Environmental Issues and Ethics
DQ1 Wk 1
Define the following environmental schools of ethics — anthropocentric, biocentric, and deep ecology (also referred to as ecocentric)
Anthropocentric - originates from the Greek word "anthropos" which means man in and the latin word "centralis" which means center. So simply Anthropocentric, is man center. So in theology the doctrine of anthropocentrism is simply that man is the center of all things and that man is not in need of God or higher power, and that man is capable of understanding and accomplishing anything.
Biocentric - Also originates from the Greek word kentron, meaning center, standing in contrast to anthropocentric, where as life is center, humans are just members of the earth, and community of life sharing in the same sense as other creatures. All creatures share the same biological and physical requirements for survival.
Deep ecology or ecocentric - In 1972 a Norweigian philosopher Arnie Naess, initiated a movement called Deep ecology, although he was not the first to dream of a radical change in humanity's relationship to nature, but he was the one who coined the term, and gave it the theoretical foundation. Specifically the "deep" because it questions the place of human life and who we are. Which of these three fits with your personal sense of environmental ethics? Why?
Personally I am crossed between Biocentric and Ecocentric, because I truly believe that humans share the earth with other organisms, and to become an advocate and proper role model that deserves to benefit from what life itself has to offer, humans must acknowledge that we are not the center of the universe. Our environment survives only if we nuture and take care of it. If you have a plant for instance, and you don't water it, or allow it light, then it will shrivel and die. In the same way, a human will die, if water/food is witheld. Mentally humans cannot survive or thrive without interaction between others. I believe this includes both human
Define the following environmental schools of ethics — anthropocentric, biocentric, and deep ecology (also referred to as ecocentric)
Anthropocentric - originates from the Greek word "anthropos" which means man in and the latin word "centralis" which means center. So simply Anthropocentric, is man center. So in theology the doctrine of anthropocentrism is simply that man is the center of all things and that man is not in need of God or higher power, and that man is capable of understanding and accomplishing anything.
Biocentric - Also originates from the Greek word kentron, meaning center, standing in contrast to anthropocentric, where as life is center, humans are just members of the earth, and community of life sharing in the same sense as other creatures. All creatures share the same biological and physical requirements for survival.
Deep ecology or ecocentric - In 1972 a Norweigian philosopher Arnie Naess, initiated a movement called Deep ecology, although he was not the first to dream of a radical change in humanity's relationship to nature, but he was the one who coined the term, and gave it the theoretical foundation. Specifically the "deep" because it questions the place of human life and who we are. Which of these three fits with your personal sense of environmental ethics? Why?
Personally I am crossed between Biocentric and Ecocentric, because I truly believe that humans share the earth with other organisms, and to become an advocate and proper role model that deserves to benefit from what life itself has to offer, humans must acknowledge that we are not the center of the universe. Our environment survives only if we nuture and take care of it. If you have a plant for instance, and you don't water it, or allow it light, then it will shrivel and die. In the same way, a human will die, if water/food is witheld. Mentally humans cannot survive or thrive without interaction between others. I believe this includes both human