Introduction
Environmental ethics is a developing branch of philosophy, filled with debate on the approach and relationship of human civilization to nature. The central divide stands at the focus of consideration of morality behind human action regarding the non-human world. The principle of sequential evolution of ethics by Roderick Frazier Nash states that humanity will reach an ethical precipice at which point there will be a moral responsibility to acknowledge the intrinsic value of non-human life (Clements 2017).
With the spread of globalism, economic expansion and improvement of human life are growing with environmental sustainability in consideration. In the current reality, non-anthropocentric environmental ethics are impractical in fields of international development, and poverty reduction as the primary focus is on improvements for the human population.
Anthropocentrism and Non-Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism upholds the approach that mankind is the centric part of nature, and in a system of value, human existence should be sustained above any other environmental or natural entity. The privilege falls to humanity’s issues in decision-making regarding usage and sustainability of the non-human world.
The philosophy argues, since human beings are the only creature with developed rationalism, the species is morally valuable, therefore should be protected at all costs. There is a range of adherence to the theory, with strong and weak anthropocentrism existing when dealing with the environment. While strong anthropocentrism gives humans no duty or regard for the natural world, weak anthropocentrism understands that the environment plays a role in the survival of future generations, and therefore must be protected and sustained to some effect (Clements 2017).
A key term in the ethical debate is intrinsic value. It means that something has value because of its essential nature, with a need for development and protection based on that significance, regardless of any other factors (Clements 2017). Non-anthropocentrism is essentially a reversal of anthropocentrism, stating that the non-human world has value independent of its benefit to humanity. It is ecocentric, placing the intrinsic value away from humanity to the natural world. However, from an outside perspective, it can be argued that every species contributes to the health of the ecosystem in some way. Therefore the benefits and consequences will also have an effect.
Any environmental ethic is essentially anthropological as humanity ultimately determines intrinsic value. As a result, policy-makers and social scientists are anthropocentric, and such assumptions are reflected in their scholarly and political programs (McShane 2007).
On a theoretical, ethical level, non-anthropocentrism is considered radical, in terms that it would be against human nature to practically engage in that philosophy. It would mean stalling any technogenic or economic development. If taken to the extreme, it would argue for extermination or simple disregard for human life as the destructive force in the ecosystem.
If humans valued the intrinsic value of nature, the ecological disasters that humanity will continue to face could theoretically be avoided. This argument fails when directed towards weak or ecological anthropocentrism (Burchett 2015). It stands against the ideology of valuing human life instilled in our social paradigm. Anthropocentric ethics has an advantage over non-anthropocentric approaches due to philosophical viability. Traditional Western ethical theories used in the modern industrial world are anthropocentric in nature. Therefore, adopting anthropocentrism makes use of numerous theoretical resources that evolved for practical application and reasoning (McShane 2007).
Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics in International Development
A hypothesis by Bryan Norton that is often cited in environmental ethics states, “if reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies; a non-anthropocentric ethic will advocate the same policies as a suitably broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism” (Norton 2003, p. 11). Anthropocentrism, aside from the few individuals benefiting from ethical egoism, has the fundamental basis of valuing humanity, including the future of the species. Therefore, sustainable behavior towards the ecosystem (which is essential to human existence) is viable.
Even if theoretically the intrinsic value system is applied, long-term human interests are instrumentally tied to sustainability, which should reflect in social and development policy. However, most humans are unaware of the ecological footprint of their actions, especially regarding the impact on future generations. Therefore, anthropocentrism is most practical in informing policy decisions that compromise short-term economic interests while guiding towards long-term sustainability (Burchett 2015).
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) created by the United Nations is a clear example of both development and environmental ethics. For example, Goal 14 of the SDGs aims to conserve and use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. An estimated contribution of coastal and marine ecosystem services and resources to the global economy is an estimated $28 trillion each year.
Marine-related infrastructure and development are essential parts of diverse regions’ economies. Consequently, these should be protected and sustained, as many fragile biodiverse ecosystems are at risk from pollution and coastal eutrophication (UN 2017). This clearly has application for the concept of weak anthropocentrism that the protection of marine resources is beneficial for social, environmental, and economic welfare.
International development and poverty reduction are focused not only on improving conditions and economic welfare of certain regions but also preserve human life by combating famine and disease. At first, such endeavors may require certain ecological sacrifices as resources are gathered. In turn, through proper infrastructure and education, environmental sustainability can be established that supports human development as well as the preservation of nature to some extent.
Weak anthropocentrism reasons for upholding the protection of nature. The ideal of harmonious ecological relationship is reflected in the relationship with other species which contributes to the evaluation of the rational value formation. Efficient principles of ecological anthropocentrism would focus on the priorities and interests of current and future generation humans. However, there should be an ethical limit on actions that damage the environment, because humanity’s obvious superiority over most ecological and environmental factors brings with it a responsibility of controlled management (Kortetmäki 2013).
While weak anthropocentrism is the most pragmatic in the current status quo, it fails to make a significant impact on sustainable development. First, it fails to change the human nature of consumption which causes the cycle of exuberant intake of resources and the creation of polluting waste. Rather than eliminating the source, pollution displacement is utilized instead. There is no limit to unsustainable industrial, urban or technological growth, with hopes that at some point technology will evolve enough to solve any possible issues.
Human environmental policy and action are often reactive, attempting to deal with consequences and outcomes of prolonged abuse of certain natural elements. Preventive measures are rarely utilized in any development. Until there is obvious degradation in the ecosystem, often which impacts humans in some form, there is no tactical response (Speed 2006).
Conclusion
When applying environmental ethics to practical policy decisions, both sides of the argument must be considered. The anthropocentric and non-anthropocentric both have philosophical fallacies. The non-anthropocentric approach is not practical in fields of international development and poverty reduction due because of their focus on humanity. However, a rationalistic approach argued by the convergence hypothesis as well as weak (ecological) anthropocentrism supports ecological sustainability. Through such means, while ensuring human development, feasible practices are established to preserve the natural environment for the survival of future generations.
Reference List
Burchett, K (2015). ‘Anthropocentrism and nature: an attempt at reconciliation, Teoria: Rethinking ‘Nature’, vol. 2, pp. 119-137. Web.
Clements, B (2017), P129 ethics for environment and development. Web.
Kortetmäki, T (2013). ‘Anthropocentrism versus ecocentrism revisited: theoretical confusions and practical conclusions’, SATS: Northern European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 21-37. Web.
McShane, K (2007), ‘Anthropocentrism vs. nonanthropocentrism: why should we care?’, Environmental Values, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 169-186. Web.
Norton, B 2003, Searching for sustainability: interdisciplinary essays in the philosophy of conservation biology, Cambridge University Press. Web.
Speed, C (2006). ‘Anthropocentrism and sustainable development: oxymoron or symbiosis?’, WitPress, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 223-332. Web.
United Nations 2017, Progress of goal 14. Web.