Anthropocentrism & Animal Rights: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Anthropocentrism & Animal Rights » Anthropocentrism & Animal Rights

Anthropocentrism & Animal Rights

Sullivan
Existing

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2008
Location: Interesting question!

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 55

Posted 02/29/08 - 08:02 PM: Subject: Anthropocentrism & Animal Rights	#1
This post of mine is copied off of another forum, so if any of the text appears attacking you specifically, it was actually me speaking in rebuttal to a young Christian I replied to. It will also explain some of the condescending tone. Okay, here we go. I'm feeling organized so I sectionalized it. Anthropocentrism and the Western worldview Natural theology's anthropocentric worldview which dominates Western civilization is the cause, entirely, of our environmental crisis which we have faced for the last century. I know, anthropocentric is a big word, so here: in Genesis, God creates the earth, nature, the animals, and then what? It creates man, and says that man is the ruler of all things. And so man named all the animals and established his dominance over them. So, this anthropocentric worldview is one in which nature (and animals) serves as a means to an end; nature and animals are only of instrumental value, their value is measured by their usefulness to humans. Now, this wasn't such an issue environmentally speaking during the first, let's say, 1500 years. However, as the scientific revolution sprung up in Europe during the 1860's, the anthropocentric worldview was still embedded in mankind's perspective towards nature and animals. When modern science and modern technology joined forces during the Democratic revolution, the anthropocentric worldview still remained consistent -- even if those who have this perspective are not Christians. Now, I really shouldn't have to show how detrimental modern technology has been to the environment, looking at the atmosphere alone. This anthropocentric worldview, catalysed by your faith, YOUR God (you, Christians), your doctrine, and your practices, has been used to JUSTIFY the genocide of species, destruction of land for economic purposes, subjecting animals to cruel lifestyles (animal testing, breeding, slaughtering, food manufactoring), an imperialist behavior that mankind must populate and OWN every piece of land (claim it as a country, a possession). What arrogance says "this land is mine, because I claim it so"? For the record, this argument was summarized from an article written by Christian Theologian Lynn White, Jr. My problem with the 10 commandments Here's the problem I have with the 10 commandments as a code of ethics: it's a backwards ethical theory. It starts at the top, ascribing rights and what's good and what's evil, but provides no theory justifying it. A proper ethic is one which starts at the bottom, the meta-ethic, the theory, the foundation for which the ethic will come to be, and using that theory you see what conclusions it comes to. That's why the 10 commandments are arbitrary. Furthermore, it's ethic really says nothing about what man should do, except how man should act towards another; it creates no sort of man-nature relationship other than declaring our superiority over it. Even if we accept the premise that mankind is superior to nature, there are still relationships to nature to be considered: recreation, conservation, speciesism, or economic value. I can't emphasize enough how arbitrarily the 10 commandments are made. It's simply a backwards ##### ethic. I'd love to go on in detail about speciesism, as it's a concept that really fascinates me and introduces conflicts between our anthropocentric worldview towards nature and how similar trains of thought have justified racism and sexism. Speciesism, a quick definition Speciesism is the unjustified prejudice or discrimination of a species based on biological, physiological, or intellectual characteristics; such prejudice and discrimination is a reflection on sexism and racism throughout history. Just as our skin color is irrelevant, so is our skin. Just as our size, shape, and strength are irrelevant, so are the same characteristics in bodies that do not resemble humans, such as a polar bear, or the blue whale. Just as our intelligence does not matter who is provided human rights, just as human rights are provided to infants, the mentally disabled, the lamens, and the intellectuals equally, so too much the rights be given to animals under the same principle. Animals, like man, have intrinsic worth. They are good in and of themselves. Anthropocentrism and The Chain of Being Here's some more reading for you; I reference Paul W. Taylor, Philosopher and professor at Brooklyn College, in his essay "The Ethics of Respect for Nature." Here I will elaborate on the immorality the Judeo-Christian ideology in its anthropocentric view; Taylor defines anthropocentric as "human actions affecting the natural environment and its nonhuman inhabitants are right (or wrong) by either of the two criteria: they have consequences which are favorable (or not) to human well being; or they are consistent (or not) with the system of norms that protect