TN 900 – Theory of Science and Ethics Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology Anissa Sukma Safitri anissa

TN 900 – Theory of Science and Ethics
Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology
Anissa Sukma Safitri
[email protected] of Chemistry, Bioscience and Environmental Engineering,
Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger
Anthropocentrism
Human-centeredness or anthropocentrism was introduced by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. This is a basic belief attached in many Western religions and philosophies. Anthropocentrism is basically the view that human beings are at the center of everything and other things that are external to humans are for the good of them. Many ethicists find the roots of anthropocentrism in the Creation story in which humans are created in the image of God and are instructed to “subdue” Earth and to “have dominion” over all other living creatures. This theory has been interpreted as an indication of human’s superiority to nature and as resulting an instrumental view of nature, where the natural world or environment has value only as it benefits to humankind ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”ETXbCuEa”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Grey, 1998; Hayward, 1997)”,”plainCitation”:”(Grey, 1998; Hayward, 1997)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:155,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”itemData”:{“id”:155,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Ethics and the Environment”,”page”:”97-103″,”volume”:”3″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”The critique of traditional Western ethics, and in particular its anthropocentric foundations, is a central theme which has dominated environmental philosophy for the last twenty years. Anthropocentrism is widely identified as a fundamental source of the alienating and destructive attitudes towards the nonhuman world which are a principal target of a number of salient ecophilosophies. This paper addresses a problem about articulating the concern with anthropocentrism raised by the influencial formulations of deep ecology by nature liberation proponent Val Plumwood.”,”ISSN”:”10856633, 15355306″,”author”:{“family”:”Grey”,”given”:”William”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1998″}}},{“id”:161,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/MNDFE9U2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/MNDFE9U2″,”itemData”:{“id”:161,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem”,”container-title”:”Environmental Values”,”page”:”49-63″,”volume”:”6″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”Anthropocentrism can intelligibly be criticised as an ontological error, but attempts to conceive of it as an ethical error are liable to conceptual and practical confusion. After noting the paradox that the clearest instances of overcoming anthropocentrism involve precisely the sort of objectivating knowledge which many ecological critics see as itself archetypically anthropocentric, the article presents the follwoing arguments: there are some ways in which anthropocentrism is not objectionable; the defects associated with anthropocentrism in ethics are better understood as instances of speciesism and human chauvinism; it is unhelpful to call these defects anthropocentrism because there is an ineliminable element of anthropocentrism in any ethic at all; moreover, because the defects do not typically involve a concern with human interests as such, the rhetoric of anti-anthropocentrism is counterproductive in practice.”,”ISSN”:”09632719, 17527015″,”author”:{“family”:”Hayward”,”given”:”Tim”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1997″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Grey, 1998; Hayward, 1997).

Human life was intrinsically more valuable than other animal life because humans are rational beings. There are 4 principles of anthropocentric:
Human life is more valuable than other animal life
Each human life is infinitely valuable
Human welfare at the center of environment ethics
The welfare of other life forms, or the earth is instrumental to human welfare (use to humans)
According to the Macquarie Dictionary (Delbridge, 1991) “anthropocentrism” has the following meanings:
Regarding human as the central fact of the universe;
Assuming human to be the final end and aim of the universe;
Viewing and interpreting everything in terms of human experiences and values.
Kant proposed that human life was intrinsically more valuable than other animal life because humans are rational beings. This theory made humans unique according to Kant, and made each human life infinitely valuable. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Kant would consider the welfare of humans to be the proper focus of any ethical response to question “How can we care for environment best?”. The welfare of other life forms, or the earth is instrumental to human welfare.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

