Biocentrism (ethics)
Biocentrism (from
Biocentrism does not imply the idea of equality among the animal kingdom, for no such notion can be observed in nature. Biocentric thought is nature-based, not human-based.
Advocates of biocentrism often promote the preservation of
Definition
The term biocentrism encompasses all
The four main pillars of a biocentric outlook are:
- Humans and all other species are members of Earth's community.
- All species are part of a system of interdependence.
- All living organisms pursue their own "good" in their own ways.
- Human beings are not inherently superior to other living things.[8]
Relationship with animals and environment
This section needs additional citations for verification. (October 2021) |
Biocentrism views individual species as parts of the living biosphere. It observes the consequences of reducing biodiversity on both small and large scales and points to the inherent value all species have to the environment.
The environment is seen for what it is; the biosphere within which we live and depend on its diversity for our health. From these observations the ethical points are raised.
History and development
Biocentric ethics differs from classical and traditional ethical thinking. Rather than focusing on strict moral rules, as in Classical ethics, it focuses on attitudes and character. In contrast with traditional ethics, it is nonhierarchical and gives priority to the natural world rather than to humankind exclusively.[9]
Biocentric ethics includes Albert Schweitzer's ethics of "Reverence for Life", Peter Singer's ethics of Animal Liberation and Paul W. Taylor's ethics of biocentric egalitarianism.[5]
Albert Schweitzer's "reverence for life" principle was a precursor of modern biocentric ethics.[5] In contrast with traditional ethics, the ethics of "reverence for life" denies any distinction between "high and low" or "valuable and less valuable" life forms, dismissing such categorization as arbitrary and subjective.[5] Conventional ethics concerned itself exclusively with human beings—that is to say, morality applied only to interpersonal relationships—whereas Schweitzer's ethical philosophy introduced a "depth, energy, and function that differ[s] from the ethics that merely involved humans".[5] "Reverence for life" was a "new ethics, because it is not only an extension of ethics, but also a transformation of the nature of ethics".[5]
Similarly, Peter Singer argues that non-human animals deserve the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings.[10] His argument is roughly as follows:
- Membership in the species Homo sapiens is the only criterion of moral importance that includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.
- Using membership in the species Homo sapiens as a criterion of moral importance is completely arbitrary.
- Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience is a plausible criterion of moral importance.
- Using sentience as a criterion of moral importance entails that we extend the same basic moral consideration (i.e. "basic principle of equality") to other sentient creatures that we do to human beings.
- Therefore, we ought to extend to animals the same equality of consideration that we extend to human beings.[10]
Singer's work, while notable in the canon of environmental ethics, should not be considered as fully biocentric however. Singer's ethics is extended from humans to nonhuman animals because the criterion for moral inclusion (sentience) is found in both humans and nonhuman animals, thus it would be arbitrary to deny it to nonhuman animals simply because they were not human. However, not all biological entities are sentient, consider: algae, plants and trees, fungi, lichens, mollusks, protozoa, for example. For an ethical theory to be biocentric, it must have a reason for extending ethical inclusion to the entire biosphere (as in Taylor and Schweitzer). The requirement for environmental ethics to move beyond sentience as criteria for inclusion in the moral realm is discussed in Tom Regan's 1981 paper "The Nature and Possibility of an Environmental Ethic".[11]
Biocentrism is most commonly associated with the work of
- Humans are members of a community of life along with all other species, and on equal terms.
- This community consists of a system of interdependence between all members, both physically, and in terms of relationships with other species.
- Every organism is a "teleologicalcentre of life", that is, each organism has a purpose and a reason for being, which is inherently "good" or "valuable".
- Humans are not inherently superior to other species.
Historian
If we choose to let conjecture run wild, then animals, our fellow brethren in pain, diseases, death, suffering and famine—our slaves in the most laborious works, our companions in our amusement—they may partake of our origin in one common ancestor—we may be all netted together.
In 1859, Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species. This publication sparked the beginning of biocentrist views by introducing evolution and "its removal of humans from their supernatural origins and placement into the framework of natural laws".[16]
The work of
Outside of formal philosophical works biocentric thought is common among pre-colonial tribal peoples who knew no world other than the natural world.
