Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism

Over the last 200 years, people (mostly philosophers) have started to question how people should proceed to the future and by doing that, what kind of moral values should we seek and what should be the limits. Two new ideas that have appeared during this time are Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism.

Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism are two ways of understanding an extension of ethics to nature. In an anthropocentric ethic, nature deserves moral consideration because of how nature treated that affects humans.

These ideas have varied from one another, and if applied, they may change the course of the future believe that Anthropocentrism will be the key to humanity's progress due to its progressive nature.
One of the differences between Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism is that these two ideas. See the logic behind evolution differently. Anthropocentrism does not interest with the environment or other species while homo sapiens evolve, it only concerns sapiens itself and gives the credit behind fast evolving to homo sapiens. Thus, it calls homo sapiens as 'more perfect' and other species which are not as perfect as homo sapiens should have subordinated to a perfect one (Hayward,1977). However, Ecocentrism approaches this matter with a broader perspective. Homo sapiens have evolved in nature and used every part of resources. Therefore, according to Joe, Ian & Patrick (2018), the credit behind developing should not only belong to us because nature is the host, and humans are guests, and we cannot treat them separately.

Another difference between these two ideas is ethics or, in other words, moral reasons. Since ethics is a subjective topic, choosing whether action or idea is right or wrong is troublesome, and these two ideas approach the ethics distinctly from one another. Anthropocentrism claims that only humans can have moral values, and humans have developed this sense over millions of years while 'animals' do not have that sense, and this is one of the reasons that Anthropocentrism sees humans are superior to other species. Hayward (1977) states that there are three reasons for this sense of morality, which separates us from animals. which are: Ability to foresee our actions, ability to choose different varies of actions, and ability to make value judgments, and also according to Haywards (1977), 'morality evolved as a predisposition, not as an adaption.' Which strengths the idea of humankind being superior. Ecocentrism does not handle the topic as Anthropocentrism does. For Ecocentrism, species rather than humans has also moral values but not the kind that we used to. To illustrate, when we analyze the moral values of a plant, as stated by   Joe, Ian & Patrick (2018). A plant does not have subjective moral values. They have 'objectively good,' which says every creature designed to serve a useful purpose in their liaison and all these species are part of a more significant and universal good. Ecocentrism also claims that these differences for moral values for different species do not make one species more valuable than one another.

In my opinion, Anthropocentrism is the philosophy that humankind should use. It may seem cruel and selfish to suggest that every resource on this earth belongs to humans. It is an inevitable event that eventually would happen because, as a species, we must develop; otherwise, we will vanish from history as Neandertals did. This development will not come cheap because we are not like other species; we do not live to reproduce or not because it is just an instinct. We have our goals, ambitions, dreams, and each person on this earth has a different reason to live. Therefore, living a simple life neither an option for us nor it will satisfy us as a species, and to achieve these goals and dreams, we must use resources and progress overall. Also, seeing humankind as a self-centered species and complaining about it is pointless because we are the one kind that dominated the earth this much. It would be naïve to think anything would be different if any other specie dominated the world as much as we did. It is a food chain, we are the snakes, and the world is the mouse.

In conclusion, there are several different ideas about how humankind should proceed in the future. Two of them are Anthropocentrism and Ecocentrism, which separates each other in different ways of beliefs about moral values. Interpret logic behind the evolution of homo sapiens and placing humans as the center of the earth. Think that Anthropocentrism is the way that people should follow due to the use of resources, to stay dominant specie around the world, and to advance.