We may value ourselves above all other species on the planet when we are actually not all that different. Sure, we as human may look different and have different habits, but some animals have impressive memories, complex emotions, and outstanding ability to use tools. We are not psychologically, socially, or culturally different in kind from all other animal. What is the different human (we) with animal or other living things? Human have long considered themselves truly unique. But it turns out that better word from unique is most advanced. Some purely human traits are found also in animals, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Humans vs. animals (Source: http://philosophistry.com/archives/2009/05/dropping-down-a-peg-on-anthropocentrism.html)
A lot of arguments against anthropocentrism because the view thought humans are intrinsically more valuable than other living things. Anthropocentric acts have proved dangerous in practice such as human-caused ecological destruction because of human chauvinism. Anthropocentrism is empirically bankrupt and theoretically practically disastrous, logically inconsistent, morally objectionable, and incongruent with a genuinely open approach to experience ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”MV3sngPV”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”plainCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:159,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”itemData”:{“id”:159,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Ecocentrism and Anthrocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Common Dilemmas”,”container-title”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”page”:”261-272″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”3″,”DOI”:”10.1006/jevp.2001.0205″,”ISSN”:”0272-4944″,”journalAbbreviation”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”author”:{“family”:”Kortenkamp”,”given”:”Katherine V.”},{“family”:”Moore”,”given”:”Collen F.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2001″,9,1}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Kortenkamp ; Moore, 2001). The concept of anthropocentrism is, however, problematic, and its usefulness, and even its ultimate coherence, has been challenged by a lot of environmental philosophers. Then, it was said by Val Plumwood (1993, 1996) that anthropocentrism plays an analogous role in green theory to androcentrism which is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing a masculine point of view at the center of one’s world view, culture, and history, thereby culturally marginalizing femininity (wikipedia.org) in feminist theory and ethnocentrism (judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one’s own culture) in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centeredness “anthrocentrism” to emphasize this parallel ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Fcnll23b”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”plainCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:155,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”itemData”:{“id”:155,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Ethics and the Environment”,”page”:”97-103″,”volume”:”3″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”The critique of traditional Western ethics, and in particular its anthropocentric foundations, is a central theme which has dominated environmental philosophy for the last twenty years. Anthropocentrism is widely identified as a fundamental source of the alienating and destructive attitudes towards the nonhuman world which are a principal target of a number of salient ecophilosophies. This paper addresses a problem about articulating the concern with anthropocentrism raised by the influencial formulations of deep ecology by nature liberation proponent Val Plumwood.”,”ISSN”:”10856633, 15355306″,”author”:{“family”:”Grey”,”given”:”William”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1998″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Grey, 1998).
Furthermore, in the book named Toward a Transpersonal Ecology, Warwick Fox gives “five arguments against anthropocentrism”. These five arguments ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”aFCvDoiA”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Fox, 2000)”,”plainCitation”:”(Fox, 2000)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:162,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/9UZMLCRW”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/9UZMLCRW”,”itemData”:{“id”:162,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology & Virtue Ethics”,”container-title”:”Philosophy Now”,”volume”:”26″,”author”:{“family”:”Fox”,”given”:”W.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2000″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Fox, 2000) show as follows:
“…we are not psychologically, socially, or culturally different in kind from all other animals and that we are not the ‘end point’ of evolution.”
“…our anthropocentric attitudes have proved disastrous in practice.” ex. human-caused
ecological ills
“…anthropocentrism is not even a logically consistent position: it is not possible to specify any reasonably clearly discernible, morally relevant characteristic that includes all humans but excludes all nonhumans.” ex. rationality, self-awareness, free will, etc.

“…anthropocentric attitudes are morally objectionable.”
“…anthropocentrism simply does not accord with a genuinely open approach to experience.”
Anthropocentrism can be criticized as an ontological error, but attempts to conceive of it as an ethical error are liable to conceptual and practical confusion. After noting the paradox that the clearest instances of overcoming anthropocentrism involve precisely the sort of objectivizing knowledge which many ecological critics see as itself archetypically anthropocentric, the article presents the following arguments: there are some ways in which anthropocentrism is not objectionable; the defects associated with anthropocentrism in ethics are better understood as instances of speciesism and human chauvinism; it is unhelpful to call these defects anthropocentrism because there is an in eliminable element of anthropocentrism in any ethic at all; moreover, because the defects do not typically involve a concern with human interests as such, the rhetoric of anti-anthropocentrism is counterproductive in practice ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”9FNc9yiC”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Hayward, 1997)”,”plainCitation”:”(Hayward, 1997)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:161,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/MNDFE9U2″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/MNDFE9U2″,”itemData”:{“id”:161,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem”,”container-title”:”Environmental Values”,”page”:”49-63″,”volume”:”6″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”Anthropocentrism can intelligibly be criticised as an ontological error, but attempts to conceive of it as an ethical error are liable to conceptual and practical confusion. After noting the paradox that the clearest instances of overcoming anthropocentrism involve precisely the sort of objectivating knowledge which many ecological critics see as itself archetypically anthropocentric, the article presents the follwoing arguments: there are some ways in which anthropocentrism is not objectionable; the defects associated with anthropocentrism in ethics are better understood as instances of speciesism and human chauvinism; it is unhelpful to call these defects anthropocentrism because there is an ineliminable element of anthropocentrism in any ethic at all; moreover, because the defects do not typically involve a concern with human interests as such, the rhetoric of anti-anthropocentrism is counterproductive in practice.”,”ISSN”:”09632719, 17527015″,”author”:{“family”:”Hayward”,”given”:”Tim”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1997″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Hayward, 1997).

