Janbert Evangel Rebosura

Article Review no. 1

Environmental

Philosophy
Sterba, James P. Reconciling Anthropocentric and Non
Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics. Environmental
Values 3 (1994): 229-244.
The present generation is divided with people who has concern with
animals, plants, biology and with people whose concern is the self or
human preservation. Some argues that human and animals should be
treated equally. Others even put it to the broader level, that all living
things should have an equal treatment. And there are also these
people who argues that man is superior to all living creatures since
man is capable of reason which other species dont have. Thats why
some people think that because man is superior, man has total right
over other animals, even plants and other living organisms, for his selfinterest. This division of approaches towards the environment are
debated by people between those who are anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric in concern. But this division, as Sterba argues in his
article, would still lead us to accept the same ground or principles of
environmental justice.
Sterba

tried

to

reconcile

both

non-anthropocentric

and

anthropocentric ethical perspectives first by examining the elements of

the two. Non-anthropocentric environmental ethics would stand that
humans and non-humans are equal since they belong to the same
species. As explained in the article, the traits and characteristics that
both humans and non-humans are possessing does not determine
which of them is more valuable or superior over the other, instead,

judged from a nonquestion-begging perspective, we would seemingly

have to regard the members of all species as equal. But even if the
view would argue such equality, man is still given the opportunity to
make preferences. Thus when certain environmental issues arise, there
are principles that must be prescribed. One principle presented in the
article is the Principle of Human Defence.
The Principle of Human Defence would permit us humans to harm
and even to the extent of killing animals or plants when harmful
aggression occurs for the purpose of self-defence. With this principle,
we are given the right to protect ourselves, our property and our family
from assaults that animals and plants do even to the extent of killing
them.
Another principle presented in the article is the Principle of Human
Preservation. As the author explains, actions necessary for meeting
ones basic needs or the basic needs of other human beings are
permissible even when they require aggressing against the basic needs
of animals and plants. This would justify the killing of cows, for an
instance, and other animals in the barn for the basic needs of
humanity. This has nothing to do with the idea of survival of the
fittest but rather for the necessary survival. I think man, being as the
center of this principle, has the obligatory role of maintaining and
aiding such consumable animals and plants, so that we can avoid crisis
and extinctions. We have the obligation to avoid such species to reach
the level of becoming endangered thus leads us to the emphasis of
care towards living beings.
Although man has these kind of preferences, it does not mean he
has no limitations. Another principle, which is non-anthropocentric in
nature, holds the limitation of human preferences, and this is the

Principle of Dis-proportionality. As presented in the article, the Principle

of Dis-proportionality says that actions that meet non basic or luxury
needs of humans are prohibited when they aggress against the basic
needs of animals and plants. In other words, we cannot harm or kill
animals and plants for other interest rather than basic needs and this
is why I think there are laws formed to avoid animal and plant abuses.
Illegal logging is one. The principle of Dis-proportionality would
highlight respect and value for other non-human beings.
Anthropocentric environmental ethics, on the other hand, takes the
side of non-equality between human beings and non-human beings,
arguing that man is superior over non-human beings since man is
capable of reason or has rationality and by the capability of reason,
man can think about morality which other non-human beings cannot.
Sterba, in the synthesis between the two environmental ethical
view, sees that both prescribes to the principles of Human Defence and
Human Preservation but does not agree with each other with the
principle of Dis-proportionality. To the anthropocentrist, its a fallacy
since we limit human preferences yet, following their argument, human
is superior over other non-human beings. But, as explained in the
article, it does not mean that man has all the right to aggress the
plants and animals to meet his basic and non basic or luxury needs.
Anthropocentrist also believes that all species have intrinsic values.
Therefore, even if anthropocentrists argue that man is superior over
other non-human beings, the application of the three principles is
already embedded in the intrinsic value of every living thing.