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).
Anthropocentrism has been a central belief upon which modern human society has been constructed. The current state of the world, particularly the aspects that are negative, are reflective of humans continuously acting in ways that are in the interest of our own species. As environmental issues have worsened in recent decades, a great number of environmentalists are turning away from anthropocentric viewpoints, and instead adopting more ecocentric philosophies. Although anthropocentrism seems to be decreasing in popularity due to a widespread shift in understanding the natural world, philosopher William Murdy puts forth the argument that anthropocentrism still has relevancy in the context of modern environmental thought. In the following essay, I will explain Murdy’s interpretation of anthropocentrism and why he believes it to be an acceptable point of
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.
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.
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.
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.
In his essay, The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Paul Taylor presents his argument for a deontological, biocentric egalitarian attitude toward nature based on the conviction that all living things possess equal intrinsic value and are worthy of the same moral consideration. Taylor offers four main premises to support his position. (1) Humans are members of the “Earth’s community of life” in the same capacity that nonhuman members are. (2) All species exist as a “complex web of interconnected elements” which are dependent upon one another for their well-being. (3) Individual organisms are “teleological centers of life” which possess a good of their own and a unique way in which to pursue it. (4) The concept that humans are superior to other species is an unsupported anthropocentric bias.
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.
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.
The ethical system that I propose has the goal of what is ultimately good for human beings. The ultimate good of human beings lie in going beyond their individual needs because instinctually animals strive to fulfill their individual bio-organic ne...
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).
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.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we
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?