Thesis: Conservative
anthropocentrism provides the best basis and framework for an environmental ethic. Author: David Watson Date: Spring 2007 I. Introduction Global human population has easily surpassed five billion
people. This population explosion has
increased consumption of natural resources by an alarming rate. The correlating demand on the finite resources
of Earth, the biosphere, has strained such basic elements as the oceans, the ozone,
forests, fertile soil, and even the amount of available fresh water. Recent population growth and the related
effects are only one of many ways in which humans impact the biosphere. The term biosphere not only encompasses the
earth and all of its inanimate parts, but also the different and interconnected
organisms that live on the earth. Because
humans have the unique ability to drastically impact the environment, this
interaction affects humans as well as all other members of the biosphere. Ethical study of this interaction is termed environmental
ethics, and there are a variety of often competing theories in this field. In this essay I argue for an environmental ethic
which I will refer to as conservative anthropocentrism. Conservative anthropocentrism is distinct
from the radical anthropocentrism that dominates Western culture. This conservative approach encourages a
relationship between humans and the rest of nature conducive to the future of
both humanity and the other members of the biosphere. Environmental conditions affect the current
and future members of the biosphere, humanity included. For logical reasons humanity remains of
ultimate priority in this ethic, however, domination and exploitation of nature
by humans is in no way encouraged or accepted.
The survival of humanity depends on environmental conditions remaining
viable for human life. All of the
interconnected members of the biosphere affect and are affected by the
environment. Therefore, conservative
anthropocentrism provides the best basis and framework for an environmental ethic. Theories
in environmental ethics usually find themselves aligned with or close to one of
two leading schools of thought.
Predominant in application throughout the Western world is radical
anthropocentrism. This is the unstated,
default approach to environmental ethics prevalent in the many human centered
societies of the West. Radical
anthropocentrism generally promotes the instrumental use of nature for the
needs and desires of current humans. The
wealth and consumption of Western societies exemplifies this often implicit
anthropocentric lens through which the relationship between man and nature is
seen. The other
reigning school of thought encompasses most other theories of environmental
ethics and falls close to what can be called non-anthropocentric environmental
ethics. Such ethics would claim the
intrinsic value of animals or even inanimate parts of the biosphere as being
equally significant in comparison to the intrinsic value of humans. J. Baird Callicott, a champion of the ‘Land
Ethic,’ one of multiple non-anthropocentric theories, provides an example of a
non-anthropocentrism when he says, “the good of the biotic community is the
ultimate measure of the moral value, the rightness or wrongness, of actions” (Massanari
46). Insight
and merit are to be found in both of these opposed schools of thought regarding
environmental ethics. Radical
anthropocentrism acknowledges the selfish instinct of human nature and even
embraces it, while non-anthropocentrism shows the value and importance of the non-human
natural world. I suggest a middle ground
in environmental ethics, a theory that promotes the enduring prosperity of both
humanity and nature. II. The Context of Practical Application Environmental
ethics fall into a unique category of ethical study known as applied
ethics. Moral and ethical issues are
usually discussed in terms of logical, philosophical, or theological
justification. However, lay people and
their willingness to accept and apply such concepts to their lives is
irrelevant in the formulation or defense of such theories. While most ethical discussion remains
theoretical in nature, applied ethics also must address real life
implementation. Environmental ethics
face the difficult task of developing a philosophically justifiable ethic that
carries enough practical, and emotional, appeal for real life application. The difference between applied ethics and alternative
ethical studies is that applied ethics must consider this common appeal in
theoretical formulation. Arthur Caplan
summarizes the distinct role of applied ethics: The practitioners of applied ethics see the
theoretical aspects of ethics as confined to the pure or basic side of
ethics. Practitioners of applied ethics
depict themselves as moral ‘engineers’ who take theoretical insights from the
basic researchers and apply them to the resolution of concrete moral dilemmas.
