Essay On Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the belief that only human beings hold direct moral standing. Under this belief, no other things, living or nonliving, are of moral concern. Many people may then jump to the conclusion that anthropocentrists do not think that global warming is wrong. Because global warming can have negative impacts on human beings, anthropocentrists would be concerned about it. There are some human activities, however, that would increase global warming but would still be ethical to perform in the eyes of an anthropocentrist. An anthropocentrist who believes that global warming is real and is a result of human activity would say that there is an optimal balance in the human-nature relationship which holds the highest ethical implications.
As a people-centered belief, anthropocentrism values what will have the most positive impact on human beings. In this way, human driven global warming can be thought of as both good and bad by anthropocentrists. Some of the activities that humans do to increase global warming benefit them in ways that are hard to match. For example, cutting down trees to build homes has a positive impact on humans because they will have a dry shelter to live in. Cutting down trees increases global warming because there will be more carbon
dioxide, a greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. In this example, we can see how human activities that promote global warming can be ethical in the eyes of an anthropocentist because humans need shelter to survive. The same goes for taking water from a stream to drink and clearing land to grow food. On the other hand, cutting down more trees so that people can live in oversized houses may not be ethical to the anthropocentrist. In this situation, humans are exploiting the earth’s natural resources in a way that may harm them in the future. By wasting resources so they may live in a large home, they are increasing global warming which can have many negative effects on humans. In the same way, wasting food and water requires more energy and exploitation to replace the wasted resources, and therefore will escalate global warming. Global warming can cause hunger due to drought, sickness due to heat, and death due to natural disasters. An anthropocentrist would say that it is unethical to waste natural resources because this wastefulness can speed up global warming which will in turn harm humanity.
Other than being harmed by the effects of global warming, humans can also find displeasure in the effects of global warming.
For instance, if global warming caused icebergs to melt and polar bears lose their habitat and die; many people would be upset about it. Polar bears, to some extent, bring people pleasure who enjoy looking at them and learning about them. In this scenario, the anthropocentrist would argue that human driven global warming is unethical not because it caused harm to the polar bears, but because it caused displeasure to people. As we have discussed, however, preventing many human activities that release greenhouse gases will also cause displeasure and even compromise human
survival.
The anthropocentrist would claim that there is an optimal point in which humans can continue doing their activities while also being considerate in the waste they make. At this point, the highest human pleasure is achieved and therefore the greatest ethical value is attained. Because humans rely on the earth for many things, anthropocentrism indirectly protects the earth.