Anthropocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Anthropocentric" redirects here. For The Ocean Collective album, see Anthropocentric (The Ocean
album).“ If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the
pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive
that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno. ”

—Mark Twain, ridiculing Alfred Russel Wallace's "anthropocentric' theory" that the universe was
created specifically for the evolution of mankind.[1]

Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and
most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human
perspective.[2]

The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be
referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.
Anthropocentrism is a major concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental
philosophy, where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by human
interaction with the environment.Contents [hide]

1 Environmental philosophy

2 Christianity

3 Human exceptionalism

4 In fiction

5 See also

6 Further reading

7 References

[edit]

Environmental philosophy
Anthropocentrism has been posited by some environmentalists, in such books as Confessions of an
Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated)
reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to "develop" most of the Earth.
Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental
philosophy, where it is used to draw attention to a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to
the non-human world.[3] Val Plumwood has argued[4][5] that anthropocentrism plays an analogous
role in green theory to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory.
Plumwood calls human-centredness "anthrocentrism" to emphasise this parallel.

Defenders of anthropocentrist views point out that maintenance of a healthy, sustainable

environment is necessary for human well-being as opposed for its own sake. The problem with a
"shallow" viewpoint is not that it is human-centred but that according to William Grey[6] "What's
wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not
really consider enough in what that well-being consists. According to this view, we need to develop
an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term,
sectional and self-regarding conception."

One of the first extended philosophical essays addressing environmental ethics, John Passmore's
Man's Responsibility for Nature[7] has been repeatedly criticised by defenders of deep ecology
because of its anthropocentrism, often claimed to be constitutive of traditional Western moral
thought.[8]

[edit]

Christianity

Some evangelical Christians have also been critical, viewing a human-centred worldview, rather than
a Christ-centred or God-centred worldview, as a core societal problem. According to this viewpoint,
humanity placing its own desires ahead of the teachings of the Bible leads to rampant selfishness and
behaviour viewed as sinful.

The use of the word "dominion" in Genesis, where it is written that God gives man dominion over all
creatures, is controversial. Many Biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic and other non-
Protestant Christians, consider this to be a flawed translation of a word meaning "stewardship",
which would indicate that mankind should take care of the earth and its various forms of life, but is
not inherently better than any other form of life.[9] The current Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the
Catholic Christian church, states that God holds man responsible for the care and fate of all earthly
creatures.[10][11]
In the 1985 CBC series "A Planet For the Taking", Dr. David Suzuki explored the Old Testament roots
of anthropocentrism and how it shaped our view of non-human animals.

In his book Pale Blue Dot, author Dr. Carl Sagan also reflects on what he perceives to be the
conceitedness and pettiness of anthropocentrism, specifically associating the doctrine with religious
belief.[12]

Biocentrism has been proposed as an antithesis of anthropocentrism.[citation needed] It has also

been proposed as a generalised form of anthropocentrism.[13]

[edit]

Human exceptionalism

Human exceptionalism refers to a belief that human beings have special status in nature based on
unique capacities. This belief is the grounding for some naturalistic concepts of human rights.

Religious proponents of human exceptionalism base the belief on religious texts, such as the verse
1:26 in the Book of Genesis:“ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and
let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ”

Some secular proponents of human exceptionalism point to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of
the brain and the emergence of exceptional aptitudes. As one commentator put it, "Over the course
of human history, we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and
impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from evolutionary processes".
[14]

Defenders of human exceptionalism argue that it is the necessary fundamental premise to defend
universal human rights, since what matters morally is simply being human. For example, noted
philosopher Mortimer J. Adler wrote, "Those who oppose injurious discrimination on the moral
ground that all human beings, being equal in their humanity, should be treated equally in all those
respects that concern their common humanity, would have no solid basis in fact to support their
normative principle." Adler is stating here, that denying what is now called human exceptionalism
could lead to tyranny, writing that if we ever came to believe that humans do not possess a unique
moral status, the intellectual foundation of our liberties collapses: "Why, then, should not groups of
superior men be able to justify their enslavement, exploitation, or even genocide of inferior human
groups on factual and moral grounds akin to those we now rely on to justify our treatment of the
animals we harness as beasts of burden, that we butcher for food and clothing, or that we destroy as
disease-bearing pests or as dangerous predators?" [15]

