Choose a side in the divide between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism. Explain the main arguments and approaches of your chosen perspective. You should also include a title of your own making that best characterises your submission
Introduction
Environmental philosophy is a systematic study on ways in which human interact with natural environment. Environmental philosophies evolved under a vision of finding balance for environment protection process. Anthropocentrism believes that human beings are the most important species on the planet. This is human centric. Ecocentrism on the other hand is an ecological political philosophy that opposes the human oriented concept and believes that all species on earth including humans are product of evolutionary process and are even inter-related in the life process . The present day condition has forced environmentalists to alter human attitude towards nature. Frequent changes in nature are provoked by human activities. Issues like global warming and climate change would plague the society. A quick survey on environmental philosophy reveals that there are three key theories namely Anthropocentrism, Biocentrism and Ecocentrism. The philosophies have specifically discussed on human perception on ways in which activities of people affect the environment in a positive or negative manner.
An insight into Anthropocentrism and core values
Anthropocentrism ideally mean human-centeredness. Under applied ethics the term Anthropocentrism connotes to attitude, value or practices. According to traditional thinkers, anthropocentrism is strictly about identification of distinctive characteristics of humans such as soul, language, origin. Under traditional thinkers Anthropocentrism ethics is strictly human centric. According to these thinkers nonhumans could not be included in the moral community. As per Western thoughts, humans are the superior species in the environment who use rest of the nature for their own benefit. This view was supported by “Great chain of being” as believed by thinkers like Aristotle, Plato or Plotinus. The idea is that humans are better than other species. Anthropocentrism is therefore supported by conservationists who evaluate the ethical perspectives on the world. The present ‘human anthropocentrism’ is heavily criticized and humans were argued of possessing selfish tendencies. It has been argued that anthropocentrism could reduce intellectual friction between ‘nature protectionists’ and social conservationists. The term is often used interchangeably with humanocentrism and also known as human supremacy. It is also believed to have rooted in modern human culture and it has been argued that the root cause of problems was created by human actions in the environment as they are the most knowledgeable species. The main argument of Anthropocentrism lies in discussing why humanity dominates and explore the need for developing the world.
Argument and approaches
While anthropocentrism ethics is completely rested on the interest of humans and the non-anthropocentrist identify this as the key reason behind environment crisis. It has been further argued that there is strong anthropocentrism and weak anthropocentrism. Arguments on anthropocentrism could be studied below;
Is anthropocentrism the main cause of environmental crisis
Since anthropocentrism philosophy believes that humans dominate nature and encourage non human species to exploit nature, this belief developed. It has been further argued that anthropocentrism is not deeply philosophical. It encourages isolation of humans from the root or nature. Environment is divided under this concept in two parts namely humans and animals. It has been also argued that anthropocentrism is incomplete in terms of values, that while humans have value other living beings lack value. Thus anthropocentrism is argued from different perspective.
Ecocentrism philosophy developed as an offshoot of nature protecting philosophy. While anthropocentrism leads to natural disaster and affects nature, ecocentrism emphasizes on protecting nature and natural identities. It refers to a holistic approach that would help in protecting environment as a whole. It is in this connection the thinkers have strictly mentioned about the value of respecting and protecting different types of species present in the world. Ecocentrism critically emphasizes on environment protection and follow existing norms and ethical approaches to protect environment. In the present era, the environment police has strictly focuses on environment protection process and offering a safe and secured natural environment for proper human growth and development. A healthy environment that is not controlled by any species but is interdependent has encouraged healthy living and proper growth of human lives. In the environment it could be therefore stated from the arguments that every species in important. Irrespective of size of the species every natural creation is important and encourage in maintaining proper environment for healthy and happy living condition. While anthropocentrism leads to crisis in the future due to environmental changes and use of natural products in a ruthless manner, ecocentrism does not accuses any species for the forthcoming disaster, instead supports and argues the disaster is a natural calamity that is predestined. Hence while these two concepts differ at the core of ideologies, it could be mentioned that these two are interdependent.
Conclusion
Anthropocentrism therefore as mentioned is human centric and has been severely criticized for distinct beliefs. It is strange but unique, and accuses human being for various environment oriented issues or natural problems that is threatening life on earth. Secondly ecocentrism though offers a clear and open approach towards protection of environment in a defined manner, yet it is not bereft of limitations. Hence after studying both the philosophies in detail it could be underpinned that the ethical consideration in environment protection process hold special place and thus encourage adequate approaches for improvement and conservation.
References
Curry P, Ecological Ethics (Polity Press 2006)
De Lucia V, 'The Ecosystem Approach Between Ecocentrism And Anthropocentrism' SSRN Electronic Journal
Drenthen M, 'Ecocentrism As Anthropocentrism' (2011) 14 Ethics, Policy & Environment
Grant R, A Case Study In Thomistic Environmental Ethics (Edwin Mellen Press 2007)
Hoffman A, 'Getting Right With Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, And Theocentrism' (2005) 18 Organization & Environment
Kortetmäki T, 'Anthropocentrism Versus Ecocentrism Revisited: Theoretical Confusions And Practical Conclusions' (2013) 14 SATS
