Criticize Anthropocentrism (original) (raw)
Related papers
Anthropocentrism and the Care of the Environment20190430 119103 1avet1b
Anthropocentrism and the Environment Humans and our ethical principles make us brilliant being compare to other realities, and this centrality of humans in the created cosmos is the very essence of anthropocentrism. Only humans have personalities, emotions and can communicate on a high level who are not controlled by instincts (Miklós, 2014). Our rationality enabled us to know what is right or wrong and made us greater over other existence. It is an undeniable fact that the capacity of humans made us flourished in the area of medicine and technology. The developments and discoveries in Science, which contributed to the body of knowledge, are all product of the rationality of humans. Anthropocentrism came from the Greek word, "Anthropos" that means "human", highlighting the centrality of human in the created cosmos originated in Western philosophy and religion. However, this claim of centrality destroys the social dependency of all existence and imbibes the supremacy one entity. Our inevitability to be connected with other realities seems now to be non-existent, thus, giving more value on humans. The creation of pyramidal structure among existent beings and putting humans on the top of it is a great perplexity. Our claim of being at the top of hierarchy of species led to the destruction of all those that are below us, an inevitable result of our egoistic claim. This taxonomic or biological privilege is used as an ideology, which supports the domination of nature. In the modern period, the humanistic view that human being is the center of all things enters the picture. In fact, this period is characterized as anthropocentric because it is the human who is the source of truth and not mythologies or religion or the Bible. The rise of rationalism considering humans as greater entities because of their rational faculty is the prevailing philosophy. In addition, the rise of scientific discoveries fuels the claim that human and the power of mind can define anything. There is a great detachment from the belief with gods and nature, from religion and just focuses on humans as the prime center. The dilemma is, if the measure of all things is human and his rational capacity, how about the other beings which do not have this faculty? Thus, anthropocentrism is an exclusionary view system whether or not it linked to any specific ideologies (Miklós, 2014). Furthermore, anthropocentrism intrinsically value humanity but intrinsically value nonhumanity [nature] (Burchett, 2018). This leads to the pure socioeconomic intention of looking at the nature as an instrument for monetary gain. This objectification of the earth is an ecological predicament caused by selfishness of people. This does not give an avenue of concern but purely economical intention. In addition, the rise of capitalism as a social system gave license to those who simply made profit from the nature. The technological prowess of human societies has enabled [us] to rapidly extract and exchange vast amounts of natural resources with one another in a feverish, never-ending stream (Varner, 2006). Social ecologists argues that the exploitation of nature just for self-interest is denial of inherent value of the nature. Our existential claim over the nature resulted not only its destruction but also extinction of other species and global climate change. "God said. 'Let's make man in our image, after our likeness.' Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in his own image" (Gen 1:26). This Bible passages elevates the role of human creating a hierarchy among creations. It highlights dominance and Godlike of human. Furthermore, this is a classical way of justifying the superiority of everything including animals, plants and the nature at large. The words "dominion" and "subdue" is a hermeneutical display of the positioning of human on the top of the levels of creation. Actually, man was even responsible of the naming of animals and plants (Gen. 2:20). Thus, the authority was vested to human uplifting him from brute animals and plants. This classical claim of
HUMAN ATTITUDE TOWARDS ENVIRONMENT: SOME REFLECTIONS
IAEME PUBLICATON, 2020
The prime objective of this paper is to explore and examine human attitude towards nature from non-anthropocentric outlook of modern environmental ethics. Environmental ethics is a branch of applied ethics in which the ethical dignity of all biotic community can be restored. It is relatively a new slogan against traditional ethics. Traditional ethics is predominantly man-centered and it is intermitted in anthropocentrism. It considers human beings as the only legitimate moral agents. The relevance of anthropocentrism can further be strengthened with the influence of materialism in which only instrumental values are considered to be the moral values. Anthropocentrism is a view that every resource in nature is meant for human use which results severe environmental crisis. The world needs to be saved from this catastrophe. But the first order solutions, i.e., empirical solutions are not enough to revive the lost of ecological balance. An amicable solution to overcome present-day environmental crisis will be possible via environmental ethics with non-anthropocentric approach. It hinges that an attitudinal change of human towards nature, i.e., from an ego-centric to an eco-centric is necessary for curing environmental degradation. Environmental crisis hinges on the arrogant approach of human towards nature. One needs to point out that ecological crisis results due to man’s unlimited and unwanted intrusion and interference with nature. Therefore, to overcome 21st century environmental crisis human should care, love and respect the nature for ours as well as for future generation. Environmental ethics thus opposes traditional ethical approach on the one hand and claims non-anthropocentrism on the other hand
Rethinking our Relationship to our Environment
When environmental issues are raised people response differently with theological cycle. Some believe that the natural environment is eventually going to be destroyed and there is nothing that can be done about that, therefore there is no need to care for the environment. They claim that it is synonymous to “mending a death man’s coat” who will eventually die. This therefore provides reason why the environment is eventually not cared for and misused. Moreover they claim that, “All that we see is meant to serve man, and for the benefit of man and nothing more.” This therefore promotes a culture of wastefulness and mismanagement of the environment. This paper calls for a rethinking, environmental crisis is not just a scientific problem, but also a moral issue.
