Lecture 11: Anthropocentrism Anthropocentrism and intrinsic value Is anthropocentrism a good environmental philosophy? Transformative power of nature Problems with transformative power
Topics Anthropocentrism and intrinsic value Is anthropocentrism a good environmental philosophy? Transformative power of nature Problems with transformative power
Anthropocentrism Human-centered We only have direct moral obligations towards people Animals only have instrumental value (that is, insofar as they are useful for our purposes). They don t have intrinsic value (that is, in their own right).
Anthropocentrism The idea of intrinsic value is mysterious. ( the value it has all by itself ) Usually, to say that something has value is to say that someone values it. Value presupposes a valuer ( eye of the beholder ) Value is typically not intrinsic to a thing, but projected on it by another (relative not absolute)
Anthropocentrism One reason that biocentrism and ecocentrism seem strange is that they entail that living things or ecosystems have intrinsic value - that is, it has value even if nobody values it.
Kantianism Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) Kant believed that human beings possess intrinsic value. This is because, unlike nonhumans, I can value myself. Consequently, I do not derive my value externally, but intrinsically. I value myself! I value food and sex
Kantianism He also believed that only human beings have intrinsic value. That s because only human beings have the selfawareness and reasoning capacity to value themselves. This placed them in a unique moral category
Direct and Indirect Obligations Our direct moral obligations to others stems from a recognition of their intrinsic value. Direct moral obligations to people (self and others) Indirect moral obligations to animals and property (insofar as these are implied by our direct moral obligations)
Topics Anthropocentrism and intrinsic value Is anthropocentrism a good environmental philosophy? Transformative power of nature Problems with transformative power
Anthropocentrism and environmental ethics It seems, at least on the surface, that anthropocentrism can t explain why we should protect nature rather than consume it for our selfish purposes. Many environmentalists have thought that the philosophy of anthropocentrism contributes to our environmental problems.
Is anthropocentrism the problem? Wanton destruction of forests
Is anthropocentrism the problem? Cruelty to animals
Is anthropocentrism the problem? If non-human nature only has value because it serves our goals and purposes, then it s hard to see how to argue with factory farming, rodeos, deforestation, etc.
Anthropocentrism as an environmental ethic However, maybe we re too quick to judge against it. Kant acknowledged, for example, that we have indirect moral obligations to animals Moreover, forests and streams provide important resources that are necessary for human life. That alone is a good reason to protect them. Oil drilling in ANWR destroys natural resources and beauty for future generations Just because an ethic is anthropocentric doesn t mean that it can t provide any good reasons against harming animals or nature
Topics Anthropocentrism and intrinsic value Is anthropocentrism a good environmental philosophy? Transformative power of nature Problems with transformative power
Transformative power of nature According to Norton and Sarkar, nature possesses value not only because it can serve our ends, but also because it can help to transform our values. A nature experience - whether real or virtual - can satisfy our existing values as well as to give us new ones. This value, which Sarkar refers to as transformative power, is the subject of his paper.
Anthropocentrism Sahotra Sarkar, from Environmental Philosophy (2011)
Anthropocentrism Like Norton, Sarkar takes an anthropocentrist or humancentered position on environmentalism. He is suspicious toward the idea that nature possesses a mysterious intrinsic value, independently of the way that human beings value and utilize it.
Anthropocentrism Moreover, he points out that if animals and other living organisms do possess intrinsic value' then it would be wrong to kill them to suit our needs. Not only would this require us to restrict our diet to dead plant matter, but it would also prevent us from exercising normal conservation procedures such as culling. Thus, he thinks the idea of intrinsic value is actually contrary to good conservation practices
Transformative power Sarkar suggests a middle road between strong anthropocentrism and intrinsic value by suggesting that nature has transformative power The transformative power of nature is the basis for its conservation, in addition to other values it serves.
Transformative power Strong Anthropocentrism: Nature only has value if it serves our desires Weak Anthropocentrism: Nature has value not only because it can serve our desires, but because it can transform our desires Intrinsic Value: Nature has value in and of itself, independently of humans
Example
Example No felt desire Felt desire
Example Felt desire No felt desire
Example Something like a symphony can have transformative power even if it doesn t (initially) satisfy your felt desires. This is because it has the power to transform our felt desires
Nature has transformative power (even when it is not currently valued by someone)
This gives us reason for conserving it
Topics Anthropocentrism and intrinsic value Is anthropocentrism a good environmental philosophy? Transformative power of nature Problems with transformative power
Criticism Just because something has transformative power, doesn t mean we should protect it. 1. Some mystics have transformative experiences by contemplating a blade of grass
Transformative power...or an LSD trip. But that doesn t necessarily mean that we should protect every blade of grass, or legalize LSD
Criticism 2. Some transformative experiences are positive and life-enriching, and some are negative Presumably it is only the positive transformative experiences that should be protected and encouraged
Criticism Hence, the advocate of transformative value would have to explain how we should distinguish between positive and negative transformative experiences, and Sarkar has to provide reasons for thinking that nature is usually transformative in a positive way
Criticism 3. Finally, any form of anthropocentrism is problematic, since it s usually based on the idea that what makes people so special is their capacity to think and reason But that would imply that we don t have any direct obligations to humans who can t reason, which seems like a pretty horrible idea