Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism means "human-centred". In environmental ethics, the term usually describes a way of thinking that gives moral standing only to human beings, so that only humans matter morally in their own right.[1]
Strong and weak forms
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that many traditional Western ethical views are anthropocentric. It separates two forms. In the strong form, only human beings have intrinsic value (value in themselves). In the weak form, humans are given much more intrinsic value than any non-human thing.[2]
Historical examples
The encyclopaedia cites the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who in his Politics apparently held that "nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man".[3] It also gives the example of Immanuel Kant. Kant suggested that being cruel to a dog might help a person grow a character that is careless of cruelty to humans. On this view, cruelty to animals is wrong because of its effects on people, not because of the harm to the animal itself.[4]
Challenges
Environmental ethics began as a branch of philosophy in the early 1970s by challenging traditional anthropocentrism. It questioned the idea that humans are morally superior to other species.[5] The historian Lynn White argued in 1967 that the main strands of Judeo-Christian thought had encouraged people to overuse nature by treating humans as superior and nature as made for human use. His thesis was widely discussed in theology and history, has been subject to some sociological testing and is regularly discussed by philosophers.[6] The philosopher Richard Routley called the anthropocentrism of what he named the "dominant western view" a form of "human chauvinism".[7]
Defences
Some philosophers defend a form of anthropocentrism in environmental ethics. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy records several such accounts, including those of John Passmore (1974). It explains that many environmental concerns matter because of how they affect human beings.[8] One version, sometimes called "enlightened" or "prudential" anthropocentrism, holds that all our moral duties towards the environment come from our direct duties to the people who live in it.[9]
See also
References
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
It usually refers to an ethical framework that grants "moral standing" solely to human beings. Thus, an anthropocentric ethic claims that only human beings are morally considerable in their own right
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
Many traditional western ethical perspectives, however, are anthropocentric or human-centered in that either they assign intrinsic value to human beings alone (i.e., what we might call anthropocentric in a strong sense) or they assign a significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any non-human things
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
Aristotle ( Politics , Bk. 1, Ch. 8) apparently maintains that "nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man".
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
Immanuel Kant ("Duties to Animals and Spirits", in Lectures on Ethics ), for instance, suggests that cruelty towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character which would be desensitized to cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint, cruelty towards non-human animals would be instrumentally, rather than intrinsically, wrong.
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
When environmental ethics emerged as a new sub-discipline of philosophy in the early 1970s, it did so by posing a challenge to traditional anthropocentrism. In the first place, it questioned the assumed moral superiority of human beings to members of other species on earth.
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
In a much cited essay (White 1967) on the historical roots of the environmental crisis, historian Lynn White argued that the main strands of Judeo-Christian thinking had encouraged the overexploitation of nature by maintaining the superiority of humans over all other forms of life on earth, and by depicting all of nature as created for the use of humans. White's thesis was widely discussed in theology, history, and has been subject to some sociological testing as well as being regularly discussed by philosophers (see Whitney 1993, Attfield 2001).
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
the anthropocentrism imbedded in what he called the "dominant western view", or "the western superethic", is in effect "human chauvinism".
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
a number of coherent anthropocentric environmental ethics have been elaborated (Blackstone, 1972; Passmore, 1974; O'Neill, 1997; and Gewirth, 2001). This should be of little surprise, since many of the concerns we have regarding the environment appear to be concerns precisely because of the way they affect human beings.
- ↑ "Environmental Ethics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 3 December 2021. Retrieved 20 October 2026.
Instead, they advocate what may be called enlightened anthropocentrism (or, perhaps more appropriately called, prudential anthropocentrism). Briefly, this is the view that all the moral duties we have towards the environment are derived from our direct duties to its human inhabitants.