The Nature of (Human) Life and the Life of Nature: Advancing Environmental Sustainability
ISRG Journal of Arts Humanities & Social Sciences (ISRGJAHS, 2024
The willful and wanton destruction of the ecosystem has been extremely alarming. Farmlands are brazenly destroyed through lumbering, oil exploration and exploitation, bush burning and other economic activities. In fact, the entire ecosystem is continuously under threat by human activities. The simple explanation is anthropocentric ethics of the environment; man being the only privileged specie in the ecosystem with his exclusive moral status. Man is therefore on a rampaging mission to consciously exterminate nature and by extension unconsciously exterminate himself. The major aim of this work is how to advance explanations that clearly interpret man's nature and nature's life such that man does not see himself as significantly different from nature. To achieve this aim effectively, this research adopted methods of analysis and hermeneutics. With analysis, this work simplifies and connects related concepts that indicate the connectedness of man and the ecosystem. The types of analysis relevant to the breaking down of ambiguous and complex concepts and ideas are conceptual and linguistics analyses. Hermeneutical analysis as a type of analysis and hermeneutics as a second major method adopted in this research engage the interpretation of the concepts and carry out the analysis of the interpretations. All of these approaches are intended to show the implications of the narrowed views of anthropocentric and biocentric perspectives of nature. This research finds out that the anthropocentric and biocentric attitudes have found roots in every of man's destructive activities on the ecosystem. It therefore concludes that a proper interpretation of the nature of both human and non-human parts of the ecosystem exposes the similarities between the two aspects of nature. With this consciousness of oneness with nature, human beings are more likely to halt the damages on the environment.
Against the Environment. Problems in Society/Nature Relations
Frontiers in Sociology
The dominant manners in which environmental issues have been framed by sociology are deeply problematic. Environmental sociology is still firmly rooted in the Cartesian separation of Society and Nature. This separation is one of the epistemic foundations of Western modernity-one which is inextricably linked to its capitalist, colonial, and patriarchal dimensions. This societal model reifies both humanity and nature as entities that exist in an undeniably anthropocentric cosmos in which the former is the only true actor. Anthropos makes himself and the world around him. He conquers, masters, and appropriates the non-human, turning it into the mere environment of his existence, there solely for his use. If sociology remains trapped in this paradigm it continues to be blind to the multiple space-time specific interrelations of life-elements through which heterogeneous and contingent ontologies of humans and extra-humans are enacted. If these processes of interconnection are not given due attention, the socioecological worlds in which we-human as well as others-live cannot be adequately understood. But misunderstandings are not the only issue at stake. When dealing with life-or-death phenomena such as climate change, to remain trapped inside the Society/Nature divide is to be fundamentally unable to contribute to world reenactments that do not oppress-or, potentially, extinguish-life, both human and extra-human. From the inside of Anthropos' relation to his environment the only way of conceiving current socioecological problems is by framing them in terms of an environmental crisis which could, hypothetically, be solved by the very same societal model that created it. But if the transformation of some of the world(s)' life-elements into the environment of the Human is part of the problem, then, socioecological issues cannot be adequately understood or addressed if they are framed as an environmental crisis. Instead, these problems need to be conceived as a crisis of Western modernity itself and of the kind of worlds that are possible and impossible to build within it.
Anthropocentrism vs. Biocentrism: A Study on Human-Nature Relationship
2021
The human-nature relationship has been a focus of research for the environment has seen a dramatic increase. To subdue nature, to bend its forces to our will, has been the acknowledged purpose of mankind since human life began, but the time has come for a revision of our conception of the benefits and responsibilities of holding domination over all other created things. A new spirit is abroad as scientists and layman realize that man and the rest of nature are united and indivisible. The study of anthropocentrism and biocentrism as approach to study the human-nature relationship has not yet received enough attention. Although both express environmental concerns and have an interest in protecting nature and also have recognize that we have a responsibility to the environment, but they have different motives. This paper is an attempt to expound and clarify these two concepts and try to give answer to the question “Does it matter which of these two views we adopt?
