Over the past month or so we’ve been tasked with understanding and interpreting various types of value as they correspond to different views on environmental ethics. In this paper I intend to explain the anthropogenic and anthropocentric theories of value by explaining their main type(s) of value, accepted type(s) of value, and who or what holds value according to each theory. Additionally, I will explain how a theory of value may be anthropogenic but not anthropocentric, how a theory of value may be anthropocentric but not anthropogenic. Finally, I will state my own point of view regarding environmental ethics as it applies to theories of value – that is, my thesis (for the purposes of this paper) is that human and non-human entities such as plants and sentient animals have objective and subjective value, value as an end and instrumental value. The anthropogenic theory of value states that humans are the source of all value, in the sense that we are the only relevant valuers. In other words, if the anthropogenic view is “true”, a world without human beings is devoid of value. This theory maintains the acceptance of subjective value – that items and entities have value only because the relevant valuers (people) value them. In short, the only valuable things in the world are things deemed valuable by human beings. The anthropocentric theory states that humans, and only humans, have value as an end. What this means is that only human beings have value independent of their value as a means to further ends - we are valuable as an end, and this value does not depend on the subjective evaluations of others. While we humans are valuable as an end, all other entities possess only instrumental value. This means that anything non-human is... ... middle of paper ... ... values or involvement. In my mind, counter to the anthropogenic view, humans are not the only relevant valuers. I do not hold the same views as the anthropogenist, nor the anthropocentrist; but I believe that, just as all of these entities have objective value or value as and end, they also have instrumental value or subjective value in compliance with the natural order. In these few pages, I have explained the anthropogenic and anthropocentric theories of value, how a theory of value may be anthropogenic but not anthropocentric, how a theory of value may be anthropocentric but not anthropogenic, and I have also done my best to explain my view on the matter of values. My thesis in this paper was that humans, plants, and sentient animals hold multiple types of (seemingly contrasting) value (i.e. objective and subjective value, value as an end and instrumental value).
What do we, as humans have to do in order to give nonhuman animals the proper treatment and equal moral consideration as we owe for other humans? Some, such as Jeremy Bentham would address that, “The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation” (99). Other moral philosophers, like Henry Sidgwick, however reject the theory of utilitarianism thinking that is pleasure all that really matters and are consequences all that matters (111-112)? Humans use nonhuman animals for one purpose; pleasure from using their skins for luxury goods. In this paper, I will explain and examine what Jeremy Bentham is trying explain in his argument, and will attempt to show that his argument is a plausible one, by replying an objection against his utilitarian view.
In “Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments,” Thomas Hill tries to explain why destroying nature is morally inappropriate. His main argument is that rather than asking whether this action is wrong or right, we should ask what kind of person would destroy nature. Beforehand, one view is that since plants have right or interests, one should not violate their interest by destroying them. But Hill’s view is that we cannot address the interests of plants in order to criticize those who destroy the nature, because this approach is good for sentient beings. In this essay I am going to examine whether sentient is a necessary condition for interests to be counted? My upshot is that Hill’s view is correct.
Mark Overvold (1980) argues that preferentist theories of value have trouble accommodating the view that agents can deliberately choose to perform actions that can be described as self-sacrifice. This essay will examine Overvold's article, and explain the problems that preferentism has with the idea of self-sacrifice.
Singer, Peter. “All Animals Are Equal” in Environmental Ethics edited by David Schmidtz and Elizabeth Willott. Oxford University Press, New York. 2002. p. 17-27.
Although he believes that all beings have worth in and of themselves, Murdy does reject what he refers to as the “Franciscan” view that all types of life are equal. From a contemporary anthropocentric lens, to see the intrinsic value of all creatures does not mean that we as a species shouldn’t also interact with our environment by judging things in terms of instrumental value as well. In this line of thought, Murdy would likely approve of animal testing or the killing of a dangerous strain of bacteria, as while both non-human animals and microbes have undeniable value, these acts would be for the imperative benefit of humans. Here, Murdy expands on classical interpretations of anthropocentrism by not placing humans and nature in opposition to each other, and instead takes into account the complexities of life while still standing by his belief that anthropocentrism is a valid
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
"A value determines what a person thinks he ought to do, which may or may not be the same as he wants to do, or what is in his interest to, or what in fact he actually does. Values in this sense give rise to general standards and ideal by which we judge our own and others conduct; they also give rise to specific obligations” (CCETSW,
Human Values and Social Structures It can be said that Golding describes the moral of the book in relation to the scientific mechanics of society. This is found as a major theme in the book, which is actually fear. The boys on the island view this ideal in the form of the "beastie". The "beastie" is an unseen figure on the island, which is symbolized by the dead parachutist. This fear, however, represents the potential evil found in humans.
With this value, I can be able to apply my wisdom on offering practical solutions that bring optimism to others. This will also show my self interest in the issue at hand. My key choice is responsibility, which comes from the application of autonomy and rationality. With this value, I can make choices that are good for the benefit of the majority. My ethical tool is the use of critical thinking, which is an important value when it comes to problem solving. Solving problems requires critical analysis of the situations at hand and making conclusions that benefit the majority (Ciulla, 2005b). Since it is a known fact, that one cannot make all people happy, you only strive for what is of benefit to the majority.
In his article, "Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version," W.H. Murdy integrates these two conflicting phenomena by tracking the evolution of anthropocentrism itself and proposing that Darwinian theory marks the shift from an old version of anthropocentrism to a new, modern version. This modern reconceptualization is able to situate human centered thinking within the story of evolution, but it also elucidates a complex and uniquely human crisis in which anthropocentrism becomes self-destructive.
Therefore, it is because of our moral duty to all other TCL’s that humans are superior to all other Teleological Centers of Life. Only humans, because of moral agency, are capable of recognizing that all TCL’s have a good of their own. Organisms that lack moral agency cannot understand or appreciate the inherent worth of other beings. As a result, they cannot adopt the attitude of respect for nature. It would be incomprehensible for a plant to understand what is good for a human. Likewise, to believe that a tree or blade of grass can respect nature in the same capacity as a human is ridiculous.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
The most obvious reason that the environment has moral significance is that damage to it affects humans. Supporters of a completely human-centered ethic claim that we should be concerned for the environment only as far as our actions would have a negative effect on other people. Nature has no intrinsic value; it is not good and desirable apart from its interaction with human beings. Destruction and pollution of the environment cannot be wrong unless it results in harm to other humans. This view has its roots in Western tradition, which declares that “human beings are the only morally important members of this world” (Singer p.268).
Value is the wish that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or utility of something or principles or standards of behaviour; one's opinion of what is significant in life . As human beings, there’s things we value as such, as material and physical values, economic values, moral values, societal values, political values, aesthetical values, spiritual values and rational values. As humans, we would like to think we are in charge of our own values and what is worthy of our desires (instrumental values). Merely this is incorrect for there’s intrinsic values, values that are valuable for the grounds of their nature such as life. For lesson, our human body demands water, why do we drink water because we need to life, but why do we need to life?
Anthropocentrism is the school of thought that human beings are the single most significant entity in the universe. As a result, the philosophies of those with this belief reflect the prioritization of human objectives over the well-being of one’s environment. However, this is not to say that anthropocentric views neglect to recognize the importance of preserving the Earth. In fact, it is often in the best interests of humans to make concerted efforts towards sustaining the environment. Even from a purely anthropocentric point of view, there are three main reasons why mankind has a moral duty to protect the natural world.