schemes are rooted in arrogant, ontological claims about human, prima te, or mammalian superiority. Species ranking, I believe, is best view ed as a justified articulation of moral priorities in response to indi viduals' or entities' relative ranges of vulnerability and need, roote d in their relative ranges of capacities and interests.