Author and human exceptionalism defender Wesley J. Smith has written that human exceptionalism
is what gives rise to human duties to each other, the natural world. and to treat animals humanely,
writing in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, a critique of animal rights ideology, "Because we are
unquestionably a unique species--the only species of even contemplating ethical issues and assuming
responsibilities--we uniquely are capable of apprehending the difference between right and wrong,
good and evil, proper and improper conduct toward animals. Or to put it more succinctly if being
human isn't what requires us to treat animals humanely, what in the world does?" [16]

Critics counter that human exceptionalism has contributed to anthropocentrism, speciesism, and
bioconservatism at the expense of the natural environment, animal rights, and individual rights.[17]

[edit]

In fiction

In science-fiction, humanocentrism is the idea that humans, as both beings and a species, are the
superior sentients. Essentially the equivalent of race supremacy on a galactic scale, it entails
intolerant discrimination against sentient non-humans, much like race supremacists discriminate
against those not of their race. This idea is countered by anti-humanism. At times, this ideal also
includes fear of and superiority over strong AIs and cyborgs, downplaying the ideas of integration,
cybernetic revolts, machine rule and Tilden's Laws of Robotics.

[edit]

See alsoAnthropic principle

Anthropocentric embodied energy analysis

Biocentrism

Carbon chauvinism

Deep Ecology

Ecocentrism

Ecofeminism

Existentialism Great ape personhood

Great chain of being

Gynocentrism

Human exceptionalism

Intrinsic value (animal ethics)

Speciesism

Technocentrism

Theocentricism

[edit]

Further reading

Bertalanffy, General System Theory (1993): 239-48

White, Lynn Townsend, Jr, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis", Science, Vol 155 (Number
3767), March 10, 1967, pp 1203–1207

Chew, Sing C. "Ecology in Command"

Chew, Sing C. "Ecological Futures"

[edit]

References

^ Twain, Mark (1903). What is Men? Reprinted in Mark Twain and Bernard Augustine De Voto,
Letters from the Earth: Uncensored Writings (2004), 226.

^ Anthropocentrism - Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

^ Naess, A. 1973. 'The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement' Inquiry 16: 95-100

^ Plumwood, V. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge

^ Plumwood, V. 1996. Androcentrism and Anthrocentrism: Parallels and Politics. Ethics and the
Environment 1

^ Grey, W. 1993. 'Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology' Australiasian Journal of Philosophy 71: 463-
475 [1]

^ Passmore, J. 1974. Man's Responsibility for Nature London: Duckworth

^ Routley, R. and V. 1980. 'Human Chauvinism and Environmental Ethics' in Environmental

Philosophy (eds) D.S. Mannison, M. McRobbie and R. Routley. Canberra: ANU Research School of
Social Sciences: 96-189
^ [2]

^ [3] - Genesis 1:26 (Original Latin Vulgate)

^ [4] - Genesis 1:26 (Latin Vulgate as of 12 December 2009)

^ Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot

^ http://www.insurgentdesire.org.uk/biocentrism.htm

^ Starr, Sandy. What Makes Us Exceptional?. Spiked Science

^ Mortimer J. Adler, The Difference of Man and the Difference It Makes, (New York, Fordham
University Press, 1993), p.264.

^ A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement [5], (New York,
Encounter Books, 2010), pp. 243-244.

^ Hughes, James (2003) Saving Human Rights from the Human-racists. Institute for Ethics and
Emerging Technologies

Categories: Animal rights | Humans | Human rights | Philosophical theories | Belief | Anthropology |
Social theories

Log in / create account

Article

Discussion

Read

Edit

View history

Main page

Contents

Featured content

Current events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia

Community portal

Recent changes

Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

Print/export

Languages

Български

Català

Česky

Dansk

Deutsch

Eesti

Español

Français

Galego

Italiano

‫עברית‬

Latviešu

Lietuvių

Nederlands

日本語

Norsk (bokmål)

Occitan

Polski

Português

Română

Русский
Slovenčina

Slovenščina

Suomi

Svenska

Türkçe

Українська

Tiếng Việt

This page was last modified on 12 March 2011 at 10:06.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
apply. See Terms of Use for details.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Contact us

Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Register for free in seconds | Login | Forgot password?

