Anthropocentrism and Non-Anthropocentrism: Convergence and Common Ground
Environmental ethicists are divided on the question of what kind of value nature has. Anthropocentrists think it only has instrumental value while many Non-Anthropocentrists think it has intrinsic value. Their disagreement bears directly on what environmental policies and actions each group is willi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Peeters
2022
|
| In: |
Ethical perspectives
Year: 2022, Volume: 29, Issue: 3, Pages: 355-387 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Environmental ethics
/ Anthropocentrism
/ Nature
/ Convergence
|
| IxTheo Classification: | NBE Anthropology NCG Environmental ethics; Creation ethics |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Environmental ethicists are divided on the question of what kind of value nature has. Anthropocentrists think it only has instrumental value while many Non-Anthropocentrists think it has intrinsic value. Their disagreement bears directly on what environmental policies and actions each group is willing to endorse. In this article, I develop a novel version of Anthropocentrism (Broad Anthropocentrism). I then argue that this version of Anthropocentrism exhibits a non-trivial degree of convergence with Non-Anthropocentrism on the question of how we morally ought to treat nature. I argue that these views exhibit a non-trivial amount of convergence on these questions because they agree that nature is very finally valuable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1783-1431 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Ethical perspectives
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2143/EP.29.3.3291670 |