(Caplan 26) Applied ethics function to guide behavior relating to a
specific topic according to the determinations of the particular ethic. If an applied ethic, such as an environmental
ethic, cannot be employed in the world then the purpose of the ethic is
defeated. The distinction between most
ethical studies and applied ethics causes much of the controversy in
formulating environmental ethics. Several basic differences in radical
anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism highlight the tension between
application and philosophical justification in environmental ethics. Radical anthropocentric ethics are
practically appealing due to the immediate fulfillment of needs and desires. However, they fall short on philosophical
justification and emotional appeal.
These ethics also fail to consider the more distant effects humans can
have on the environment and the resulting impact on future human generations. Non-anthropocentrists claim that
environmental ethics holding humans as a priority are morally and ethically
wrong. This view is justified
philosophically with relative ease, yet practical application of such a view
does not seem likely. People will not
readily abandon the comfort, security, and familiarity allowed by the
instrumental use of nature for the sake of a morally sound relationship between
man and nature. III. Rationality,
Valuation, and the Consideration of Species Discussions of environmental ethics often turn on
the concept of value. Radical
anthropocentrists often claim that only humans possess intrinsic value. Non-anthropocentric environmental ethics,
conversely, often assert that living and non-living things have intrinsic value
and are therefore no less or more deserving of consideration than humans. The idea of value is often used, though in
different ways, for justification of one ethic or another. And though obvious, the role of humans in
this process must be made explicit: All value in nature is by human interaction and
projection. Sometimes humans value
nature instrumentally, as when they use soil to grow crops. Sometimes humans value nature intrinsically,
as when they save endangered lemurs, refusing to convert a lemur forest
sanctuary into cropland. But this is
always humans doing the valuation: anthropocentric if the decision is for
croplands, but still anthropogenic if the decision is for lemurs. Wild-nature is value-free, and only becomes
valuable when humans evaluate it. (Rolston 158) Humans must conduct valuation to attribute value or absence
of value to anything. Though intrinsic
value such as the above example is anthropogenic and not anthropocentric, the
human generation of the values cannot be escaped. As humans generate these values, they are
subject to the biases and interests of the individual conducting the valuation. No matter what value attribution approach is
used, humans are the foundation of value. Most common formulations of environmental ethics
place emphasis on the concept of value.
Whether people believe animals, all living things, or the biosphere
itself possess value often determines their environmental interaction. For value to be attributed to something, the
value must be assessed by a valuer. This
valuation cannot occur without a valuer, making a capable valuer (a human) a
prerequisite for any attribution or discussion of value. Even non-anthropocentric ethics such as the
land ethic make little effort to contend the anthropogenic nature of their own
value arguments. Valuation, as discussed above, is a process that
requires the unique ability of rationality.
Humans are the only species that possess rational ability. This ability that allows for intellectual acts
such as valuation has also enabled humans to develop science, technology, and
tools that can affect the environment in ways never before possible. Not only are humans the only species capable
of valuation, but they are also the only species with the potential to drastically
impact the biosphere. The role of
humanity as the only rational species provides evident potential, but also
results in great responsibility to themselves and the environment. IV. Humans are Animals The most important consideration in an
environmental ethic should be the survival of humanity. Survival is the most important function of
humans instinctively and biologically.
G.G. Simpson held this view and stated it concisely: ….even if he were the lowest animal, the anthropocentric
point of view would still be manifestly the only one to adopt for consideration
of his place in the scheme of things and when seeking a guide on which to base
his actions and evaluations of them. (Norton 144) Science considers self-interest to be a driving force in
nature. Simpson explains that humans can
only evaluate their actions as they relate to themselves, and that
anthropocentrism is natural. G.H. Murdy
simplifies the concept by saying, “it is proper for men to be anthropocentric
and for spiders to be arachnocentric” (Norton 144). All living things are
physiologically constructed for survival and procreation. All issues related to environmental ethics
cannot be discussed without consideration of humans. There is one common trait held by all living
things, and that is reproduction. All
living things have the ability to procreate.
