Species as classes

example Dupré and Horvath, ecocentrism still has to deal with the problem of finding moral standing in more than one type of entity. The larger the number of, and the more diverse species concepts we accept, the more difficult it will be. If there really are several types of species out there and only one or a few of these types of species can be a basis for moral status, then ecocentrism will have to leave many existing species with no moral standing.

out that species as classes is the traditional answer,⁶⁵⁰ while Hull’s idea is controversial.⁶⁵¹

For Lawrence E. Johnson it is essential that species exist as individuals, and he therefore attempts to produce some independent arguments against the idea that species are classes.⁶⁵² In order to do that, he presents three different and more or less acknowledged methods for arranging particulars into classes, and he concludes that none of them are suitable for arranging organisms into species.

The first of these methods is to find one particular feature and create the class of all things that has the feature in question. The second is to use family resemblance, and the third is simply to use an ostensive definition.⁶⁵³

The first method when applied to organisms/species is identical to the phenetic species concept as we discussed above. We saw then that this method is beset with difficulties. Johnson concentrates his criticism on the problem of finding a common property that is not too inclusive and not too exclusive, and still interesting enough to use as a basis for division. He asks us to consider the fact that many species are "highly variable or even polymorphous, contain radically different life stages, or are beset with anomalies."⁶⁵⁴ This seems to be a correct observation, and I believe it is a good argument against this method of ordering organisms into classes.⁶⁵⁵

Phenetics and species as classes are two ideas that are seen as going hand in hand. Dismissing phenetics is therefore often seen as enough for dismissing the idea of species as classes. There are other ways of doing it, however. As we saw, Johnson also mentions two other options. The second method he mentions is family resemblance. This method is also mentioned by others,⁶⁵⁶ though it is not very thoroughly discussed in the literature in connection with the idea of species as classes.⁶⁵⁷ Johnson dismisses it because if we use it, "we do no longer have the characteristic of a species" as Johnson puts it, and

[i]nstead of the species being what it is because it has certain characteristics, a scheme of characteristics is settled upon describing what the species happens to be.⁶⁵⁸

I can see that this is a problem for Johnson since it would make the species more “cluster-like” and less like an individual with its own interests. I am not totally convinced that this is a fatal blow against the idea of species as classes, however. It is true that a division based on family resemblance would go against the traditional Aristotelian and Linnaean idea of species as having essences. The

650 Callicott 1986 p.144

651 Callicott 1986 p.145 I will look at Hull’s suggestion in sub-section 6.1.8.

652 Johnson 1991 p.153f

653 Johnson 1992 p.146

654 Johnson 1991 p.153, Johnson 1992 p.146

655 As also been pointed out by Buege (Buege 1997 p.10).

656 Reydon 2004 p.302

657 It is more thoroughly discussed in connection with the idea of species as natural kinds that we will look at in the next sub-section.

658 Johnson 1992 p.146. Italics in original.

question is: Is essentialism necessary for the idea of species as classes? It is in general assumed that it is,⁶⁵⁹ but it has, as far as I know, not been properly argued for. If essentialism is necessary, then family resemblance will clearly not work. If essentialism is necessary for classes, then the only way of ordering organisms into classes would have to be by finding the common property of all organisms that is essential for the classification but that alternative was just dismissed. It would also mean that we would have to restrict the selection of species concepts we can use. Of the three we investigated above, only phenetics would work, and we would be committed to accept it in spite of the problems we found that this concept would have for ecocentrism as well as for biological science.

If essentialism is not necessary, then maybe family resemblance is not a bad way of doing the classification?

The third way of classifying objects into classes mentioned by Johnson was by ostensive definition. That method is dismissed by Johnson on the simple ground that the members of species are constantly changing.⁶⁶⁰ That organisms die and new ones are born seems indeed to make the ostensive method very cumbersome for pointing out which organisms belong to which species. On the other hand, we could let the organisms do the sorting for us by saying that “being born by an X Y is to be pointed out as belonging to the class of X Y”. This could work once we have done the original sorting. A serious problem with this method is that it would not allow for any new species to evolve. It would also have the effect that for sexually reproducing species we would be committed to the biological species concept including the problems we found this concept to have for ecocentrism.

A general and serious problem with the idea of using an ostensive definition of species is that it would be a very uninformative way of classifying organisms since it does not really say anything about why they are to count as one species.

This way of dividing organisms into classes would therefore be quite useless for biologists. It would also be quite useless as a basis for assigning moral standing to species since it does not tell us anything about how this grouping can generate a morally relevant interest in continued existence.

The fact that the individual members of the species are constantly substituted by new ones is used by Johnson not just as an argument against the ostensive method, but also as an argument against species as classes in general. In fact, he seems to consider this to be the primer argument against the notion of species as classes.⁶⁶¹ I am not sure why this would make it impossible to see species as classes, however. It is not unusual that things are exchanged in classes. The class of all blue things also has its members exchanged. New blue things are produced and things that originally had other colours are sometimes painted blue. In the same way, originally blue things sometimes get painted in other colours and some blue things get destroyed.

659 Wilson, Bradley E. 1995 p.340

660 Johnson 1992 p.146f

661 Johnson 1992 p.147

I believe that the simple fact that members of species are constantly substituted is not a problem as such. The problem is rather how members of species get substituted. Blue things come and blue things go but species evolve. If all blue things are successively substituted with green things, the class of blue things will be smaller and eventually become empty. When we talk about species we need to allow for the species to evolve. To see species as classes would, as Bradley E. Wilson points out, make us unable to account for the role of species in the evolutionary process. If a species is defined based on what properties its individuals have, then the species cannot evolve with respect to those properties without thereby immediately turning into a new species.⁶⁶²

In this way, the notion of species as classes resembles the suggestion that species should be conceived of as Platonic ideas. J Baird Callicott discusses this idea as a way of circumscribing the ontological problem in a way that would suit ecocentrism.⁶⁶³ If species are seen as ideas, the species will be more real than the individual organisms that instantiate the idea. This would clearly favour ecocentrism. As Callicott also points out, however, if we see species as Platonic ideas, there would be no point in protecting species since the ideas can never be threatened by extinction.⁶⁶⁴ We seem to have the same problem if we see species as classes. Classes do not cease to exist even if they are empty.⁶⁶⁵ The class of all blue objects in my apartment exists even if I do not have any blue objects in my apartment. It will be an empty class but the class will still exist. Correspondingly, if the red kite species (milvus milvus) is a class then the class will continue to exist even if all red kites are dead. This clearly makes the idea of species as classes unsuitable both for ecocentrism and for preservation purposes in general.

Bradley E. Wilson also presents another argument against species as classes. He points out that it does not account for the genealogical relations between the members of a species, something that is very important for understanding the concept of species.⁶⁶⁶ We would thus if we see species as classes, not be able to use the phylogenetic species concept. Whether this is a good argument depends of course on whether you accept the phylogenetic species concept as at least a realistic contender, and what purpose you have with your classification. If your purpose is to use species as units of evolution Wilson is clearly right, and to adopt a species concept that would make species useless for that very important task looks like a good argument against that concept.

According to ecocentrism, the evolutionary process is very important, and I therefore suspect that this last argument by Bradley E. Wilson is a rather important reason for ecocentrism to reject the notion of species as classes.

662 Wilson, Bradley E. 1995 p.340

663 As we saw above, Callicott accepts that species are classes.

664 Callicott 1986 p.144

665 Buege 1997 pp.9f

666 Wilson, Bradley E. 1995 p.340