Anthropocentrism and Its Critics

Anthropocentrism is the view that only human beings have intrinsic moral worth and that nature matters morally only insofar as it serves human interests; its critics argue for extending moral standing beyond humanity.

Definition

The doctrine that human beings are the sole or primary bearers of intrinsic moral value, together with the family of views that challenge or qualify it.

Scope

This topic covers anthropocentrism and the principal alternatives developed in response to it: sentientism, biocentrism (the view that all living things have a good of their own), and ecocentrism (which extends value to wholes such as species and ecosystems). It also covers the distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' anthropocentrism and historical critiques of human-centered worldviews. It describes these positions and their arguments without endorsing any of them.

Core questions

• Are only humans morally considerable, or do other beings and entities qualify?
• Can a 'weak' anthropocentrism that values nature for a wide range of human ends avoid the criticisms aimed at narrow resource-based views?
• What grounds moral standing—sentience, being alive, or membership in an ecological whole?
• Are human-centered worldviews a historical cause of environmental degradation?

Key theories

Biocentric egalitarianism

Paul Taylor's theory that every living thing is a 'teleological center of life' with a good of its own, grounding a stance of respect for nature in which all organisms have inherent worth.

Weak anthropocentrism

Bryan Norton's position that environmental goals can be justified by appeal to considered human values and ideals, not merely felt preferences, without needing to attribute intrinsic value to nature.

History

Lynn White Jr.'s 1967 essay tracing the 'ecologic crisis' to anthropocentric strands in Western religious thought catalyzed debate over human-centered worldviews. The 1980s saw systematic non-anthropocentric theories, including Taylor's biocentrism and Norton's defense of a reformed weak anthropocentrism.

Debates

Whether non-anthropocentrism is necessary

Pragmatists such as Norton argue that a suitably broad anthropocentrism can support strong environmental protection, while biocentrists and ecocentrists hold that only attributing value beyond humans captures what is at stake.

Key figures

• Paul Taylor
• Bryan Norton
• Lynn White Jr.
• Holmes Rolston III

Seminal works

• taylor1986
• white1967

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between biocentrism and ecocentrism?

Biocentrism locates moral value in individual living organisms, while ecocentrism extends value to ecological wholes such as species, communities, and ecosystems, sometimes prioritizing the whole over individuals.

Does rejecting anthropocentrism mean treating humans and other beings identically?

Not necessarily. Many non-anthropocentric theories grant moral standing to non-humans while still allowing differences in degree or weight; the details are debated among the positions.