Scientists believe that individual survival is not the only goal of
living things, but also the reproduction of their DNA. This importance placed on the future of the
DNA is analogous to the importance of the future of humanity. As much as individuals function to ensure
their survival, they also function to ensure the chances of survival of their species.
Likewise, an environmental ethic should
function to ensure survival in the present, as well as functioning to increase
the chances for future survival and humanity’s longevity. The theory of natural selection revolutionized
biological discussions. This theory
holds that the members of each species “must and should act to increase the
survival chances of their species” (Norton 145). Similar to other species included in this
theory, humans should act to increase the chances of the survival of their
species. According to the laws of nature
we should and must act to increase the chances of present human survival as
well as the future of humanity. One of
the main issues of environmental treatment is that of the earth’s condition
when inherited by future generations.
Gillespie asserts: ….there is
the ethical argument that the future is barely represented in most contemporary
decision making. Yet, by the time future
generations are living with the environmental problems that this generation has
left them, this generation will have gone, having taken the benefits of such
decisions, but leaving the costs behind.
(Gillespie 111-112) Making decisions that are fair to future generations of
humanity may require sacrifice. Such
sacrifice might be significant, but would pale in comparison to the misery
future generations may face on an exhausted and devastated earth. Though acting in the interests of the
present may be easier, humanity as a whole should act to increase the chances
for future humans. One of the most basic
needs of future generations is to have a healthy biosphere in which to live,
and this must be addressed before time runs out. Opponents of a conservative anthropocentric
environmental ethic will object to the priority of human survival in an
environmental ethic. Those who oppose
any anthropocentric ethic would look to the concept of value to support their
argument. They would claim that other
members of the biosphere possess intrinsic value and that their value cannot be
considered less than that of a human. Thus,
other members of the biosphere cannot be sacrificed for the betterment of
humanity. According to such arguments, the
intrinsic value of these other members prohibits any anthropocentric environmental
ethic. Emotionally the arguments of the
non-anthropocentrists have great appeal.
Philosophically justified, moral and ethical theorists often gravitate
to non-anthropocentric environmental ethics.
However, there are several problems with the concepts they assert. Non-anthropocentrists claim that other
members of the biosphere have intrinsic value, and this prohibits any anthropocentric
environmental ethic. Compelling examples
along these lines are often cited to justify non-anthropocentrism. The ‘slaughtering’ of animals such as cows,
deer, or chickens for human use is wrong because the chickens and cows possess
as much value as humans. However,
whether or not these arguments are valid and justified is not the only
consideration necessary. The discussions
of philosophers and intellectuals are not the end of environmental ethics. The people of Western societies, as consumers
of vast amounts of resources, must realize the importance of the other members
of the biosphere if this issue is to be addressed. Humans are part of nature, or the biosphere, as
are all other living and non-living entities on the earth. Though humanity often seems separate and
distinct from nature, humans emerged from the already thriving biosphere. This earth has been the only home to humanity. Without the earth and its parts, the
necessary conditions for the existence and survival of humanity are lacking. Environmental anthropocentrism does not
necessitate an adversarial relationship between humans and the rest of nature,
contrary to popular opinion. In fact,
humanity has a great interest in the welfare of the biosphere: There is
very good reason for thinking ecologically, and for encouraging human beings to
act in such a way as to preserve a rich and balanced planetary ecology: human
survival depends on it. (Massanari 45) Environmental ethics need to embrace anthropocentrism and
the insights of conservation ethics.
Human self-interest, regardless of its moral status, is present in human
nature and culturally around the world.
However, this self-interest and the direct relation it should have with
the welfare of the biotic community is often overlooked. Instead of continuing the debate of whether
to champion all members of the biosphere or to promote the advancement of
humanity, we need to embrace all members of the biosphere in order to promote
the advancement of humanity. There are many different factors that allow for
life on earth, particularly human life.