In law
The paradigm of biocentrism and the values that it promotes are beginning to be used in law.
In recent years (as of 2011), cities in Maine, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Virginia have adopted
The first country to include rights of nature in its constitution is Ecuador[21] (see 2008 Constitution of Ecuador). Article 71 states that nature "has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes".[22]
In religion
Islam
In Islam: In Islam, biocentric ethics stem from the belief that all of creation belongs to
Hinduism
In Hinduism: Hinduism contains many elements of biocentrism. In Hinduism, humans have no special authority over other creatures, and all living things have souls ('
However, while Hinduism does not give the same direct authority over nature that the
Another doctrinal source for the equal treatment of all life is found in the Rigveda. The Rigveda states that trees and plants possess divine healing properties. It is still popularly believed that every tree has a Vriksa-devata (a tree deity). Trees are ritually worshiped through prayer, offerings, and the sacred thread ceremony. The Vriksa-devata worshiped as manifestations of the Divine. Tree planting is considered a religious duty.[23]
Jainism
In Jainism: The Jaina tradition exists in tandem with Hinduism and shares many of its biocentric elements.[26]
Ahimsa (non-violence), the central teaching of Jainism, means more than not hurting other humans.[27] It means intending not to cause physical, mental or spiritual harm to any part of nature. In the words of Mahavira: 'You are that which you wish to harm.'[27] Compassion is a pillar of non-violence. Jainism encourages people to practice an attitude of compassion towards all life.
The principle of
Another essential Jain teaching is
Buddhism
In Buddhism: The
Although this holistic approach is more ecocentric than biocentric, it is also biocentric, as it maintains that all living things are important and that humans are not above other creatures or nature. Buddhism teaches that "once we treat nature as our friend, to cherish it, then we can see the need to change from the attitude of dominating nature to an attitude of working with nature—we are an intrinsic part of all existence rather than seeing ourselves as in control of it."[28]
Christianity
Within the Catholic tradition of Christian thought, Pope Benedict XVI noted that "the Church’s magisterium expresses grave misgivings about notions of the environment inspired by ecocentrism and biocentrism". This, he stated, was because "such notions eliminate the difference of identity and worth between the human person and other living things. In the name of a supposedly egalitarian vision of the "dignity" of all living creatures, such notions end up abolishing the distinctiveness and superior role of human beings."[29]
Criticism
Biocentrism has faced criticism for a number of reasons. Some of this criticism grows out of the concern that biocentrism is an anti-human paradigm and that it will not hesitate to sacrifice human well-being for the greater good.[21] Biocentrism has also been criticized for its individualism; emphasizing too much on the importance of individual life and neglecting the importance of collective groups, such as an ecosystem.[30]
A more complex form of criticism focuses on the contradictions of biocentrism. Opposed to anthropocentrism, which sees humans as having a higher status than other species,[31] biocentrism puts humans on a par with the rest of nature, and not above it.[32] In his essay A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Biocentrism Richard Watson suggests that if this is the case, then "Human ways—human culture—and human actions are as natural as the ways in which any other species of animals behaves".[33] He goes on to suggest that if humans must change their behavior to refrain from disturbing and damaging the natural environment, then that results in setting humans apart from other species and assigning more power to them.[33] This then takes us back to the basic beliefs of anthropocentrism. Watson also claims that the extinction of species is "Nature's way"[34] and that if humans were to instigate their own self-destruction by exploiting the rest of nature, then so be it. Therefore, he suggests that the real reason humans should reduce their destructive behavior in relation to other species is not because we are equals but because the destruction of other species will also result in our own destruction.[35] This view also brings us back to an anthropocentric perspective.
See also
- Anarcho-primitivism
- Animal cognition
- Biodiversity
- Biophilia hypothesis
- Biotic ethics
- Deep ecology
- Earth jurisprudence
- Ecoauthoritarianism
- Ecocentrism
- Eco-nationalism
- Environmental philosophy
- Gaia hypothesis
- Gaia philosophy
- Green anarchism
- Green conservatism
- Green libertarianism
- Intrinsic value (animal ethics)
- Neo-luddite
- Painism
- Primitivism
- Religion and environmentalism
- Sentiocentrism
- Speciesism
- Stewardship (theology)
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0-7425-3137-6.
- Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2009. Retrieved 13 March 2009.
- ISBN 978-0-7456-2738-0.
- ^ "Left Biocentrism Primer". 15 March 1998. Retrieved 15 March 2009.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-84826-721-3.)
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link - ^ a b c Judi Bari (1995). "Revolutionary Ecology: Biocentrism & Deep Ecology". Alarm: A Journal of Revolutionary Ecology.
- ISBN 978-0-02-864325-0.
- ^ Johnson, Jayme. "Biocentric Ethics and the Inherent Value of Life" (PDF). umass.edu. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 April 2014. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
- ^ Smillie, Mark. "Biocentric (Life-Centered) Ethics". Carroll College. Archived from the original on 6 November 2012. Retrieved 2 November 2012.
- ^ a b Vuletic, Mark. "Philosophy Notes: Singer, "All Animals Are Equal"". vuletic.com. Retrieved 8 November 2012.
- .
- ^ ISBN 978-0-7456-2908-7.
biocentrism ethics.
- ISBN 978-0-691-02250-5.
- ISBN 0-521-46834-5.
- ^ Darwin, Charles. "Notebook B: [Transmutation of species]". Retrieved 30 October 2012.
- ^ Horrow, Aviva. ""When Nature Holds the Mastery": The Development of Biocentric Thought in Industrial America". Retrieved 30 October 2012.
- ISBN 9781412996877.
- ISBN 9780345345059.
- ^ ISBN 9780345345059.
- ^ a b Merchant, Brian (10 February 2011). "125 Cities Passed Laws Placing Rights of Citizens, Nature Ahead of Corporations". Archived from the original on 5 February 2013.
- ^ ISBN 9781412996945.
- ^ NATIONAL ASSEMBLY LEGISLATIVE AND OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. "CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR". Retrieved 28 October 2012.
- ^ a b c d e f "Religion and Ecology". Retrieved 29 November 2012.
- ^ Shafaat, Ahmad. "Ecology and the Teachings of the Prophets Muhammad and Jesus". Islamic Perspectives. Retrieved 1 December 2012.
- ISSN 1536-3759.
- ^ Chapple, Christopher. "Hinduism, Jainism, and Ecology". Patheos.com. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
- ^ a b c d Palmer, Finlay, Martin, Victoria. "Faiths and Ecology: What Does Jainism teach us about ecology?". Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC).
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ a b c Palmer, Finlay, Martin, Victoria. "Faiths and Conservation: Buddhist Statement". Alliance of Religions and Conservation. Retrieved 3 December 2012.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Benedict XVI, Message for the Celebration of World Peace, 1 January 2010, accessed 13 January 2024
- ISBN 9781412996877.
- ISBN 9781412996945.
- ISBN 9781412996877.
- ^ .
- .
- .
Further reading
- Agar, Nicholas (2001). "Recent defenses of biocentrism". Life's intrinsic value: science, ethics, and nature. Columbia University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-231-11786-9.
- Coghlan et al (2021). A bolder One Health: expanding the moral circle to optimize health for all. One Health Outlook.
- Reichmann, James B. (2000). "Anthropocentrism, Biocentrism, and Envirocentrism". Evolution, animal 'rights,' and the environment. CUA Press. p. 318. ISBN 978-0-8132-0954-8.
- Sterba, James P. (1998). "Biocentrism and ecological integrity". In Lemons, John; et al. (eds.). Ecological sustainability and integrity: concepts and approaches. ISBN 978-0-7923-4909-9.
- Susan Emmenegger; Axel Tschentscher (1994). "Taking Nature's Rights Seriously: The Long Way to Biocentrism in Environmental Law" (PDF). Georgetown International Environmental Law Journal. VI: 592. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 11 November 2012.
- Taylor, Paul W. (2010). "Egalitarian Biocentrism". In Keller, David R. (ed.). Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. ISBN 978-1-4051-7639-2.
- Vilkka, Leena (1997). "Biocentrism". The intrinsic value of nature. Rodopi. ISBN 978-90-420-0325-5.