Prepared by: Israel Joseph R.

Soberano

N O N A N TH R O P O C EN TR IS M

AN TH RO PO CEN TRISM
It is a perspective asserting that

ethical principles apply to humans

only, and that human needs and
interests are of highest, and even,
exclusive, value and importance.

 Thus, concern for nonhuman

entities is limited to those

entities
having
value
to
humans. This serves as a
default ethic especially in
contemporary
Western
civilizations
(Boltzer
and
Armstrong 1998: 309).

 There

are
two
forms
of
anthropocentrism. They are the
following: the strong and weak
forms. The former is the application
of intrinsic value to human beings
alone.

 The latter is the attribution of greater

amount of inherent worth to human

beings than to any nonhuman beings.
This means that anthropocentric views
can fall in a range between strong and
weak anthropocentrism.

 Bryan Norton, in his essay Environmental

Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism

introduces the concepts of felt and
considered preferences in distinguishing
strong anthropocentrism from the weak
one.

 According to him, a

felt preference is
a human beings
need or desire that
can be satisfied
temporarily by that
human
beings
own
specifiable
experience.

 A felt preference can be considered

as a selfish one since it does not

attempt to understand universally
accepted moral ideals.

considered
preference is a
human
beings
need or desire that
is an outcome of a
careful
deliberation.
This
means that this
need or desire is
consistent with a
rationally adopted
world view.

Som e Anthropocentric view s

The human beings

relationship
towards nonhuman
animals This can
be considered a
concrete example
of
an
anthropocentrism
in a strong sense.

In Lectures on Ethics, Kant stresses that

human beings have no direct duties to
nonhuman animals. This is because they
are not self-conscious and are there
merely as a means to an end. That end is
man (Kant 1963: 239).

 The Golden Rule as an

Environmental Ethic- In
Stephen Jay Goulds article
entitled The Golden RuleA Proper Scale for Our
Environmental Crisis, he
offers a quite different
perspective by stressing
that the human beings
impact on the environment
is overrated.

 However, this does

not
mean
that
human
beings
should be indifferent
to the environment.
They should treat
the environment the
way they want to be
treated.

 Nonhuman

animals as
machinesNonhuman
animals are reduced to
mere machines. From
this consideration, it can
already be inferred that
they assume an inferior
state to human beings.

 Descartes

compares
nonhuman animals to
machines since the
formers actions are
ruled
by
mere
arrangement of organs.
It means that there is
no knowledge involved
in their actions no
matter how better they
are than human beings
in doing certain things.

Anthropocentrism in
environm entalethics
The position of anthropocentrism in

the realm of environmental ethics

can be construed as critical in
nature.
Environmental
ethics
challenges
anthropocentric
perspectives that are embedded in
the conventional ways of thinking.

Anthropocentrism is usually
considered as the main factor that
paves way to environmental
problems as a result of the manner
in which human beings view
themselves
in
relation
to
environment.

 The

emergence
of
the
Environmental Ethics started as an
academic discipline in the 1970s. A
philosophical conference was held
at the University of Georgia in
1971.
Subsequently,
many
philosophers trailed the same track
by writing papers in the same field.

 Since one of the tasks of

environmental ethics is to
question or challenge the
prevalent idea of Western
philosophical thought, there were
people who wrote something on
this.

 Few years before environmental

ethics emerged as an academic

discipline, a professor of medieval
history named Lynn White wrote
an essay entitled The Historical
Roots of Our Ecological Crisis
(1967).

 The paper argues that the

overexploitation of nature
and the other inhabitants
living in it by humans can be
traced to the main strands of
Judeo-Christian thinking.

 One of the people who also

worked on the same field was

Richard Routley (Sylvan). He
presented a paper entitled Is
There a Need for a New, an
Environmental Ethic (1973)?
at the 15th World Congress of
Philosophy.

 This paper focuses on the idea that

nonhuman nature has objective

intrinsic value which is devoid of
human assessment as presented in
the last man example.

Anthropocentrism VIS-A-VIS non

anthropocentrism

The emergence of environmental

ethics can be explained through
the lens of non anthropocentrism.
Non anthropocentrism challenges
the existing views regarding human
beings place in the environment
and their relation to it.

 The traditional points of view about

the supposed privileged status of

human beings are re-examined to
show that they are not at the
center of the universe and they are
mere members that inhabit the
earth like other living beings do.

 Although

there are many non

anthropocentric claims regarding
what
factors
constitute
an
acceptable environmental ethic, they
are same in stressing that human
beings should be disregarded as the
most
essential
beings
in
the
environment.

D iff
erent N on Anthropocentric
Points ofView
Ecocentrism- This is a shift

from
the
conventional
perspective
on
human
beings
as
the
more
important
entities
than
other beings that inhabit
the environment and even
the environment itself.

 According

to this point of
view, the whole ecosphere is
far more important than
human beings. This can be
associated with Aldo Leopolds
land ethic.

From a wider perspective, the environment

itself is at the core of system of values since it
sustains different beings that have complex
relationship.

 Biocentrism-

This standpoint is all

encompassing since it attempts to
extend intrinsic value and moral worth
to beings other than humans or those
who are capable of experiencing
painful and pleasurable things.

 This perspective can be associated

with Paul Taylor. He points out four

main components of the biocentric
outlook on nature.
Human

beings are members of the Earths

community of life
The natural world as an organic system
Individual organisms as teleological centers of life
Denial of human superiority

 Sentience-Centered Approach-

This
ethic can be associated with Peter
Singer. His view on beings having
intrinsic worth can be considered as
having a wider scope than the
traditional anthropocentric point of
view.
Great ape personhood

 However, it does not go far in

extending the moral worth to other

beings since in some sense it is
limited to those beings that have the
capacity to feel or experience pain
and pleasures.