Current Affairs | Sport | Arts & Entertainment | Business | Religion | Global Youth Panel | Home

Latest changes:

+ Monkeyjuice joined Debatewise

+ Gogolilmcqnx joined Debatewise

+ Eteliataitice joined Debatewise

+ Gibredingl joined Debatewise

+ Pavelskiia joined Debatewise

+ Locke joined Debatewise

+ Nikereinync joined Debatewise

+ Noel Selegzi joined Debatewise

+ Gogonyuoxqzf joined Debatewise

+ Estaskjax joined Debatewise

+ Gueftaus Effef joined Debatewise

+ Shay15 joined Debatewise

+ B3 Ll3 joined Debatewise

+ Rocketsimran@Gmail.Com joined Debatewise

+ Gogofbewuwlo joined Debatewise

+ Roftcookea joined Debatewise

+ Cbm06 joined Debatewise

+ Edupreneur joined Debatewise

+ Sandy Efs joined Debatewise

+ Gogoywtwojyo joined Debatewise

+ Joniel Carnaceto Bautista joined Debatewise

+ Blealf Barne joined Debatewise

+ Thepen joined Debatewise

+ K.Grover123 joined Debatewise

+ Rylee joined Debatewise

+ Agriskunserie joined Debatewise

+ Chatcom joined Debatewise

+ Jt.Lasalle joined Debatewise

+ Ashish joined Debatewise

+ Aaceritaa joined Debatewise

Start a New Debate

Start a New Debate

ANTHROPOCENTRISM OUGHT TO BE VALUED ABOVE BIOCENTRISM

Edit this debate

Posted by: sweet&simple Karma: 12

The qualities of humans have empowered the species to a degree that no other species has achieved
during the history of life on Earth, through the development of social systems and technologies that
make possible an intense exploitation and management of the environment. This power has allowed
humans to become the most successful species on Earth (although if sheer numbers are the measure
of success, then bacteria and insects are more successful than humans and always will be). This
success is indicated by the large population of humans that is now being maintained and the
increasing amounts of Earth's biological and environmental resources that are being appropriated to
sustain the human species

Executive summary

Comments

All the Yes points

Yes!!!!

I am Anthropocentric

Add a new Yes point

All the No points

Can Anthropocentrism be within biocentrism?

NO!!!

Chauvinism is irrational

Valued EQUAL

Add a new No point

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

Yes!!!!

No, because...
Its called mutualism people! gosh hvae you not read up on it gosh! we depend on the plants and
animals so therefor we take care of our planet cause we need it!!!

my opponents argument what he/she is basically saying is that we need plants to survive and that
plants don't need us. Well that's exactly it we're heterotrophic plant's are at the bottom of the food
chain always because what you're saying is plant's are better than humans because they make their
own food and we take it does this not show how much more powerful we are how rational. humans
breathe C02 which plants breathe now take CO2 that humans emit and almost 89% of plants die
eventually because their is no CO2 the earth will go cold and die you see we are needed and wanted
very much by plants and others so humans are above plants

Unlike plants(that use photosynthesis to synthesize/make food using sunlight),we cannot make our
own food. We are not self-sustaining, we are omnivorous :we need to eat plants and animals (that
eat plants or are carnivores and eat herbivores which eat plants) to survive.

plants make need us to plant them sometimes(but most afforestation occurs naturally) but do not
depend on us.

We on the other hand depend on plants to survive(indirectly ad directly).

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Vote on this point: Yes!!!!

See history of changes to this point

Top of page

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

I am Anthropocentric

No, because...
Anthropocentrism means to regard humans as the central element of the universe. Following the
first sin came God's declaration that "man is to rule over the earth and subdue it." If God said that,
hasn't all of nature made things specifically for man? In this incliment, all decisions should be made
to benefit humanity. Animal competencies are mainly adaptions restricted to a single goal, while
human competencies serve numerous goals. What happens if we get a cut and it becomes infected?
Don't we need to kill the LIVING bacteria to stay healthy? And what if a rat takes up residence in my
pantry? The latter prove that humans, not animals should come out on top. Anthropocentrism will
protect the enviroment because it isn't our best interest to pollute the air to th point where we must
grow a third head to breathe it. To be human is to see the world in a human-centered point of view.
In this sense, anthropocentrism is enevitable.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Click here to create the counterargument.

Top of page

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

No, because...

Can Anthropocentrism be within biocentrism?