The ‘resources,’ as they are often called, necessary for the survival of
humanity are limited. If the finite
resources necessary for human life are gone, then the existence of humanity
will no longer be viable on Earth. The
recent trend of human attitude toward and interaction with the environment is
frighteningly shortsighted. Only a
sector of the scientific community attempts to address the potential
environmental problems facing humanity in the near and distant future. Those that do, however, often express what seems
like helpless concern: A great change in our stewardship of the earth and
the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our
global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated. (“Warning to Humanity” 783) Looking only as far as twenty-five to fifty years into the
future of the environment is commonly considered long-term thinking. More than likely, this will only be an intermediate
point in the environmental change humans have caused. The future viability of life on the planet is
necessary for human survival, and humanity can yet have a say in this future. Humans came about among a preexisting world of
living and non-living agents. We are
just one of many species that have inhabited, or do inhabit the earth. These various species serve different
functions in the biosphere and are interdependent upon one another for the
survival of themselves and the biosphere. V. Radical
Anthropocentrism’s Influence on Western Culture Assumptions
and influences abound in Western culture.
From the Greeks, the Romans, the Judeo-Christian religions, to even
recent philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and David Hume, ideas and
perspectives are ingrained into cultures and thus into the people of these
cultures: A fourth factor in the creation of
the anthropocentric position derives from the theories of social processes
involving the use of the natural world by humanity. This is evident in the belief that labour is
the only valuable factor in production.
This theory of value in property goes back to Aquinas. It became solidified with the near identical
positions of liberal and Marxist theory…….John Locke, suggested that, in its
natural state, Nature was almost worthless.
Locke placed almost no value on ‘raw’ land until it was improved. (Gillespie 11-12) The theory discussed in the above quote outlines radical
anthropocentrism. Many of the greatest
intellectuals in history have accepted and defended radical anthropocentrism. As a result it has been accepted and
integrated into common society over hundreds of years. This common type of
anthropocentrism gives no consideration to anything beyond living humans and
their interests. This sect of anthropocentrism is too extreme and does not
provide direction toward the prolonged survival of nature or humanity. Radical, or Western anthropocentrism, excludes
almost everything from consideration except for living humans. The various influences on Western culture
have placed living humans on a pedestal, above all else known to humans. Humans and humanity as a whole are to be
dominant over nature. All the members of
the biosphere are just instruments to be used as humans see fit. Humans are the steward of the entire
biosphere, governing as we find suitable to ourselves. This prevalent, radical anthropocentrism
satisfies only the present, and does not consider future consequences for
humans or the rest of nature. Religion has been a major factor and influence
throughout the history of Western civilization.
Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been the three main religions of
the West and they have been cultural cornerstones for over a thousand
years. Many pervasive ideals of these
religions have become ingrained in Western cultures. These accepted influences, though, are not
always obvious. In the same way
Descartes realized that many propositions he accepted throughout his life were
a based upon commonly held societal beliefs, societal beliefs have influenced
the development of philosophy and environmental ethics: For example, Immanuel Kant, following the
rationalist orientation of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and others, argued for
anthropocentric dominance based on the fact that only rational creatures are
ends in themselves and only they have intrinsic moral worth. Because animals are not rational and consequently
not a part of the kingdom of moral worth, rational creatures morally owe
nothing to animals. (Massanari 39) Even such intellectuals as Immanuel Kant are subject to
societal influences. Though humans are the
only rational species, the connection between this and moral consideration is
not so clear. The unique rational
ability of humans makes them the only species capable of moral consideration,
or what can be called moral agents. As
humans are the only moral agents it is commonly accepted that humans are also
the only agents deserving moral consideration. This radically anthropocentric concept, it can
be argued, is partially based on the general societal acceptance of related
beliefs. However, this unique role of
moral agent does not imply that moral agents are the only things worthy of
moral consideration. The global perspective of the people of the
West is still influenced by these ideals, whether consciously or unconsciously. Throughout the recorded history of the West,
especially in the last two millennia, religion and scripture have been a
cornerstone of civilization. Christianity,
Islam and Judaism all involve scripture as central to the study and practice of
the religions. The various teachings in
these scriptures form the behavioral expectations of the people. The interpretations of these three religions
often make the dominance of humanity over nature acceptable. The use and exploitation by humanity of the
rest of creation became permissible and expected. For many Christians, Genesis provides the
justification for humanity’s place above the rest of nature. God specifically gives humans divine
authority over all other living and non-living things. Man is exclusively created in God’s image,
and is thus distinguished from the rest of nature: …the traditional otherworldly orientation of
Christianity that separated nature from God denied any sense of sacredness for
the earth and its members, except for humans.