In Defence of Environmental Anthropocentrism
Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 2024
The critique of anthropocentrism has accompanied environmental thinking since its inception. However, we lack a deeper analysis of anthropocentrism and its forms. The authors of this study concentrate on analysing selected forms of anthropocentrism that were prominent in different periods of the history of European culture. They offer a basic typology of anthropocentrism and characterize philosophical, religious, philosophical-theological and philosophical-scientific anthropocentrism. They also include a fifth form of anthropocentrism, which they call environmental anthropocentrism. The authors consider changes that are important from a philosophical, ethical and axiological perspective and analyse the potential of anthropocentrism in comparison with some of environmental anthropocentrism its alternative forms, such as biocentrism and cosmocentrism. They also attempt to assess the significance of environmental anthropocentrism and the potential for its implementation in human-environmental relations. The environmental anthropocentrism proposed here is a potential solution with applicability to the search for a moderate, humble, non-arrogant, respectful and responsible human approach to relations with nature.
Description and objectives: This class provides introduces students to the interconnectedness of human and natural worlds, and the unfolding problems that are facing the world. We will read about humans' cultural and economic relationship with the natural environment, and how the environment is influenced by, and influences people. By the end of the course students should be able to describe how human thinking about " nature " has changed, and how this effects our relationship with it. Furthermore, students will be able to better evaluate emerging problems and challenges involving people and the environment. The course begins by discussing different forms of human community and modes of living, including farming and pastoralism. We then go on to look at how humans have incorporated nature and the environment into their cultural systems, and how the " modern civilized world " has separated human culture and civilization from the natural environment, which industrial society attempts to control. We will study this division and attempts to resolve it. Finally, we will explore contemporary environmental problems including population growth, mining, and climate change and how we can seek to remedy them. This includes taking a critical look at the politics of climate refugees and carbon trading.
Roots of (and Solutions to) our Ecological Crisis. A Humanistic Perspective
Ecological Civilization, 2023
Research into the sources of contemporary ecological crisis as well as ways to overcome it has been conducted for several decades. Rich academic literature provides numerous attempts to identify the causes of the crisis and its solutions. The ecological crisis is extremely complex and variously conditioned. Therefore, I focus on determining only two sources of the crisis and, respectively, two solutions. Since the late 1960s, monotheistic religions, Christianity in particular, have been made responsible for the environmental crisis. Christianity is accused of forwarding two theses which are harmful to the environment: 1. The sole purpose of nature is to serve man. 2. By God's will, man is endowed with unlimited power over nature. I attempt to overcome this understanding of the source of the crisis by showing the interpretation of the Bible which contradicts the above-mentioned theses. Moreover, I show "the ecological potential" of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions. As the second source of the crisis I indicate modern thought: 1. Man's alienation from nature as the result of the Cartesian division of reality into res cogitans and res extensa. 2. Francis Bacon's program: the study of nature is the task of natural sciences alone; nature is devoid of value in itself. 3. The mathematization of nature made it possible for the natural and technical sciences to develop rapidly, which contributed to the industrial revolution. I look for an antidote to this cause of the crisis in Klaus M. Meyer-Abich's idea of man's peace with nature which he developed as part of the practical philosophy of nature. I believe that revealing our inseparable bond with nature and showing compassion towards nature may help overcome the destructive consequences of modern thought.
Anthropocentrism as the scapegoat of the environmental crisis: a review
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, 2022
ABSTRACT: Anthropocentrism has been claimed to be the root of the global environmental crisis. Based on a multidisciplinary (e.g. environmental philosophy, animal ethics, anthro - pology, law) and multilingual (English, Spanish, French, German, Japanese) literature review, this article proposes a conceptual analysis of ‘anthropocentrism’ and reconstructs the often implicit argument that links anthropocentrism to the environmental crisis. The variety of usages of the concept of ‘anthropocentrism’ described in this article reveals many underlying disagreements under the apparent unanimity of the calls to reject anthropocentrism, both regarding what exactly is the root of the problem, and the nature of the possible solutions. It highlights the limitations of the argument of anthropocentrism as the scapegoat of the environmental crisis and identifies two main challenges faced by attempts to go beyond anthropocentrism: an epistemological challenge regarding knowledge and the place of sciences, and a metaethical challenge related to values and cultural pluralism. Beyond the issue of an anthropocentric point of view, the core of the problem might be an intertwinement of views and as sumptions that work together to undermine attempts to protect the environment from the greed of some humans, such as the human−nature dichotomy, capitalism, consumerism, industrialism, etc. Finally, this article suggests that making the nuances and the presuppositions that underlie various versions of the anti-anthropocentric rhetoric explicit is necessary to foster constructive dialogue among different anti anthropocentrism proponents, as well as with their detractors. KEY WORDS: Anthropocentrism · Non-anthropocentrism · Values of nature · Environmental ethics · Cultural pluralism · Intrinsic value