and implement human rights. It concerns the Chain of Being; God on top, angels below, and then humans, and then the beasts, and further down the chain of nature. He skips over the metaphysical and epistemelogical difficulties because they are insuperable, leaving us with one assertion which deems humans superior to animals and nature: the mere fact of the genetic makeup of the species Homo sapiens. Such a justifying characteristic is surely irrational and arbitrary. The Judeo-Christian concept of the Chain of Being is not only indefensible, but outdated. We recognize in our contemporary society, now more than ever, that humans and nonhuman animals are participants in the environmental community; that we undergo the same developments of natural selection, genetics, and adaption as nonhuman animals (and plants) do. Moreover, and most importantly, the most evident but unspoken theme of the Judeo-Christian ideology and of the Western anthropocentric worldview, that of arrogance, exposes itself. Contrary to the Chain of Being's concept that we human beings are above animals and the rest of nature, we are not only newcomers on this planet in comparison to mammals, reptiles, sharks, spiders, algae, etc; BUT, we are DEPENDENT on nature, whereas nature is not dependent upon us. Our destruction of nature, our exploitation of nature as a means to an end, something to be used instrumentally because of our self proclaimed superiority, is destroying the habitat in which we must maintain for survival. I'm in the process of an essay titled "The Human Virus" where I go into much further detail on that subject. If we destroy nature until it's no longer inhabitable by us, we die; nature is still there. Ecosystems will rebuild, our pollution will cease its terrible work, and the world will eventually cleanse itself. Our presence is not needed. If we go, nature would say "Good riddance!" Do you intend to say that eating animals as food is wrong? Should people only eat vegetarian meals where no animals where used? Also, should ordinary animals get equal rights to man? I'm going to suggest a small step from this anthropocentric view, one that includes animals within its base class and thus subject to rights like humans. First, we must decide what criterion something must have in order to have moral rights. Here's a couple of popular and traditional answers, and their refutations. 1) Rights and duties are moral ties which can exist only in a moral being, a person, possessed of reason and self-control. This is one of the earliest arguments for why humans have natural rights which animals do not. A very, very typical argument regarding animal rights. That because humans are the only beings (we know of) capable of higher reasoning and moral choices, we are superior to the rest of the animal kingdom and subject to rights which they are not. Here's a tragic flaw. That argument is ruined by the argument from marginal cases. Infants, the mentally disabled, and imbeciles are incapable of reason and self control. Are they not a subject of rights and duties from birth? As though it were inherent in them? The argument is based on speciesism. 2) All sentient life forms are subject to equal moral rights This is based on the argument from the principle of nonmaleficience, or right to be spared undeserved pain. This would include a much larger base class, giving animals, and many insects, moral equal rights to humans. We can not only deduce this to an absurdity, which will be done later, but it can again be defeated with the argument from marginal cases; there are persons who have a disorder and are not capable of feeling pain. Those within a vegetative state, or those who've suffered extreme brain damage, are not morally equal -- are not equal human beings (perhaps is a better way to say it) -- because of this. Again, this is another argument from speciesism; because one creature that is living is biologically capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, it is subject to special rights not provided to other creatures. To solidify what it is that gives animals rights: it is being alive, which has intrinsic value and good, that subjects animals to equal rights. What ARE these rights humans have, you ask? Among the two most essential, concrete, and inarguable are the right to life and the right to be spared undeserved pain So, does this mean that since we can't go around killing other humans, not to mention eating them, that we can no longer kill animals for food? If so, it would follow that animals do not have the right to kill and eat other animals, like prey. A wolf is now immoral for doing it's natural behavior. So we're not imposing upon ourselves the duty to police the animal kingdom from killing each other, which of course is entirely absurd. So simply saying they have these rights isn't enough, because there seems to be some rational medium between declaring all animals must not violate another's rights to life or undeserved pain (which is absurd) and disregarding that animals have rights entirely based on a speciesist claim, just as serious as basing rights on gender or race. Here I'm going to insert Aldo Leopold's philosophy from A Land Ethic; Aldo Leopold wrote the Bible for