Identifying nature as profane provided rationale for disregarding,
sometimes with contempt, nature and all that is in it. (Massanari 38) The role of religion, especially Christianity, Judaism, and
Islam, has been one of the pillars of human culture over the millenniums of
recorded history. These religions have
been so central to society they dominated societal norms, morals, and world
views. Though organized religion’s
sphere of influence has diminished, much of its cultural impact remains. As religions formed behavioral expectations,
these extreme anthropocentric practices and beliefs became assumed and
expected. Sacred Scriptures can be interpreted in a variety
of ways and this interpretation often has great impact on the scripture’s
meaning to people. The aforementioned anthropocentric interpretation is only
one of many possible interpretations of the Genesis story. Defenders of scriptural effect on
environmental interaction cite other interpretations in their defense. For example, they might claim that God is not
necessarily justifying the exploitation of nature and its constituent parts;
this is just how some people choose to understand the scriptures. Bryan Norton offers an argument intended to
counter this religious anthropocentrism.
He highlights an ambiguity in the ‘dominion thesis,’ as he calls it, and
the resulting confusion. Norton asserts
that Genesis is the origin of many anthropocentric influences. As God made man in his image, and gave him
dominion over the Earth, the meaning of the term “dominion” deserves
attention. Norton writes: The thesis of dominion suffers from an ambiguity
analogous to that which forced the distinction between strong and weak
anthropocentrism….It is possible to assert that nature’s creatures are created
for the good of man, without assuming a human right either to use them simply
for the satisfaction of demand values or to extinguish them without moral
guilt. One need not explain away Genesis
I in order to attribute a role of stewardship to human inhabitants of the Earth. (Norton 141)
Thus, according to Norton, Genesis and the specific
religions do not promote radical anthropocentrism. People and their interpretations may choose
to take radical anthropocentrism from the scriptures, but it is not explicit. In as much as some people interpret
scriptures to give license to extreme anthropocentrism, some take scriptures to
promote unity and love for the entire biosphere. Some defenders of scripture might also look to
other areas of religious teachings to support their claims. The Genesis story and other scriptures are Theo
centric in worldview. God is the
foundation of good and of value. In the
Genesis story, God creates the biosphere and its members in six days. In this process, God declares that the earth,
plants, and animals are good, and independent of humans. God placing value on these independent members
of the biosphere gives the other members intrinsic value. This intrinsic value shows that Christianity
encourages a positive treatment of nature.
The above argument is an example of one that could be presented to deny
the anthropocentric influence of Western religions. The diversity in scriptural interpretation shows
the complexity of the field. There are a
multitude of theories regarding different methodologies and interpretations of
scriptures. However, most organized
religion provides specific ‘correct’ interpretations of scriptures. As religion is a central facet of culture in
Western history, these ‘correct’ interpretations are very important to the
members of the religions. The people
follow the expectations and accept the assumptions provided by organized
religion. Thus, the majority of people
have accepted at least aspects of the extreme anthropocentric views declared by
popular organized religion. VI. The Human
Species: So Dominant yet So Fragile Humans have many requirements for their
existence. Though the basic needs of
humans appear simple, such as food and water, circumstances which make these
needs easily attainable are much more complex.
Historical examples of the fragile nature of such circumstances
highlight the ease with which human societies can turn from prosperous to
struggling. For instance, the ‘little
ice age’ that took place about five hundred years ago brought much death and
difficulty to the prosperous civilizations of Climate change is one of the central international
environmental concerns because ‘humanity is conducting an unintended,
uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could
be second only to a global nuclear war.’
