Notes on Biocentrism and Ecocentrism

A. Def. Biocentrism - the question of sentience and duties to non-sentient beings

Anthropocentrism: Kant argued that we have no direct duties to animals. For example, in “Duties to Animals and Spirits” Kant writes, “[So] far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as the means to an end. That end is man.” He reiterates this point later by writing: “Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity”

Peter Singer's utilitarian critique extends moral standing to all sentient beings via the principle of utility and the Greatest Happiness Principle. 

Dogs and cats, cows and cows yes, but plants? Mycilium? Barnacles?

Q: Is it wrong to cut down a tree? 

Q: If it is wrong to harm a sentient animal because that animal can have conscious interests (namely, the interest in not being harmed), can living beings have morally-relevant non-conscious interests? 

Yes. Something can be in something’s interest without that being’s taking a conscious interest in it. Living individual organisms have “goods of their own” - they can be benefited or harmed in themselves.

The ethical perspective of Biocentrism is that all living beings, whether sentient or not, have moral standing, meaning we have direct duties to them.

Two standard objections: (1) moral overload - how can we identify all these duties? (2) It is impossible to do right by all these beings.

How do we negotiate these duties? How do we decide between competing duties? How do we decide a hierarchy of significance?

               Moral standing versus moral significance

What about collections of beings? A superorganism like a beehive or termite colony.

What about viruses? Just because something can be harmed, does that mean we have a duty not to harm it?

Failure to identify with non-sentient or nonhuman entities as a failure of moral-spiritual (transpersonal evolution). - the perspective of Deep Ecology (Arne Naess) as well as Indigenous Worldview.

Chief Seattle’s Letter (1854)

"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.

The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother...

C. Def. Ecocentrism

There are no “individuals” in nature but ecosystems of interdependency and “inter-being” 

Aldo Leopold’s “thinking like a mountain” - preserving the long-term balance of an ecosystem means: don’t kill wolves to save the deer. 

“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.” From A Sand County Almanac.

The worth of any particular member of a biotic community is a function of the contribution it makes to the good of that community as a whole. (James, p. 53) - a justification for killing invasive or destructive species. 

Are humans an invasive species requiring pruning? Ecocentrism versus Ecofascism (e.g. the new version of Godzilla)

Can a species have moral standing as opposed to individual members of the species?

e.g.the indigenous perspective of looking after populations of creatures, vs. individual members of a population. Hunting as a way of managing, securing long-term sustainability and flourishing of a population

Or a keystone species with a special ecosystem function, e.g. bison. 

Does an endangered species have greater moral weight than a non-endangered species?