Plumwood (1996) identifies four steps in argument:
To avoid abandon anthrocentrism one must eschew human locations or bearings (i.e., refrain from interpreting the world in terms of human experience and values).
However, this is impossible (stepping outside the human scale of judgment provides no basis for organizing preferences).
Therefore anthropocentrism is unavoidable, and;
Therefore only human interests are morally considerable.

Deep Ecology
There are two type of ecocentrism: shallow ecology and deep ecology. Shallow ecology is probably what people are most familiar with in the western world. Shallow ecology is a much similar anthropocentric point of view, which holds values of nature entirely on the premise that nature’s purpose is for human being needs. Shallow ecology does not include many of the important aspects that deep ecology includes in, the most important being that it neglects every living beings’, human and nonhuman, intrinsic right and value to live and thrives. Shallow ecology looks nature or environment at the disposal of humans, whereas deep ecology recognizes no right other than vital needs for humans to dispose of nature ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”3LjHSomF”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001; Naess, 1986)”,”plainCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001; Naess, 1986)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:159,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”itemData”:{“id”:159,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Ecocentrism and Anthrocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Common Dilemmas”,”container-title”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”page”:”261-272″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”3″,”DOI”:”10.1006/jevp.2001.0205″,”ISSN”:”0272-4944″,”journalAbbreviation”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”author”:{“family”:”Kortenkamp”,”given”:”Katherine V.”},{“family”:”Moore”,”given”:”Collen F.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2001″,9,1}}},{“id”:158,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”itemData”:{“id”:158,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects”,”container-title”:”Journal Philosophical Inquiry”,”page”:”10-31″,”volume”:”8″,”issue”:”1/2″,”author”:{“family”:”Naess”,”given”:”Arne”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1986″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Kortenkamp ; Moore, 2001; Naess, 1986).

The distinguish between deep ecology and shallow ecology can possibly be better described in terms of conservation and preservation. Conservation is related to shallow ecology. It is more of a controlled usage and systematic protection of natural resources. Typically, the method of conservation is used in terms of humans conserving nature for their own future needs. Humans conserve such resources as soil, water, forests, and oil so that they will be there for the next generations. Preservation, on the other hand, is much more similar to deep ecology. It is more along the lines of keeping safe, as from injury or destruction, or attempting to keep resources unchanged and intact. This is more in terms of humans preserving nature from human use before any damage or nature destruction. Its intent is more for keeping nature at its original state, free from human interference and damage, with the idea that nature holds its own right.

Some philosophers consider the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) as the beginning of the contemporary, long-range deep ecology and ecocentrism movement. When she published her book there was a significant movement for conservation of land and resources, as well as support for creating parks and other open areas devoted to preserving wilderness and nature. Carson’s writings were especially influential because they clearly showed how human well-being depends on the condition of whole biotic communities. She described in practical terms how human beings are really interrelated within ecosystems in this environment. She explained how pesticides used to control mosquitoes and other insects led to declines in some bird populations. Since humans are at the top of many food chains, exposure to chemicals becomes more concentrated as these move up the chains in human body. The chemicals also can be stored in human tissues and gradually accumulate over time, adversely affecting health. Carson helped a generation to grasp that caring for some animal populations, such as birds and plants, requires care for the health of the whole system in the system they live in. Because of interrelatedness, humans need to respect all forms of life as part of our whole biotic community. In societal communities every person counts; so too in natural communities, all beings contribute and participate. As humans with forethought and self-reflection, we are responsible for what we do and how we participate ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”7dCgXp0C”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Drengson, Devall, & Schroll, 2011)”,”plainCitation”:”(Drengson, Devall, & Schroll, 2011)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:156,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/GM2UEV2G”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/GM2UEV2G”,”itemData”:{“id”:156,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy)”,”container-title”:”International Journal of Transpersonal Studies”,”page”:”101-117″,”volume”:”30″,”issue”:”1-2″,”author”:{“family”:”Drengson”,”given”:”Alan”},{“family”:”Devall”,”given”:”Bill”},{“family”:”Schroll”,”given”:”Mark A.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2011″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Drengson, Devall, ; Schroll, 2011).