(Gillespie 25) Though these effects do not become immediately evident, the
impact humans have on the biosphere could hurt humanity in addition to the
other interconnected members. Such
climate change will undoubtedly affect different areas of the globe in varying
ways, yet the seriousness of the issue is not limited to specific places. Also, as the consequences of current actions
are not immediately actualized in environmental change, the urgency of the
matter is greater than it may appear.
Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere have rapidly increased in recent
years and, as of yet there, have been relatively minimal consequences. So,
not only are we continuing the behaviors that are the cause for present
concern, but the earth is probably yet to feel the full effects of the damage
already done. This human impact and the resulting environmental
consequences are of chief concern. Environmental
conditions affect where, when, how and if humans can live. Humans must adapt to their environments using
the tools they possess to assist the environment in fulfilling their needs and
desires. A look at the distribution of
human populations on earth implies that humans cannot survive in all
environments. In fact, all life has requisite
conditions for existence. Water, an
atmosphere, and other basic conditions must be present for life to exist. Humans require a much more specific set of
conditions. These conditions demand a
greater interest in the environment and an incentive to focus on human
environmental impact and environmental change.
The same abilities that have allowed humans to prosper exponentially
also allow them to effect the environment more profoundly and rapidly than any
other known species in history: Our massive tampering with the world’s
interdependent web of life-coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by
deforestation, species loss, and climate change-could trigger widespread
adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological
systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand. (“Warning to Humanity” 783) What the exact environmental effects of human actions will
be is beyond the expertise of current science.
However, science has no reservation in asserting the likelihood that
there will be some significant environmental effect(s) as a result of humanity. The basic human needs cannot be satisfied
without the survival of the other members of the biosphere. For this reason alone humanity has an interest
in cooperation or mutual prosperity with the biosphere. VII. Conclusion The importance and relevance of environmental
treatment is apparent in the modern world.
Technology, industry, and booming populations have amplified the effect
of humanity on the environment. The
development of an environmental ethic faces a unique problem, uncommon in
philosophical fields. As an applied
ethic, the function of an environmental ethic is to be employed in the real
world. Not only does an environmental
ethic require philosophical justification, but it also must practically and
emotionally appeal to the global community for implementation. This is not the only reconciliation an
environmental ethic must manage. For
applicability purposes, a non-anthropocentric approach to the environment faces
a seemingly insurmountable hurdle. To
implement such an ethic, the whole of humanity must be in accord with the
necessary sacrifices. At the same time,
the radical anthropocentrism that currently dominates much of the world will
lead to future environmental destruction.
This attitude does best consider the welfare of current humans, but such
a focus on the present could lead to disaster for the future of humanity. A middle road between these two opposed views
will yield the best environmental ethic. Rationality, and its unique presence in humans,
plays an important role in this discussion.
Rationality has allowed humans to develop massive industry, language,
technology, and other tools. These tools
have allowed humans to effect the environment in ways that other animals
cannot. Though rationality has been used
to justify the elevated place of humans in nature, it should be used to best
cooperate with nature. Humanity needs
the other members of the biosphere for survival. The future of humanity will be
best served if humanity can live with, not at the expense of, the other members
of the biosphere.
Works Cited Caplan, Arthur. “Ethical Engineers Need Not Apply: The State
of Applied Ethics Today.” Science, Technology, & Human Values. 6, 33 (1980):24-32. JSTOR.
Gillespie, Alexander. International Environmental Law, Policy
and Ethics. Massanari, Ronald. “A Problematic in Environmental Ethics:
Western and Eastern Styles.” Buddhist-Christian Studies . 18
(1998): 37-61. JSTOR. Norton, Press,
1987. Rolston III, Holmes. Conserving Natural Value. Press,
1994. “Warning to Humanity-A Declaration
by Scientists on Global Issues.” Population
and Development
Review.
18, 5 (1992): 782-784.
JSTOR.