#I prioritize secular practicality over metaphysics though | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

philosophicalplantboy-blog · 7 years

Text

Strong vs. Weak Anthropocentrism

Word count: 1135

We currently live in a subjective world view of strong Anthropocentrism, which rejects the older beliefs of the divine and similar fields such as moral forms. Things such as justice and moderation now take a back seat to to more secular desires of personal human gain. Due to this predicament, it seems as though the only method to undergo in order to re-introduce these concepts and allow for some new form of environmental ethic. Those in the company of Mill would argue that this is because pleasure of human beings takes precedent in the world due to the newer beliefs displayed in Utilitarianism, which a great majority of the population would agree with, rejecting older notions of natural order and divine intention as proposed by the likes of Aristotle. In the discussion of environmental ethics, we must address whether we should have a strong or weak sense of Anthropocentrism in human priority.

Stanford University Law Professor William Baxter’s Peoples and Penguins addresses concerns on our environmental ethic through the proposition of Strong Anthropocentrism, due to it seemingly being what humans naturally gravitate towards. He embraces our affinity to make everything about ourselves and see the rest of the world as being somewhat at our whim. He takes a Utilitarian approach of sorts to address human affinity of satisfaction. Baxter states that our affinity for conservation and preservation of our environment is out of our own secular self interests. An example would be that pollution creates a less aesthetically pleasing environment which people would not want, and thus would strive against. Baxter goes on to propose that our greatest satisfaction is prioritized to have the least cost and environmental damage due to the scarcity of resources around us, creating human need for conservation, innovation and moderation. Expressing interest for things such as nature, then acting on those interests is what humans do out of personal freedom, which Baxter states must be respected and not infringed upon.

While I agree with these notions to a sense, where I disagree is in Baxter’s belief that human beings are the sole agents and patients of the world, rendering all of the natural world and beings within it as tools or resources to propel our own interests and satisfaction. He believes that our collective ability to rationalize what is in our short and long term self interests will naturally regulate the environment. Because of this, I stray away more from strong Anthropocentrism, and see other beings both sentient and not as being at the very least patients or members of the world, due to my environmental wisdom worldview. I will go further to critique Baxter’s position as it not only chooses to embrace the flawed perspective of everyday humans who do not see the impact they create, but it also creates unrealistic ideas of human success based on the sole concept that we possess intelligence. If Baxter is truly correct, then history would show our environment improve based on human decision. However the opposite can be said since our presence and meddling with the natural world in hopes of controlling it has led to the destruction of many fragile ecosystems, and extinction of countless species of organisms.

Dr. Bryan Norton, a Philosophy Professor in the School of Public Policy, specializes his research in sustainability in response to our planet’s rapid climate change. Dr. Norton discusses whether there is a need for a distinctive environmental ethic in his paper, Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism. He states that the distinction between anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism is valued much more than necessary when discussing the relevance of environmental ethics, and through his paper agrees more towards a weak stance on Anthropocentrism. He relates this to the ambiguity in anthropocentrism definition in regards to humans being the source for which all value must be bestowed upon to support their own interests. To help better discuss the parameters of human interest, Norton introduces two definitions; felt preference and considered preference. He defines felt preference as, “any desire or need of a human individual that can at least temporarily be stated by some specifiable experience of that individual” (Norton, 183) and considered preference as, “any desire or need that a human individual would express after careful deliberation, including a judgement that the desire or need is consistent with a rationally adopted worldview- a worldview which includes fully supported scientific theories and a metaphysical framework interpreting those theories, as well as a set of rationally supported aesthetic and moral ideals”. Essentially, felt preference is what we feel and desire. One would preserve a natural wildlife park because the want to make animals happy and safe out of compassion. Considered preference on the other hand is rooted in pure rationalization. This can be highlighted in the same example of one’s motivation to preserve the park, where instead the motivation would be to the long term self-interest of people experiencing the wildlife ecosystem in the future.

Essentially, I appreciate Norton’s perspective but still hold onto my non anthropocentric worldview. If we are to fully embrace an ethic that is centric on human desire, it is much more logical to follow in Norton’s perspective than Baxter’s. Both remain flawed however in that human desire has no grounds to mandate itself as the law of the earth. The selfishness and narcissism embedded in Anthropocentrism under the guise of dominance is astounding, because when given the correct information, all evidence shows that humans making decisions to further propel our population overgrowth and satisfaction end up hurting our planet and less privileged communities. To adopt any Anthropocentrism is to assume that we have all the answers, which is no more than an admission of our own ignorance.

While I agree with Norton’s main point in advocating for weak Anthropocentrism over Baxter’s strong Anthropocentrism, it is here that I draw upon my main question. If our felt preference is rooted in what we desire, and that can be rationalized as something important and foreseeable to a certain sense through considered preference, could the two be joined together to create a greater sense of priority and consideration? Surely what we desire is a part of long term self interest, even if based on concepts disconnected to what we feel, but the world has affinity towards as a whole. Given that even in the most simple Utilitarianism practices, net pleasure and satisfaction tend to correlate with long term decisions that impact more people, don’t we already understand that we need both preferences to work together simultaneously to achieve satisfaction? I leave this question with another, asking if the two can be joined, is it not possible for weak and strong Anthropocentrism to also be combined, to better address our changing world in a more inclusive and well rounded way of seeing the world?

0 notes