Then, the introduction of deep ecology movement that was first used by Arne Naess (1912 – 2009) in 1972 was the starting point of deep eco-centrism. He is from Norway that is well known as the father of deep ecology movement. Deep ecology is eco-philosophical rather than ecological, it asks how and why questions about environmental problems ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”G0gXc23p”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Naess, 1986)”,”plainCitation”:”(Naess, 1986)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:158,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”itemData”:{“id”:158,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects”,”container-title”:”Journal Philosophical Inquiry”,”page”:”10-31″,”volume”:”8″,”issue”:”1/2″,”author”:{“family”:”Naess”,”given”:”Arne”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1986″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Naess, 1986). Deep ecology try to find solutions to the problems of pollution or sustainability of the natural sources, and it also tries to function human as a part of nature or environment. So that, whatever human does in this whole system has an effect on everything. In this way, deep ecology movement can be a way for human in going beyond anthropocentrism. The other reaction defends that it is not possible to get rid of anthropocentrism because it is human beings and human’s thoughts are just products of what humans think as being humans. In general, deep ecology has been accused of everything from being too unrealistic, making of too large of claims, narrow-minded, and even anti-human.

Figure 2. Anthropocentrism vs. Deep Ecology Illustration (Source: https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/41339734/)
His thought is named as Deep Ecology. Why it is called deep? Examples of “deep” questions: What is an individual? What things have intrinsic value and moral standing? How should we understand nature? What is the relationship between people and nature? It attempts to deduce principles of action from basic values and premises. Deep ecology answers tend to be anti-individualist and anti-reductionist, and pro-holism.

Deep ecology is the movement that we take part in an active way. This is the case because we are not apart from the nature. We and all the other things constitute the whole. So that, whatever we do in this huge system has an effect on everything including ourselves.

There are 8 principles of deep ecology ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”n6tcHYqk”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Drengson et al., 2011)”,”plainCitation”:”(Drengson et al., 2011)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:156,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/GM2UEV2G”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/GM2UEV2G”,”itemData”:{“id”:156,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy)”,”container-title”:”International Journal of Transpersonal Studies”,”page”:”101-117″,”volume”:”30″,”issue”:”1-2″,”author”:{“family”:”Drengson”,”given”:”Alan”},{“family”:”Devall”,”given”:”Bill”},{“family”:”Schroll”,”given”:”Mark A.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2011″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Drengson et al., 2011):
All life has inherent value and equal value. The well being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves this is commonly referred to as inherent worth, or intrinsic value. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes; and
Richness and diversity of life are inherently good; and
Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs; and
The world would be better off with fewer people. The thriving of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The thriving of nonhuman life requires such a decrease; and
Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening; and
Decisive improvement requires considerable change: economic, technical and industrial systems, philosophical world view, and materialistic consumerist lifestyle. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present; and
Choose a life that is closer to nature and less materialistic. We would be better off and nature would be better off. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a significant awareness of the difference between big and great; and
Trying to contribute and participate directly and/or indirectly to the realization of the necessary changes.
The first principle of deep ecology has a couple of basic points which it aims to get across. The most important part, however, is that every living being, human and nonhuman, has its own inherent value, and thus has its own right to live and flourish. Essentially, everything has an “own” to it, and therefore has its own irreducible right to live, to blossom, to reach its own fullness in existing and reproducing. In its own right, each living thing is independent and separate of its “usefulness” to any other thing, specifically of humans. Lastly, these all mean that deep ecology is really about ecocentrism, and not anthropocentrism, in that it is against seeing everything in terms of its beneficial usefulness (or lack thereof) to humans. It is important to note that not just the actual living and breathing beings are the ones that should be considered. The “non-living”, as Naess put it, which include watersheds, landscapes, and ecosystems as their own wholes, should never be overlooked, in that they too have an unbelievable amount of importance in their own right ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”EehFfd8a”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

The second principle addresses the issue of why everything should be seen as having its own value, through the explanation of interconnectedness. This point reinforces the importance of biodiversity in the world–that everything is connected to everything else. There is no hierarchy that exists of living things, simply because without everything, everything else would not exist. There is a reliance of everything upon everything, and therefore nothing can be less or more than anything else in the web of life. Deep ecology really calls for humans to view everything as in the relationship Naess describes between object A and object B: “An intrinsic relation between two things A and B is such that the relation belongs to the definitions or basic constitutions of A and B, so that without the relation, A and B are no longer the same thing (Sessions, 151).” In their infinite relationships, all things help to contribute to the richness and diversity in life, and the web is moreover not about the complication with the inclusion of all things, but the beautiful complexity that is brought about by all things. We need to value the richness and diversity of life forms in and of themselves, because we as humans also rely on them. It furthermore explains that ecosystems are self-regulating and self-maintaining because of this biodiversity and interdependence ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Dkeu6nZe”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

Ecosystems require every member to function, but as long as they have that, there is no other need for human interference.

