Environmental Values Antthropocentrism And Speciesism Analysis

Onora O’Neill in her text “Environmental values, Anthropocentrism and Speciesism” discusses first different views that give humans an ethic through two utilitarian thinkers (Bentham and Mill), and then in her turn tries to come up with an ethic that protects the animals and the environment by also protecting humans. Bentham and Mill both have anthropocentric positions: they put humans first, which means that both are the least speciesists. Anthropocentric positions include consequentialism that states the idea that an action is labeled as good or bad, right or wrong depending on its consequences on the majority of people. This philosophical view in particular is part of Utilitarianism. Both Bentham and Mill are utilitarians because they argue that humans are the ones to have enough reason to accept or

First of all, even if the end product of the ethic is environmental, the basis of it is still anthropocentric: the idea of speciesism will always remain because humans are still at the center of the ethic; animals and the environment are a minimal end product. A Second problematic point of O’Neill’s ethic is how injuries are assessed: who assesses and how systematic and gratuitous injuries are assessed. The problem here goes back to the fact that humans are the ones to assess injuries, leading again to an anthropocentric and speciesist ethic that puts humans first. Finally, O’Neill gives us the option to choose between injuring someone or no. Assuming that one chooses to follow the path of not injuring any individuals, they might be put in a situation where they will eventually have to injure individuals (in the case of self defense for example) and therefore this decision will not stand the way and they will eventually be injuring the environment by injuring individuals. The problem of choosing between two paths is a problem by itself because it means that we are imposing an obligation while it is not in