It is a naive categorization to place anthropocentrism firmly within biocentrism. Yes to some extent
we do rely on the natural world for our sustinence and for other benefits. However, there comes a
point when human development necessitates the loss of natural habitats and diversity. You can't
have it both ways.

Its more of a Venn diagram than concentric circles in other words.

The crux of this debate is whether we value the success of our species more than the success of
other species insofar as our success doesn't cannibalize itself.!
Humans are the only species on earth w/ enough knowledge in order to save the universe. as most of
you tree huggers think that we are killing the enviroment but how about you go talk to a tree to see
if they are willing to save the world from DOOM!!!!

As Biocentrism is that life is the center of the universe and Anthropocentrism is that humans are at
the center of everything there seems to be no immediatly obvious controdiction. If life is the centre
and humans the centre of life, it simply seems like concentric circles. While this may not be what
purists of either side would agree with it does seem to me to be reasonable sensible!

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Vote on this point: Can Anthropocentrism be within biocentrism?

See history of changes to this point

Top of page

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

No, because...

NO!!!

B iocentrism is a having life a the center of all things having to do with nature or biology since
humans are a life is it not fit that humans are centered. Since the only reason that make the humman
race the centered species is the way in which we survive by self preservation is it not our right to be
the top of the food chain hence we are the center of all live.

If there wasn't biocentrism there really would be no point for anthropocentricism.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Vote on this point: NO!!!

See history of changes to this point

Top of page

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

No, because...

Chauvinism is irrational

Preferring humans over all other species amounts to chauvinism. Species which are chauvinist will be
out-competed by species which are rational (compare a firm which only employs members of the
dominant race competing with a meritocratic firm).

Click here to create the counterargument.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Top of page

anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Yes, because...

No, because...

Valued EQUAL

because aff is stupid for argument i disagree

It is because of biocentrism that we have evolved into the species we are today. Without the
domestication of species and cures found in them too, we would not be alive. We use animals for
meat, entertainment, help our crops, etc. If plants did not pollinate then we would have no
vegetables or food source. Before, when we had no machines to help us plow our fields, we used
donkeys and horse. We used them for travel. Bacteria help us digest food and have helped us find
vaccines!! Therefore anthropocentrism and biocentrism ought be valued EQUAL.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Can you improve this point? Click here to strengthen it.

Vote on this point: Valued EQUAL

See history of changes to this point

Top of page

Add a new Yes point

Add a new No point

Vote on this debate: anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

Modified: 06 Apr 2010

Vote totals:

Yes:

0%

No:

67%

Neutral:

33%

Subscribe to this debate

Get notified of any changes to this debate

Subscribe
Tell a Friend

Send

Related Debates

Misc Debates

Does Obama Deserve The Nobel Peace Prize?

Did Israel commit war crimes in the recent Gaza...

There is no scientific consensus on whether hum...

The government should provide more money to fun...

Should the ban on the playground game 'British ...

Get our newsletter

Subscribe

Support Debatewise

Blog | Our Team | About Us | Sponsored Debates | Privacy Policy | Contact | Vacancies | Help |

Top of Page

22 February 2011

The opposite of anthropocentrism is biocentrism. While anthropocentrism argues in favor of a world

view centering solely around humans and only recognizes value in human beings, biocentrism feels
that everything in nature has value.

In Respect for Nature, Peter Taylor described the fundamental points of biocentrism.

First, Taylor equates the status of human beings with that of animals. He argues that humans and
animals share the earth, and should live equally and harmoniously.
Second, Taylor says that humans and other animal species are interdependent. This rejects the view
that humans need animals, or that animals depend upon humans.

Third, every living creature is unique, and lives in its own way for its own good, says Taylor. This
implies that one species cannot know more about what is good for another species than that species
itself.

Fourth, Taylor rejects the argument that human beings are inherently superior to animals.

The arguments that Taylor makes are integral to the philosophy of deep ecology.

Taylor's principles translate to three guidelines for human action. He says people must not harm any
part of nature that has inherent value, try to control or change natural ecosystems, or deceive any
animal.

Put into practice, these ideas oppose hunting and fishing, and would call for vegetarianism.

Taylor diverges from some environmentalists by not placing value on non-living objects in nature.

In This Section: List of Articles | Bibliography | Test

This project was created by Caroline, David, Michael, Mindy, Neil, and Vikas for the ThinkQuest
Internet contest in 1999. Please read our copyright information or contact us (link disabled) if you
have questions about this site.