It is next explained in the third principle to what extent a living being’s inherent value can be ignored. Essentially, this inherent value, or intrinsic worth, is only reducible by vital needs of the individual. This is somewhat of a vague area, and it was meant to be left this way for the individual’s interpretation of what they define as vital needs. Vital needs are opposite of “other” needs, meaning that while it is the individuals job to determine the difference between the two, all of these should be categorized as such. While some would say that vital needs are just food, clothing, and shelter, many others may say that all of the daily activities and ways of life are vital needs. It is also important to look into the intention of reducing a living things inherent worth. While some individuals go hunting for food to eat, others go for the sport. While some accidentally step on a bug, others do it on purpose. Basically, it is being stressed that no human has the right to reduce any other living things right to live and flourish, except in the case of its own vital needs, and every living thing needs to be taken into consideration. If an individual does so happen to violate another beings’ right when it is not a vital need, it should never be done with intention or awareness of doing so ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”WJLtamyY”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

The fourth principle is perhaps one of the most controversial parts of deep ecology, and thus is where much of the criticism of deep ecology is rooted as well. Because of excessive human interference in the environment, deep ecology calls for a decrease in human population, and this will then lead to a higher quality of life. Increasing population is simply not the best for quality of life, nor is it good for the environment, and therefore needs to be significantly cut back. By doing so, this will bring about stabilization of the ecosystems. If this is not done, Naess says that “substantial decreases in richness and diversity are liable to occur (Sessions, 69).” While this is ideally supposed to be recognized and started upon as quickly as possible, it is also important to realize that this will take many years to become a reality ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”tLjI2FNU”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

The fifth principle identifies where environmental problems are stemming from, and that is human interference. This goes back to the second principle, in humans being able to identify that ecosystems are self-regulating, and there is no need for human involvement. Essentially, humans are a part of nature, and are expected to interfere in their environment to a certain extent. Naess explains that every animal interferes on their surroundings, such as a beaver building his dam, or a bird building her nest. However, human interference has been going on excessively, and must be put to a stop. Without exception, it seems, human interference has continually done more harm than good, because ecosystems are developed to maintain themselves ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”Uuddvr7J”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

In the sixth principle, there is a call for new policies and radical social changes to be made. To make changes, new ideals and mindsets need to come about, and thus, new policies will emerge on how humans treat the environment. This is nothing that can be done overnight, but needs to be done over decades. It is not something that can suddenly be made into a law, and it is essentially thought to have a purpose of completely transforming every single part of human life ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”cXCzeLDL”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

The seventh principle supports a simplified lifestyle. It addresses the fact that quality of life should take precedent over quantity of things, to reach a higher level of happiness instead of a higher standard of living. It calls for voluntary simplicity, meaning that not only is it that the human reduction of needs must happen, but that it must be wanted to happen, and through this, a greater happiness will emerge ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”7G3mkGKq”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

Lastly, the aforementioned seven principles, after being read and understood, call for an “obligation” of direct or indirect action. It is not necessarily about obligation, however, but what the understanding of these principles should bring about in its awareness and intention of a better living, and in theory, a better environment. Deep ecology does not call for just the Earth to be fought for in itself, but for these values to be fought for, and for a new change in the world to develop and take over. By addressing just the environment, there are many things that are overlooked, and essentially, what this philosophy is trying to get across is a coming about of a better world as a whole, spawned by the better individual. It is something that can and should be adopted by all humans, and through living these principles, it is theorized that not just the environmental problems will disappear, but social, political, economical, and human relational problems will dissolve as well. Basing thought on the environment is a start, but it is not solely about that and in its hopes, a better place will be attained ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”5bIExBuO”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

Deep ecology is also criticized by being non-systematic, ambiguous and vague. Deep ecology founded on unjustified anthropomorphism: imbuing animals, plants, ecosystems, the earth, with human-like feelings and interests, and it also romanticizes nature as wise, harmonious, beautiful, good. Where does inherent value come from? For something to have intrinsic rights or to deserve protection, it must have interests. How can plants or ecosystems have interests? How could we, as humans, possibly understand the interests of other animals, plants, ecosystems, etc. Moreover, there are no individuals, humans are merely a part of the whole, yet humans are uniquely responsible for environmental destruction ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”ryO0V15v”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”plainCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:155,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”itemData”:{“id”:155,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Ethics and the Environment”,”page”:”97-103″,”volume”:”3″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”The critique of traditional Western ethics, and in particular its anthropocentric foundations, is a central theme which has dominated environmental philosophy for the last twenty years. Anthropocentrism is widely identified as a fundamental source of the alienating and destructive attitudes towards the nonhuman world which are a principal target of a number of salient ecophilosophies. This paper addresses a problem about articulating the concern with anthropocentrism raised by the influencial formulations of deep ecology by nature liberation proponent Val Plumwood.”,”ISSN”:”10856633, 15355306″,”author”:{“family”:”Grey”,”given”:”William”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1998″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Grey, 1998).

