Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the idea according to which man should be considered the most important species on the planet. In opposition, ecocentrism proposes that man is to be seen equal to other life forms.

According to anthropocentrists, man should dominate its environment to quench scientific and industrial needs. Since morality and justice are human constructs in the eyes of certain, man has the right to define itself as more important in order to use these concepts to its own advantage. If man is hurting other life forms, it is simply because the abilities it acquired give it a considerable edge over them. Following this idea, man is potentially harmful to other species due to its intelligence and communicability in a similar way a hunter would be dangerous due to its speed or strength. In sum, society would be a natural product of the traits we received through evolution. Anthropocentrists believe in man’s ability to use reasoning in order to solve its problems rather than in the “natural order”.

According to ecocentrists, the good of the ecosystem surpasses the good of mankind, which is why man should exist in harmony with other life forms. Although morality is only understood by man, it should benefit all and everything. Furthermore, since man is able to make this distinction, it has the responsibility to use its intelligence to serve all life. According to ecocentrists, the “natural order” is more reliable than man when it comes to dealing with issues.

Which one do you side with? Are you anthropocentrist, believing man should be the center of attention, or are you ecocentrist, thinking that a balance between all life forms should be sought before the good of our own species. What is your belief based on?

Only read the first paragraph and I can tell you I agree with anthropcentrism

if I had to pick on I"d go with ecocentrist

The idea that morality is a human creation is utter bullshit.

I’m for ecocentrism but not purely. Anthropocentrism has destroyed and corrupted not only the environment, but the human world as well.

I agree with anthropcentrism

Both are extremes and are wrong.

It has been established that humans are the most intelligent of all lifeforms that have been discovered. We have used our environment in ways that no other living thing has before. However, life is a balance. Humans must coexist with other living things in order to preserve the planet’s natural balance. This does not mean that humans should not take advantage of the environment around them in order to advance ourselves as a species.

It has been established that humans are the most intelligent lifeforms in existence

Since when can the human race see every nook and cranny in the universe? Or even just the Earth? We’ve only discovered a small part of all the animals on our own planet, as scientists in those fields admit. Who says there aren’t super-intelligent creatures living underground or somewhere we can’t detect them?

Other than that, yeah.

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

It has been established that humans are the most intelligent lifeforms in existence

Since when can the human race see every nook and cranny in the universe? Or even just the Earth? We’ve only discovered a small part of all the animals on our own planet, as scientists in those fields admit. Who says there aren’t super-intelligent creatures living underground or somewhere we can’t detect them?

Other than that, yeah.

I changed it. Is it better now?

Aye, much better. But maybe humans are the only ones displaying their intellect. Other known animals might be more intelligent without showing it. That’s just a detail, though.

I side a little more with anthropocentrism, since they are both too extreme to completely side with.

My overall view is anthropocentric, but for pragmatic reasons, I support the environmentalist cause. It’s a simple matter of if the environment dies, we die with it. Once humanity becomes settled on many different worlds, then the significance of each individual planet would be less. At that point, I would care less for ecology, although it almost certainly won’t be within my lifetime.

I do not care for morality, but for the survival of the species.

Originally posted by AlextheGreat13:

My overall view is anthropocentric, but for pragmatic reasons, I support the environmentalist cause. It’s a simple matter of if the environment dies, we die with it. Once humanity becomes settled on many different worlds, then the significance of each individual planet would be less. At that point, I would care less for ecology, although it almost certainly won’t be within my lifetime.

I do not care for morality, but for the survival of the species.

who gives a shit about the survival of the species

who gives a shit about the survival of the species

The species itself. Any life form strives for its own survival and/or the survival of its kin.

How about a mix of both?

If I have to go extreme, it would probably be ecocentrism because I actually want to live without the Earth getting destroyed.

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

who gives a shit about the survival of the species

As far as we know, humanity is the only civilized and innovative species in existence (and yes, I understand we may find others eventually). Our quest for innovation has led us to great achievements, and it will continue to do so far into the future. So far, we’ve traveled to the moon, developed nuclear energy, and created advanced forms of communication. Given time, we could shape the whole universe to our wishes and essentially become gods. Until then, we have to make sure we don’t eradicate ourselves through environmental destruction, nuclear war, or other means.

Originally posted by AlextheGreat13:

Originally posted by SpearDudezor:

who gives a shit about the survival of the species

As far as we know, humanity is the only civilized and innovative species in existence (and yes, I understand we may find others eventually). Our quest for innovation has led us to great achievements, and it will continue to do so far into the future. So far, we’ve traveled to the moon, developed nuclear energy, and created advanced forms of communication. Given time, we could shape the whole universe to our wishes and essentially become gods. Until then, we have to make sure we don’t eradicate ourselves through environmental destruction, nuclear war, or other means.

Yeah but surviving for the sake of survival is pointless. You did say “we could shape the whole universe to our wishes” so that implies you survive for your desires.

You do have a point. I will never live to see the full potential of human development. However, I can say that I enjoy the progress we have made so far, and that has made it worth it.

On your point about “surviving for the sake of survival is pointless,” I agree. There is no real point to anything. I suppose I survive because I want to experience life to the fullest, and I want humanity to develop because I want others to have the same experience or greater.

Ecocentrism, because i love animals <3.

The two should go hand-in-hand. We need our resources from the eco-system to survive. If we abuse this, we become morally and physically bankrupt.

I’d say that I lean towards anthropocentrism.

Egocentrism, because i love animals <3.

This is slightly disturbing.

Originally posted by devourer359:

I’d say that I lean towards anthropocentrism.

Ecocentrism, because i love animals <3.

This is slightly disturbing.

I didn’t mean it that way.

I’ve always been more of a anthropocentrist.

Somewhere down the middle.