environmental philosophy and environmental ethics 20 years before the branches of ethics even existed (prophet?). Leopold says that "we should stop thinking ourselves as conqueror of the land, and recognize ourselves in the biotic community as a participant." Now, what does this theory lead up to? (Remember, meta-ethics > ethics, not the other way around). First, we acknowledge that animals are equal participants in the balance of the environment with us; rather than raising animals up The Chain of Being to our level and including them in our ethic, we lower ourselves down and maintain the same rights now recognized as they are shared between humans and nonhuman animals. This eliminates the absurdity the argument of animals possessing equal right to life. For just as the wolf hunts the sheep as prey and eats it, we hunt prey and consume them. Just as animals don't eat their own kind, neither do we, balancing out the idea that if we're allowed to kill one animal, we're allowed to kill ANY animal. Any animal has the right to life, but as part of the biotic community it is subject to have its life taken by necessity in order to feed a family. The principle of nonmaleficience also works under Leopold's holistic approach. Cruelty is inherently evil; submitting an animal to cruel suffering, as is done in slaughterhouses where calfs do not move an inch until death, where chickens stand on chicken wire, which hurts their feet, at uncomfortable angles that causes them to suffer, or in experiments where their suffering does not provide a greater good. If we were to attempt to calculate the Utilitarian principle to slaughterhouses we'd face impossible calculations, whereas an animals temporary suffering during a medical experiment that yields a new pharmaceutical drug that helps millions is morally justifiable. We must also make a distinction from moral considerability vs moral significance. What is morally significant is relative and does not include proper representation to animals without bias based on their significance to humans. All are significant in the biotic system. Moral considerability is the distinction where we can, say, hold a puppy dog more morally considerable than a spider. You wouldn't smash your dog into goo with a newspaper. However, when the spider is of no significance at all, that is to say when it's on the wall at the far end of the room from where you're standing, you don't have to go out of your way to kill it. Live and let live. What we give moral consideration to ought to be anything with interests. This is the interest principle. An animal, such as a mother bear, has an interest to stay alive, protect her kin and territory, eat, and so on. When we see animals as a means to an end, intrumentally, not as an end of itself, intrinsically we violate its interests. Simply saying we should be moral to something that feels pain or has reason isn't enough as argued by the argument from marginal cases. But even infants and the mentally disabled have interests. So, too, do animals. A distinction should be made between moral agents and moral patients. Moral agents are those which give moral actions, moral patients are those which receive a moral act. This is used the same way in the medical field. Doctors give care to patients, as moral agents give care to moral patients. Now, to go ahead and beat the refutation to the punch, the interest principle is to be taken with rationality. This is not to say that we should refrain from violating an animal's interests in spite of our own interests; that is, if our interests are not in violation with the principle of nonmaleficience (you're interested in harming an animal cruelly) or using an animal as a means to an end that is outside the realm of moral significance and considerability (doing it without purpose, for the sake of it, or unnecessarily such as in excess). This also doesn't imply that animals are immoral because they violate other animals' interests. For not only are animals moral patients and not moral agents, but they violate an animal's interests in their own, necessary, interests, such as the wolf killing the sheep. The interest principle extends further than animals, but the anthropocentric world seems to be having a hard enough time taking this ethical babystep that I won't, at this time, go beyond animal rights. Let me ask you this. Would you agree that the killing of an entire species is wrong and immoral, under any circumstances (outside of their complete extermination, and only their complete extermination, means the death of all humanity)? "The splendors of earth do not simply lie in their roles as human resources, supports of culture, or stimulators of experience." - Holmes Rolston III, Challenges in Environmental Ethics 1991 "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community; it is wrong when it tends otherwise." - Aldo Leopold, A Land Ethic 1949 "Several billion years worth of creative toil, several million species of teeming life, have been handed over to the care of this late-coming species." - Holmes Rolston III, Challenges in Environmental Ethics 1991
We exist in infinite infinities. You've already lived for an eternity. Changing Faces & Change The World Philosophy Tomorrow