“Deep” vs. “shallow” a criticized characterization of divergent views. Naess settles down all sorts of things as typical of “shallow” ecology, including short-sightedness, unfairness to developing countries, reliance on quick technological fixes, alienation of ordinary citizens from the problem-solving process, utilitarianism, anthropocentrism, etc. “What’s wrong with shallow views is not their concern about the well-being of humans, but that they do not really consider enough in what that well-being consists. We need to develop an enriched, fortified anthropocentric notion of human interest to replace the dominant short-term, sectional and self-regarding conception.” ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”wSIPgI14″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”plainCitation”:”(Grey, 1998)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:155,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”itemData”:{“id”:155,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Ethics and the Environment”,”page”:”97-103″,”volume”:”3″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”The critique of traditional Western ethics, and in particular its anthropocentric foundations, is a central theme which has dominated environmental philosophy for the last twenty years. Anthropocentrism is widely identified as a fundamental source of the alienating and destructive attitudes towards the nonhuman world which are a principal target of a number of salient ecophilosophies. This paper addresses a problem about articulating the concern with anthropocentrism raised by the influencial formulations of deep ecology by nature liberation proponent Val Plumwood.”,”ISSN”:”10856633, 15355306″,”author”:{“family”:”Grey”,”given”:”William”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1998″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Grey, 1998)
The other reaction defends that it is not possible to get rid of anthropocentrism because it is human beings and human’s thoughts are just products of what humans think as being humans. Deep ecology is the movement that we take part in an active way. But in general, deep ecology has been accused of everything from being too unrealistic, making of too large of claims, narrow-minded, and even anti-human.
Beside that ambiguity, the concept deep ecology can be apply by seeing human as a part of the whole and freeing minds and emotions from the deep-rooted understandings about man’s hierarchical superiority over other beings. We are part of the whole system, rather than separate from it, and we have a role in protecting this system, and protecting the whole is an attempt to protect the self. And because we are a part of the whole, what we do affects the whole system and makes changes on it either positively or negatively based on the goodness or badness of what we do ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”4APEKIFD”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005).

Even if we do something tiny or that may seem to us as insignificant, that thing triggers the bigger system and in this way what we do may be the cause of a big change. This action does not have an egoistic benefit, because the self is vanished or surrendered in the Self, and damaging nature is like damaging one’s own body by reason of self-realization-in-the-Self is one’s identification with the whole ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”eGAadZpS”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”plainCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:159,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”itemData”:{“id”:159,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Ecocentrism and Anthrocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Common Dilemmas”,”container-title”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”page”:”261-272″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”3″,”DOI”:”10.1006/jevp.2001.0205″,”ISSN”:”0272-4944″,”journalAbbreviation”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”author”:{“family”:”Kortenkamp”,”given”:”Katherine V.”},{“family”:”Moore”,”given”:”Collen F.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2001″,9,1}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Kortenkamp ; Moore, 2001).

Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism are two ways of understanding an extension of ethics to nature. In an anthropocentric ethic nature deserves moral consideration because how nature is treated affects humans. In an ecocentric ethic nature deserves moral consideration because nature has intrinsic value. Individual differences and situational variables were examined in relation to moral reasoning about ecological dilemmas. Pro-environmental attitudes were related to more ecocentric and anthropocentric and less nonenvironmental reasoning. The presence of information about the impact of ecological damage on the environment, especially a more “wild” environment, elicited more ecocentric reasoning, while the presence of a social commitment elicited more nonenvironmental moral reasoning. The implications of the research for conflicts over environmental commons dilemmas are discussed ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”RWOxfPMP”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”plainCitation”:”(Kortenkamp & Moore, 2001)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:159,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/U6D4MG5B”,”itemData”:{“id”:159,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Ecocentrism and Anthrocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Common Dilemmas”,”container-title”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”page”:”261-272″,”volume”:”21″,”issue”:”3″,”DOI”:”10.1006/jevp.2001.0205″,”ISSN”:”0272-4944″,”journalAbbreviation”:”Journal of Environmental Psychology”,”author”:{“family”:”Kortenkamp”,”given”:”Katherine V.”},{“family”:”Moore”,”given”:”Collen F.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2001″,9,1}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Kortenkamp ; Moore, 2001).

