Reverence for Life

One could argue that Schweitzer’s theory of Reverence for Life, or of “practicing the same reverence for life toward all will-to-live, as toward my own” (132), is too idealistic to be applied to the real world, and that no person could fully adhere to it. I would contend that this is not the case. The ethic of reverence for life posits that the maintenance and enhancement of life, the effort to bring it to its greatest potential, are the only things that it counts as good in themselves. It is rather realistic in that it leaves the particulars up to the individual—it is the responsibility of the individual to decide in each situation which course of action to take, and the choice ultimately lies in the hands and conscience of the individual to do what seems to best fit into this ethic. The principle is that no life must be injured unnecessarily, and each human being must decide, by looking within, which acts may be considered necessary.

One might then argue that the ethic is so subjective that an individual could follow it, and rationalize unnecessary injury to life as being necessary. Hidden in this argument is the judging of others, rather than oneself, that is avoided in Schweitzer’s ethic; however to address this point, this may be true in some cases, but for the majority of human beings, I believe that such self delusion would be nearly impossible if one was honest and genuine in the serious undertaking of this ethic in daily life. I believe that if each individual adopted this view, their own feelings of right and wrong would stem from the same place, and generally lead them to similar behaviors. To a large extent, there is one simple human task which is necessary to follow the ethic of reverence for life, and that is mindfulness—one must maintain a focused awareness of the existence of all varieties of life, their value, and the way one’s own thoughts and actions affect them. In addition, if one were to start at the beginning from Schweitzer’s position of “ethical oneness with existence,” a new way of life would arise, and the very way in which one related to the world would have to change, out of the necessity of avoiding cognitive dissonance, following the adoption of this ethic.