The value of the natural world has always been the subject of heated debate. Possessing the ability to think critically, human beings have introduced multiple ideas and concepts to describe numerous phenomena that can be met in the universe. The need for the given evaluation is explained by the fact that cogitative creatures need their own moral value system to speak about particular aspects and discuss them.
We will write a custom Essay on Environmental Ethics: Anthropic vs. Sentient Valuers specifically for you
301 certified writers online
At the moment, people are the only known living beings that can think critically and give definitions to objects. In such a way, the question of whether a value exists just because of people remains topical. This question is reflected in opposition to anthropocentrism versus heliocentrism. The former states that the world is interpreted in terms of human experiences and their attitudes (Watson, 1983).
At the same time, heliocentrism assumes that not only people but all sentient individuals create value while the rest of the material world is only of instrumental importance (Mill, 1904). In this regard, the opposition between these philosophical ideas is critical for the modern world.
As for me, I am a sentient valuer. The fact is that anthropocentrism has a significant drawback as it considers human beings the only creatures in the universe that can evaluate particular things and events. At the same time, there are billions of other sentient beings, including animals, that feel and other forms of life that might be present in the universe. They might have their own system of values and ideas related to the determination of the quality of things and their nature. For this reason, heliocentrism, with its conception of sentient beings who have rights that should be considered, becomes more attractive to me.
Mill, J. S. (1904). On nature. Web.
Watson, R. A. (1983). A critique of anti-anthropocentric ethics. Environmental Ethics, 5(3), 245-256. Web.