The Anthropocentric Advantage (original) (raw)
Related papers
The anthropocentric advantage? Environmental ethics and climate change policy
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 2011
Environmental ethicists often criticize liberalism. For, many liberals embrace anthropocentric theories on which only humans have non-instrumental value. Environmental ethicists argue that such liberals fail to account for many things that matter or provide an ethic sufficient for addressing climate change. These critics suggest that many parts of nature-non-human individuals, other species, ecosystems and the biosphere have a kind of value beyond what they contribute to human freedom (or other things of value). This article suggests, however, that if environmental ethics are inclusive and also entail that concern for some parts of nature does not always trump concern for others, they have a different problem. For, when there are many things of value, figuring out what to do can be extremely difficult. Even though climate change is likely to cause problems for many parts of nature it will probably be good for some other parts. Inclusive environmental ethicists need a theory taking all of the things they care about into account to provide definitive reason even to address climate change. Without this theory, anthropocentric liberals might argue that we should not accept an inclusive environmental ethic. Although there may be something wrong with this line of thought, it at least raises a puzzle for those inclined to accept these ethics.
Environmental Values, Anthropocentrism and Speciesism
Environmental Values, 1997
Ethical reasoning of all types is anthropocentric, in that it is addressed to agents, but anthropocentric starting points vary in the preference they accord the human species. Realist claims about environmental values, utilitarian reasoning and rights-based reasoning all have difficulties in according ethical concern to certain all aspects of natural world. Obligation-based reasoning can provide quite strong if incomplete reasons to protect the natural world, including individual non-human animals. Although it cannot establish all the conclusions to which anti-speciesists aspire, it may establish many of them with some clarity.
Environmental Ethics: Anthropocentrism, Biocentrism, and Ecocentrism
In Search of Moral Equilibrium and Wisdom, 2021
Sustainable practices such as conservation, protected species, renewable energies, green technologies, reforestation, eco-friendly, and fair treatments of non-human species, among others, have dominated research and debates in environmental ethics. The preceding approaches seek to address various environmental concerns that range from deforestation, climate change, global warming, drought, mining, famine, overpopulation, over-fishing, oil drilling, pollution, ozone depletion, green gases, carbon emission, and nuclear waste. In addition to discussing those concerns, this chapter will highlight various perspectives on environmental ethics, which feature biocentrism, utilitarianism, interdependence between humans and nature, and shared substance with nature. Overall, as the title suggests, the tensions in discourses on environmental ethics tend to, more often than not, revolve around human needs and the care of nature and other living organisms. Notably, answers to questions about human responsibilities and obligation toward non-human species and the environment have been as contested as they are divergent.
Anthropocentrism as environmental ethic
2016
OF DISSERTATION ANTHROPOCENTRISM AS ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC Ever since the environment and nonhumanity became major ethical topics, humancentered worldviews have been blamed for all that is morally wrong about our dealings with nature. Those who consider themselves nonanthropocentrists typically assume that the West’s anthropocentric axiologies and ontologies underlie all of the environmental degradations associated with our species. On the other hand, a handful of environmental philosophers argue that anthropocentrism is perfectly acceptable as a foundation for environmental ethics. According to Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, “If reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies, a nonanthropocentric ethic will advocate the same [environmental] policies as a suitably broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism” (Norton 2004:11). Norton notes that although adherents to either ism may disagree about the relative importance of the various reasons they have for advocating...
Anthropocentrism: A study on environmental ethics
Man is a moral being. Non-humans are devoid of moral sense because they cannot distinguish between 'is and ought', 'right and wrong'. On account of moral awareness human actions can be judged as desirable and undesirable. It is a fact that moral concepts and moral valuations are meaningful only in human domain. There can be no disagreement about the fact that human-beings have their moral obligations for their fellow-beings. But the central question in environmental ethics is; whether human-beings have any obligation for the non-human species and towards nature. In the broad sense of the term, nature consists of flora, fauna and different other elements in nature such as the mountains, rivers, forests, earth and atmosphere. Though non-humans do not have moral sense the real issue is whether and to what extent human-beings have any moral duty, moral obligations for the non-humans over and above their duty towards their fellow human-beings.
2021
The paper proposes that care for the natural environment be treated as a prima facie duty in order to resolve the conflict between the anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric frameworks in environmental ethics. In light of William David Ross' conditional deontology, prima facie duty is a conditional duty whose actuality is determined by what is properly demanded in a conflict situation. While Ross conceptualized such duty for the benefit of humans as sources and recipients of moral actions, the same duty can be extended to the natural environment as a "moral subject." On the one hand, the anthropocentric framework posits that the environment has instrumental valuable; thus, humans have the duty to care for it because it is instrumental for their flourishing. On the other hand, the non-anthropocentric framework posits that the environment has an inherent valuable; thus, humans have the duty to care for it because it is valuable in its own right. I argue that treating care for the natural environment as a prima facie duty remedies the conflict between these opposing frameworks. The conditional status of the said duty is a means to determine and thereby prioritize the more incumbent duty in concrete conflict situations between the opposing frameworks.
THE ETHICS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM: BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS
ABSTRACT Environmentalism, a secular movement which started in its primordial forms with the Buddhist monks of the 4th Century BC and the Christian monks of the 3rd century AD, has in our time, undergone tremendous changes. Today, as we remain concerned and strive to maintain the beauty of the natural environment as a morally worthy act, it is important also to properly watch our steps so that the human person is not harmed in the process. In order words, while we commend the efforts of our present day environmentalists in protecting the natural environment, we need to put them in a balancing scale along with the need to protect the dignity and interests of the human person. In this paper, this balancing is made in close consideration of three theoretical categorizations given to man’s relation to his environment namely, Ecocentricism, Animal liberation and Ecofeminism. Key words: Environmentalism, Ethics, Ecocentricism, Ecofeminism, animal liberation
2014
The purpose of this study is to settle theoretical dispute between anthropocentrism and eco-centrism on whether new ethics is necessary or not. In particular, the study aims at establishing whether either anthropocentric or eco-centric moral theory can be a sufficient basis for new environmentalism as their respective proponents argue. The central question of this study is: is either anthropocentrism or eco-centrism adequate or an alternative theory but in which the two antagonistic moral approaches are reconciled necessary and possible? Through historical survey we see that anthropocentric vs. ecocentric theoretical controversies have persisted with consequential serious negative impact on environmentalism. An attempt by eco-centrists to defend their position with testimonies from antiquity and with scientific facts and theories has not convinced anthropocentrists. Surprisingly, the latter invoke the same scientific facts and theories as used by eco-centrists as a counter-argument,...