A Paper on Ethics, Deep Ecology, Biocentrism, and Anthropocentrism.

Introduce

Mankind has always had a tenuously grudging relationship with the natural world. Nature

has no room for the weak, as Darwin has opined, it is simply the survival of the fittest. Facing the

danger of being eliminated by natural selection, humans have evolved and grown; most

organizations, corporations, and governments taking increasingly greater amounts of materials

from nature, paying bare minimum regard in respect to nature’s welfare. Over the past centuries,

humans have become increasingly exorbitant, asking more of nature than she could give.

Agricultural production has caused the world to lose one-third of its forests. Deforestation is

abhorred enough, not to mention all the different forms of pollution, ocean acidification, ozone

depletion and whatnot. What began as a necessity for survival has turned into a destruction

wrought by the greed of man. And in the face of certain eventual destruction of the natural world

as perceived currently, many have begun to accuse these organizations of anthropocentricism,

with many claiming that the only path to ethical goodness is biocentrism and there have also

been advocates going as far as claiming to understand the wants of nature itself, and thus: Deep

Ecology. With such staggering ideas regarding ethics, no one party has been successfully

convinced by the opposing side, and it has all but coalesced into an argument between who has

the better say. Such problematic situations require the gentle finesse of ethical philosophy, as it

seeks to pull strands of logic together into a standard by which might absolve the problem.

First and foremost, it must be understood that humans are naturally anthropocentric and

egoistic in their values. It is simply a fact, and anyone who protests otherwise is also protesting

for their own interest and argument, in that they are chasing a goal that they desire, and thus they

perform their actions, which only serves to prove the point. Therefore, not only are the people
who damage the natural environment for their needs, for example a logger, a form of

anthropocentrism, so are the people arguing for nature itself. They cannot claim to know

anymore about nature’s wants and interpret nature’s desires any more than the logger can. They

are simply expressing their wants for the preservation and health of the environment because

they too gain goods from it, and they do not wish to lose it. This is the main conundrum within

the argument between anthropocentricism, biocentrism, and Deep Ecology.

Biocentrism is valid in that all human actions impact at least the immediate environment,

even subconscious actions such as breathing. It can serve to be a foundation stone for a solution

to the environmental quandary. Expanding upon it, one might arrive at Deep Ecology, where

“nature”, as a whole, possesses her own desires, and humans should listen to the wants of nature.

This is an insofar unprovable theory, and it might be better to come out with the truth: Humans

only want nature’s preservation because they believe they would benefit from it. It might be for a

complicated multitude of goods ranging from views to natural fruits, fungi to interactions with

beasts of every kind. Whatever the desire of the Deep Ecology protesters, they are factually

anthropocentric in their wants and egalitarian in their arguments. This truth results in a clear

view of the entire argument: there is no logical argument to be had, for it is two opposing

anthropocentric sides vying for different wants. Yet this consequence leaves a sour taste in the

mouth, for it is impossible to feel an indifference to the destruction of nature and one cannot help

but feel injustice at the thought of not being able to argue for the natural world.

To successfully protest for the environment, one must first acknowledge that biocentrism

is factual, anthropocentricism is mutual, and Deep Ecology is nothing but anthropocentric

egalitarianism that desires the preservation of nature. Why is there injustice? Because the most

important concept to have been that nature is public resource for humanity. This is the
centerpiece, the magnum opus to an argument made in the name of nature. Nature, as a finite

reservoir of food, water, and animals and an infinite reservoir of awe and beauty, has been made

accessible to humans from the dawn of our species; enjoying nature is a right and being able to

interact with the world that we walk upon is a fundamental ability for humans. People who agree

with industrial anthropocentricism seems to have forgotten that, by taking away from this hared

resource, they are being selfish in potentially destroying this public resource, and at best, make it

null and unable to be enjoyed for future generations; at its worst, might spell the extinction of life

as it is known. Nature should be protected because no one should strip future generations and

other humans of the right to nature.

Yet without taking from nature, humans are going against their natural prerogative of

survival. Therefore, for the ultimate solution to work one must agree that governments,

organizations, and corporations are essential to this process, and that they must be employed to

take from nature successfully. However, the solution to it all is cautioning restraint in the name of

morality and infringement of fundamental rights of another human. Henceforth, the parabolic

logger can, in fact, log, because by logging, he provides houses, furniture, and warmth to himself

and others. His aim to log is necessary and beneficial to society in general, but he must be

imposed a respect and responsibility that for every tree he logs, he takes away a part of the nature

that others should have been able to enjoy. The protection of nature has been so powerfully

advertised that most seem to have forgotten that nature was here before us, and nature runs its

course eventually. But for humans to live in harmony with the natural world, they must first

make sure to reduce all damage to nature as possible and take from nature as much as morally

right for themselves.