Environmental Ethics
In early 20 century, there is environmental ethics for bridging anthropocentric and deep ecology. Environmental ethics is the application of ethical standards to relationships between human and non-human entities. It is hard to resolve; depends on the person’s ethical standards and depends on the person’s domain of ethical concern.
There are several questions related to environmental ethics, such as: Should we conserve resources for future generations? Is is OK to destroy a forest to create jobs for people? Should humans drive other species to extinction? Is it OK for some communities to be exposed to excess pollution? Then, to bridge those basic questions, there are 4 environmental ethics ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”mOoKurPs”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Miller & Spoolman, 2009)”,”plainCitation”:”(Miller & Spoolman, 2009)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:154,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6GMY295S”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6GMY295S”,”itemData”:{“id”:154,”type”:”book”,”title”:”Living in the Environment: Concepts, Connections, and Solutions”,”publisher”:”Brooks/Cole”,”publisher-place”:”California”,”edition”:”16th”,”event-place”:”California”,”ISBN”:”978-0-495-55671-8″,”author”:{“family”:”Miller”,”given”:”G. T.”},{“family”:”Spoolman”,”given”:”S. E.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2009″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Miller ; Spoolman, 2009):
We are the planet’s important species but we have an ethical responsibility to care for the rest of nature.

We will probably not run out of resources, but they should not be wasted.

We should encourage environmentally beneficial forms of economic growth and discourage environmentally harmful forms.

Our success depends on how well we manage the earth’s life-support systems for our benefit and for the rest of nature
There are two forms of anthropocentrism, weak and strong, and weak anthropocentrism is adequate to support an environmental ethic. Environmental ethics is, however, distinctive vis-a-vis standard British and American ethical systems because, in order to be adequate, it must be nonindividualistic. Environmental ethics involves decisions on two levels, one kind of which differs from usual decisions affecting individual fairness while the other does not. The latter, called allocational decisions, are not reducible to the former and govern the use of resources across extended time. Weak anthropocentrism provides a basis for criticizing individual, consumptive needs and can provide the basis for adjudicating between these levels, thereby providing an adequate basis for environmental ethics without the questionable ontological commitments made by non-anthropocentrists in attributing intrinsic value to nature ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”hT8Ewvl0″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Norton, 1984)”,”plainCitation”:”(Norton, 1984)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:160,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/J928N3VU”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/J928N3VU”,”itemData”:{“id”:160,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Environmental Ethics”,”page”:”131-148″,”volume”:”6″,”issue”:”2″,”DOI”:”10.5840/enviroethics19846233″,”author”:{“family”:”Norton”,”given”:”Bryan G.”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1984″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Norton, 1984).
Because of that complexity, humans need the environmental ethics that apply ethical standards to relationships between human and non-human entities. It is hard to resolve because it depends on the person’s ethical standards and the person’s domain of ethical concern. One suggestion of the environmental ethics is that seeing humans as important species but humans have an ethical responsibility to care for the rest of nature. Moreover, humans will probably not run out of resources, but they should not be wasted. Besides that, humans should encourage environmentally beneficial forms of economic growth and discourage environmentally harmful forms. So human’s success depends on how well humans manage the earth’s life-support systems for human benefit and for the rest of nature.

Based on environmental ethics, environmental worldviews ethics are develop ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”1rctBJvh”,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005; Grey, 1998)”,”plainCitation”:”(Ambrosius, 2005; Grey, 1998)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:157,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/XCHCQF6Z”,”itemData”:{“id”:157,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment”,”container-title”:”Journal of Undergraduate Research”,”volume”:”VIII”,”URL”:”https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf”,”author”:{“family”:”Ambrosius”,”given”:”Wendy”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”2005″}}},{“id”:155,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/IXFUYCB9″,”itemData”:{“id”:155,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism”,”container-title”:”Ethics and the Environment”,”page”:”97-103″,”volume”:”3″,”issue”:”1″,”abstract”:”The critique of traditional Western ethics, and in particular its anthropocentric foundations, is a central theme which has dominated environmental philosophy for the last twenty years. Anthropocentrism is widely identified as a fundamental source of the alienating and destructive attitudes towards the nonhuman world which are a principal target of a number of salient ecophilosophies. This paper addresses a problem about articulating the concern with anthropocentrism raised by the influencial formulations of deep ecology by nature liberation proponent Val Plumwood.”,”ISSN”:”10856633, 15355306″,”author”:{“family”:”Grey”,”given”:”William”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1998″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Ambrosius, 2005; Grey, 1998):
Planetary management:
As the planet’s most important species, we are in charge of the earth.

