Anthropocentrism literally means human-centred, but in its most relevant philosophical form it is the ethical belief that humans alone possess intrinsic value. In contradistinction, all other beings hold value only in their ability to serve humans, or in their instrumental value.
Anthropocentrism is therefore the philosophical tendency which centres itself upon humans as a finite subject who dominate their own history.
The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism and some refer to the concept as human supremacy or human exceptionalism. From an anthropocentric perspective, humankind is seen as separate from nature and superior to it.
Some of the earliest ideas relating to anthropocentrism stem from human exceptionalism. It is the worldview that humans are superior to all other living things in the natural world and that this superiority results from our higher intellect, moral character, and spirituality. With roots in antiquity this idea has a lengthy and complex history.
Anthropocentrism as basis for human rights
One aspect of anthropocentrism is its link to naturalistic concepts of human rights. Humans are believed to have certain innate rights. This concept is based on the notion that people have an intrinsic value because they are different from and superior to all other living things.
Advocates of anthropocentrism argue that it is a necessary and fundamental premise to uphold universal human rights since the only thing that matters morally is being human. If humans do not possess a unique moral status, then whoever holds power within a society could be justified in ruling and supressing others.
Examples of anthropocentrism
Examples of anthropocentrism can be seen in the willingness of humans to cage and consume animals, the domestication of animals, and the human willingness to cause environmental damage for economic benefit.
Christianity and other Religions have furthered the anthropocentric view by stating that “God created men in his own image”, as found in Genesis 1:26-28. There we see that God gave humans “dominion” over every living thing upon the earth.
With this religion has given humans a godlike, superior status. Some view this anthropocentristic view as amotive for religious belief in the first place, since it gives unhindered access to resources and wealth.
Anthropocentrism and the human relationship with animals
Anthropocentrism has been used to justify the exploitation of nature without considering its environmental consequences or the effects of human activities on other species. Non-human nature is seen as having no value other than being for human use. Most Christian churches share the view that animals lacking a soul. This was a firm belief in previous generation of Christians and is held by many today.
The anthropocentric outlook makes is impossible or difficult for humans to consider other animals including other mammals as bearers of consciousness and cognitive thought. Whilst Ethology and Comparative Psychology have shown those characteristics in other species at least to some degree, many still deny the ability to strategically think, emphatically feel or operate thoughtfully. Some go so far to deny the perception of pain to animals, based on the lack of human-interpretable expression (e.g. fish), whilst scientific research has long proven that this is incorrect.
Animals as seen outside of our superior standing are therefore used in often painful and tortuous vivisection and life animal experimentation. Literately millions of animals are used in our laboratories and research facilities. Whilst some of these procedures bear a life supporting quality for humans (e.g. medical research and surgery), a large part of these experimentation has not such a standing and therefore has questionable merit. We may want to discuss this aspect of anthropocentrism.
Some core questions
What makes humans feel superior and omnipotent? Considering that there are countless examples of the shortcoming of human qualities, cognition and intelligence the notion of superiority appears often questionable. Humans frequently act maladaptive and destructive, often knowingly so. There are of course many examples of our great merit (e.g. engineering, technologies etc.), however, they seem to make unintelligent deficits in contrast even less comprehensible. It appears that we overlook the counterproductive, sometimes self-destructive deficits of groups and individuals in a very uncritical and forgiving manner, whilst we dwell in our extraordinary achievements and seeming reproductive success. It this is the case, why is this so?
Our question could be, does Anthropocentrism reflect a natural state or is this entirely an illusion of the human mind?