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003

Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1963

Last Blog: Transcontinental Humanitarian Expedition

Posted 02/29/08 - 09:29 PM:	#2
Anthropocentrism is generally inconsistent. But moral values do not need to be consistent, like most value judgments. There is no argument to someone who says that killing a human is morally wrong. At best, it's just a statement of personal opinion. Worse possibly, it could be some metaphysical or religious claim that is empirically unknowable and based on faith. I personally do not like to force unnecessary suffering on other sentient creatures. To me, the pleasure of eating meat is not worth murdering animals. But I do not care as much with non-human animals as I do about humans. I do not empathize with them as much as I empathize with humans. I cannot relate to them as well as I relate to humans. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Sullivan
Existing

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2008
Location: Interesting question!

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 55

Posted 03/01/08 - 05:09 AM:	#3
That's rational considerability. It's perfectly reasonable to care for a human more than a dog, just as it is to care for a dog more than insect.
We exist in infinite infinities. You've already lived for an eternity. Changing Faces & Change The World Philosophy Tomorrow

Tisthammerw
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 930

Posted 03/02/08 - 12:44 PM:	#4
Sullivan wrote: I know, anthropocentric is a big word, so here: in Genesis, God creates the earth, nature, the animals, and then what? It creates man, and says that man is the ruler of all things. And so man named all the animals and established his dominance over them. So, this anthropocentric worldview is one in which nature (and animals) serves as a means to an end; nature and animals are only of instrumental value, their value is measured by their usefulness to humans. Now, this wasn't such an issue environmentally speaking during the first, let's say, 1500 years. However, as the scientific revolution sprung up in Europe during the 1860's, the anthropocentric worldview was still embedded in mankind's perspective towards nature and animals. When modern science and modern technology joined forces during the Democratic revolution, the anthropocentric worldview still remained consistent -- even if those who have this perspective are not Christians. Now, I really shouldn't have to show how detrimental modern technology has been to the environment, looking at the atmosphere alone. This anthropocentric worldview, catalysed by your faith, YOUR God (you, Christians), your doctrine, and your practices, has been used to JUSTIFY the genocide of species, destruction of land for economic purposes, subjecting animals to cruel lifestyles (animal testing, breeding, slaughtering, food manufactoring), an imperialist behavior that mankind must populate and OWN every piece of land (claim it as a country, a possession). Well, I suppose using Christians as a scapegoat is better than using the Jews. (Note that Genesis and the rest of the Tanakh actually originate from the Jewish faith, and yet sometimes it seems Christians get all the blame for all the stuff that happens in the Hebrew Scriptures.) You said this was "summarized from an article written by Christian Theologian Lynn White, Jr." As I recall this fellow was a historian but not a Christian theologian. His 1966 article in which he blamed the ecological crisis on Christianity faced much scholarly criticism. What's there to be critical about? I'll summarize. Yes the Torah says we're in charge of the planet, but that hardly implies we have permission to be lousy caretakers. And note that this role of environmental leadership was given to man in a time in which humans were vegetarians. It's just plain presumptuous to derive the right of unmitigated tyranny over plants and animals in the Bible (see e.g. Deuteronomy 22:6-7). The Jews and early Christians were not particularly anthropocentric, contrary to what White might like to believe. In Christianity, all things were made for Christ (see Colossians 1:16) rather than humans. The idea that nature is for man's use actually originates form Roman and Greek literature, not the Bible. The claim that "animals exist for the sake of man" is found in the writings of Aristotle, not the Torah. Such literature and ideas permeated widely in the Western culture, and much of what is categorically assumed to be Christian (perhaps because Christianity was the dominant professed religion) actually has Greek and Roman roots. Misuse of the plant and animal is hardly new or unique to cultures professing Christianity. Deforestation happened in the Bronze age and later in China (which operated under the religion of Buddhism). Contrast this with what was taught in Deuteronomy 20:19-20 (a limitation that was seldom provided in wartime in the ancient world, "Are the trees of the field people, that you should besiege them?"). Cannibalism in Mesoamerica occurred pretty much by necessity, when the peoples the hunted animals so thoroughly and recklessly they became unavailable for food. You know the desert in Australia? It happened when non-Christian humans fifty millennia ago torched wide areas to clear the land, really screwing up the ecosystem. As is often the case with the evils of humanity, we ought to blame it on human nature rather than scapegoat a particular religion (whether it be Christianity, Islam, or whatever).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.

Sullivan
Existing

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 12, 2008
Location: Interesting question!