Because of our ingenuity and technology we will not run out of resources.

The potential for economic growth is essentially unlimited.

Our success depends on how well we manage the earth’s life-support systems mostly for our benefit
Stewardship
We are the planet’s most important species but we have an ethical responsibility to care for the rest of nature.

We will probably not run out of resources, but they should not be wasted.

We should encourage environmentally beneficial forms of economic growth and discourage environmentally harmful forms.

Our success depends on how well we manage the earth’s life-support systems for our benefit and for the rest of nature
Environmental wisdom
Nature exists for all species and we are not in charge of the earth.

Resources are limited, should not be wasted, and are not all for us.

We should encourage earth- sustaining forms of economic growth and discourage earth degrading forms.

Our success depends on learning how the earth sustains itself and integrating such lessons from nature into the ways we think and act
Conclusion
Now we should understand how we are all interrelated to each other and, in need and dependent on others for the good of the whole system and so for the good of ourselves. As I have mentioned before, in deep ecology we are part of the whole system, rather than separate from it, and we have a role in protecting this system, and protecting the whole is an attempt to protect the self. And because we are a part of the whole, what we do affects the whole system and makes changes on it either positively or negatively based on the goodness or badness of what we do. If our bad actions affect the world and make changes on it (and they really do as we know), then we should think that our good actions can also affect the world positively and make changes that support the world. Even if we do something tiny or that may seem to us as insignificant, that thing triggers the bigger system and in this way what we do may be the cause of a big change. This action does not have an egoistic benefit, because the self is vanished or surrendered in the Self, and damaging nature is like damaging one’s own body by reason of self-realization-in-the-Self is one’s identification with the whole. Eventually, as Naess says, from this interrelatedness identification (and so self-realization) comes up: “Every living being is connected intimately, and from this intimacy follows the capacity of identification and as its natural consequences, practice of non-violence ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {“citationID”:”g9fkOr40″,”properties”:{“formattedCitation”:”(Naess, 1986)”,”plainCitation”:”(Naess, 1986)”,”noteIndex”:0},”citationItems”:{“id”:158,”uris”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”uri”:”http://zotero.org/users/local/175zDTHm/items/6FBD8BSE”,”itemData”:{“id”:158,”type”:”article-journal”,”title”:”The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects”,”container-title”:”Journal Philosophical Inquiry”,”page”:”10-31″,”volume”:”8″,”issue”:”1/2″,”author”:{“family”:”Naess”,”given”:”Arne”},”issued”:{“date-parts”:”1986″}}},”schema”:”https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json”} (Naess, 1986).
“There is a sufficiency in the world for man’s need but not for man’s greed.” -Mahatma Gandhi.
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” -Aldo Leopold
References
ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {“uncited”:,”omitted”:,”custom”:} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Ambrosius, W. (2005). Deep Ecology: A Debate on the Role of Humans in the Environment. Journal of Undergraduate Research, VIII. Retrieved from https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/PDF/2005/ambrosius.pdf
Drengson, A., Devall, B., & Schroll, M. A. (2011). The Deep Ecology Movement: Origins, Development, and Future Prospects (Toward a Transpersonal Ecosophy). International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 30(1–2), 101–117.

Fox, W. (2000). Deep Ecology & Virtue Ethics. Philosophy Now, 26.

Grey, W. (1998). Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism. Ethics and the Environment, 3(1), 97–103.

Hayward, T. (1997). Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem. Environmental Values, 6(1), 49–63.

Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and Anthrocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological Common Dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0205
Miller, G. T., & Spoolman, S. E. (2009). Living in the Environment: Concepts, Connections, and Solutions (16th ed.). California: Brooks/Cole.

Naess, A. (1986). The Deep Ecological Movement: Some Philosophical Aspects. Journal Philosophical Inquiry, 8(1/2), 10–31.

Norton, B. G. (1984). Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics, 6(2), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics19846233
Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London: Routledge.
Plumwood, Val. 1996. “Androcentrism and Anthrocentrism.” Ethics and the Environment 1: 119-52.

Delbridge, Arthur et al. (eds) 1991. The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd ed. Sydney: Macquarie Library.

https://Wikipedia.org
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/41339734/http://philosophistry.com/archives/2009/05/dropping-down-a-peg-on-anthropocentrism.html

x

Hi!
I'm Delia!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out