| “ | If the Eiffel Tower were now representing the world's age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man's share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would. I dunno. | ” |
|
—Mark Twain, ridiculing Alfred Russel Wallace's "anthropocentric' theory" that the universe was created specifically for the evolution of mankind.[1] |
||
Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[2]
The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures. Anthropocentrism is a major concept in the field of environmental ethics and environmental philosophy, where it is often considered to be the root cause of problems created by human interaction with the environment.
Contents |
Anthropocentrism has been posited by some environmentalists, in such books as Confessions of an Eco-Warrior by Dave Foreman and Green Rage by Christopher Manes, as the underlying (if unstated) reason why humanity dominates and sees the need to "develop" most of the Earth. Anthropocentrism is believed by some to be the central problematic concept in environmental philosophy, where it is used to draw attention to a systematic bias in traditional Western attitudes to the non-human world.[3] Val Plumwood has argued[4][5] that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness "anthrocentrism" to emphasise this parallel.
Defenders of anthropocentrist views point out that maintenance of a healthy, sustainable environment is necessary for human well-being as opposed for its own sake. The problem with a "shallow" viewpoint is not that it is human-centred but that according to William Grey[6] "What's wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. According to this view, we need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception."
One of the first extended philosophical essays addressing environmental ethics, John Passmore's Man's Responsibility for Nature[7] has been repeatedly criticised by defenders of deep ecology because of its anthropocentrism, often claimed to be constitutive of traditional Western moral thought.[8]
Some evangelical Christians have also been critical, viewing a human-centred worldview, rather than a Christ-centred or God-centred worldview, as a core societal problem. According to this viewpoint, humanity placing its own desires ahead of the teachings of the Bible leads to rampant selfishness and behaviour viewed as sinful.
The use of the word "dominion" in Genesis, where it is written that God gives man dominion over all creatures, is controversial. Many Biblical scholars, especially Roman Catholic and other non-Protestant Christians, consider this to be a flawed translation of a word meaning "stewardship", which would indicate that mankind should take care of the earth and its various forms of life, but is not inherently better than any other form of life.[9] The current Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Catholic Christian church, states that God holds man responsible for the care and fate of all earthly creatures.[10][11]
In the 1985 CBC series "A Planet For the Taking", Dr. David Suzuki explored the Old Testament roots of anthropocentrism and how it shaped our view of non-human animals.
In his book Pale Blue Dot, author Dr. Carl Sagan also reflects on what he perceives to be the conceitedness and pettiness of anthropocentrism, specifically associating the doctrine with religious belief.[12]
Biocentrism has been proposed as an antithesis of anthropocentrism. It has also been proposed as a generalised form of anthropocentrism.[13]
Human exceptionalism refers to a belief that human beings have special status in nature based on unique capacities. This belief is the grounding for some naturalistic concepts of human rights.
Religious proponents of human exceptionalism base the belief on religious texts, such as the verse 1:26 in the Book of Genesis:
| “ | And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. | ” |
Some secular proponents of human exceptionalism point to evidence of unusual rapid evolution of the brain and the emergence of exceptional aptitudes. As one commentator put it, "Over the course of human history, we have been successful in cultivating our faculties, shaping our development, and impacting upon the wider world in a deliberate fashion, quite distinct from evolutionary processes".[14]
Defenders of human exceptionalism argue that it is the necessary fundamental premise to defend universal human rights, since what matters morally is simply being human. For example, noted philosopher Mortimer J. Adler wrote, "Those who oppose injurious discrimination on the moral ground that all human beings, being equal in their humanity, should be treated equally in all those respects that concern their common humanity, would have no solid basis in fact to support their normative principle." Adler is stating here, that denying what is now called human exceptionalism could lead to tyranny, writing that if we ever came to believe that humans do not possess a unique moral status, the intellectual foundation of our liberties collapses: "Why, then, should not groups of superior men be able to justify their enslavement, exploitation, or even genocide of inferior human groups on factual and moral grounds akin to those we now rely on to justify our treatment of the animals we harness as beasts of burden, that we butcher for food and clothing, or that we destroy as disease-bearing pests or as dangerous predators?"[15]
Author and human exceptionalism defender Wesley J. Smith has written that human exceptionalism is what gives rise to human duties to each other, the natural world. and to treat animals humanely, writing in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy, a critique of animal rights ideology, "Because we are unquestionably a unique species--the only species of even contemplating ethical issues and assuming responsibilities--we uniquely are capable of apprehending the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper conduct toward animals. Or to put it more succinctly if being human isn't what requires us to treat animals humanely, what in the world does?"[16]
Critics counter that human exceptionalism has contributed to anthropocentrism, speciesism, and bioconservatism at the expense of the natural environment, animal rights, and individual rights.[17]
In science-fiction, humanocentrism is the idea that humans, as both beings and a species, are the superior sentients. Essentially the equivalent of race supremacy on a galactic scale, it entails intolerant discrimination against sentient non-humans, much like race supremacists discriminate against those not of their race. This idea is countered by anti-humanism. At times, this ideal also includes fear of and superiority over strong AIs and cyborgs, downplaying the ideas of integration, cybernetic revolts, machine rule and Tilden's Laws of Robotics.