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 55

Posted 03/03/08 - 12:36 AM:	#5
I actually just had this same debate with a Jewish woman on another board. The Torah's a great addition that refutes a large part of my argument. And I cite White only as a brief reference; the majority of environmental philosophers raise the same argument of anthropocentrism having origins in religion. I really should've revised after posting. The body of my argument isn't about Christianity or religion necessarily, only the anthropocentric worldview that Western civilization has adopted. Eastern civilization has a far less anthropocentric view, partially because their religion doesn't hold human beings above all of the rest of existence. The roots dating back to Aristotle and other Greek and Roman literature isn't the origin of anthropocentric spread in Western civilization I'm talking about. Christian indoctrination throughout Western civilization is what I'm emphasizing. The Native Americans, some tribes anyway I'm not sure about all or most, had a more communitarian worldview. Hell, when Europeans emigrated over, they used the Native's instrumentally as well, thinking of them as 'savages' and thus closer to animals than human. Similar patterns of immoral use, despite religious faith, has maintained in Western civilzation's history. As a whole I'm not taking on White's full view that Christian beliefs are the cause, just Christians.
We exist in infinite infinities. You've already lived for an eternity. Changing Faces & Change The World Philosophy Tomorrow

figster63
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/09/08 - 07:15 PM:	#6
Logically humans have all power over animals. We are on top of the food chain. Genesis says the animals are for our use, but never says how to use them. Since its the choice of the person, I think you should talk about how to change christian views other than denouncing a religion. Anthropocentrism is in our genetics, and religion comes from our genetics so whos to say christianity is wrong? Every animal is anthropocentric, and would take our territory if they had the power. It would be hard to denounce a religion other than to find reason in christian belief to defend power to the animals. That would deminish alot of ignorance in people.

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 03/10/08 - 05:28 AM:	#7
Are plants not alive? Your biocentric mantra falls there. Even if you are a vegetarian, you eat plants, that are living things. Ironically assigning intrinsic value to all life, is its end. Ironically, many species, the carnivores are not only eating meat, but cannot live on plants. Only plants would qualify without being hypocrites, and plants do neither listen nor care of your mantra. A better position is animalcentricism, but it fails for other reasons. Also, I see a lot of strawman attacks on atropocentrism. Are there not secular arguments for it? Aristoteles certainly did not base his atropocentrism on a religious doctrine, but merely on the idea that humans are the thinking animal. According to Kant, morality is acting on moral law, and as such only rational beings can concieve of it.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

figster63
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 09, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 11

Posted 03/10/08 - 11:58 AM:	#8
keda wrote: Are plants not alive? Your biocentric mantra falls there. Even if you are a vegetarian, you eat plants, that are living things. Ironically assigning intrinsic value to all life, is its end. Ironically, many species, the carnivores are not only eating meat, but cannot live on plants. Only plants would qualify without being hypocrites, and plants do neither listen nor care of your mantra. A better position is animalcentricism, but it fails for other reasons. Also, I see a lot of strawman attacks on atropocentrism. Are there not secular arguments for it? Aristoteles certainly did not base his atropocentrism on a religious doctrine, but merely on the idea that humans are the thinking animal. According to Kant, morality is acting on moral law, and as such only rational beings can concieve of it. Good point

OpokepianistO
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/24/08 - 08:30 PM:	#9
keda wrote: Are plants not alive? Your biocentric mantra falls there. Even if you are a vegetarian, you eat plants, that are living things. Ironically assigning intrinsic value to all life, is its end. Ironically, many species, the carnivores are not only eating meat, but cannot live on plants. Only plants would qualify without being hypocrites, and plants do neither listen nor care of your mantra. A better position is animalcentricism, but it fails for other reasons. Also, I see a lot of strawman attacks on atropocentrism. Are there not secular arguments for it? Aristoteles certainly did not base his atropocentrism on a religious doctrine, but merely on the idea that humans are the thinking animal. According to Kant, morality is acting on moral law, and as such only rational beings can concieve of it. Do plants have any sort of consciousness? And how does animalcentrism fail?

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3634

Posted 03/24/08 - 11:38 PM:	#10
As far as I can see most plants do not have consciousness, and they don't need it since they can't defend themselves, except passively by thorns and poison hairs. However carnivorous plants could well be consicous. The obvious problem with animalcentrism was alredy mentioned, namely that carnivores would have to starve to death. Now we could confine ourselves to herbivores and omnivores, but even that contains a problem. The other animals are not thinking and can thus not grasp of such things as moral law and rights. The only thing you can do is train them to not do certain things or do other things.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.