Please answer the following questions on the blog: In your own words, describe the moral dimensions of the anthropocentric/eccocentric discussion. Does the existential perspective of radical freedom and responsibility relate to the environment? How does Dr. Snauwaert's discussion fit into the general philosophical questions/issues about "the good", knowledge, truth, and freedom. This must be posted by 7pm for credit.
For today's topic presenters - send your presentations to me today- and you will have about five minutes to present today...
Next class we will discuss this in detail - we will also discuss the final- I will be posting all of the lectures and class presentations online within the next few days...
The following are the themes of questions on the final exam- come to class with your questions for the exams.
Best,
Dave Ragland
Plato
what is the purpose of musical training
role of the guardians
most important virtue of the state
meaning of the cave allegory
theory of forms
where ethics lie
Aristotle
Golden Mean
how do we become ethical
what is the ultimate aim of all human action
difference between Plato and Aristotle in ethics
Aquinas,
How does he view ethics
what does he do with Aristotle's ethical positions
what is the final end
Descartes
why is he reflecting?
why is there an evil deceiver?
what is his argument for the existence of God?
why is Descartes so important to history and philosophy?
Kant
When is there morality?
what is a categorical imperative?
What is the chief framework of his argument for peace?
what is the secret guarantee for peace?
End/means?
Dosteyeveky
what is the meaning of the story and the basic outline?
Sartre
what is radical freedom?
what is existentialism?
how does it affect human relationships?
the environment?
Snauwaert
Anthropocentric/ecocentric debate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I believe after reading about anthropocentric versus ecocentric views is that anthropocentrism focuses on glorifying humans as the ultimate creation whereas ecocentric focsues on nature as the center of everything and should have values based accordingly.
ReplyDeleteDr. Snauwaert debates Li becuase Li believes in a purely nonanthropocentric value. That humans need to think this way in order to have proper morals and values in the world. Li also says that anything that is in this world is based on the belief that humans have created it and that gives off the wrong impression. Dr. Snauwaert explains that all theories of nature are going to have a anthropocentric view because they were written by humans. It would be impossible for them to have a nauture.ecocentric view because we can not convey the feelings and thought of nature.
Dr. Snauwaert wnats to make aware that a anthropocentric view is necessary when discussing the environment because it is the world we live in and we have to do whats best for it because we want what is best for us. He states that there is a major difference between studying the environment so we can benefit from it and studyign the enviornment to better itself. He says that this arguement is very viable and important and must be considered as a valued ethical and philosophical debate.
The anthropocentric view means that one views the world as human-centered. Everything on the planet is able to be used by them, therefore humans give any particular thing a meaning. For instance, humans use trees for many things including paper and fires. In the anthropocentric view, humans give trees significance because, on its own, trees would not be of any purpose. The ecocentric view, on the other hand, gives all living things independence from humans. They are able to hold significance and sustain themselves without the help of humans. Although the existential perspective of radical freedom tells us that we can choose whatever we want, we must also think about the consequences inflicted on all other living organisms, not just humans. Global warming and a changing environment has become a huge issue in the past couple years but only so because we see the consequences it can have on humans. If our climate was to change without affecting humans yet affecting animals and plants, chances are we just wouldn’t care. We’d go on living our life, forgetting that other things on this planet are suffering. We must learn that, although we are independent creatures and must take care of ourselves, that there are other things in this world that can be affected.
ReplyDeleteDr. Snauwaert suggests that we must take care of our environment and planet not just as an advantage to humans. What is good, to him, is thinking about the consequences of what we are doing to our environment and fixing them for future generations. We must not be selfish and do whatever makes us happy without thinking about our kids and grandkids’ suffering for our actions. He believes that knowledge and truth is in spreading this issue and not hiding from it. And that our freedom is going to be revoked if we do not take of it.
Anthropocentrism is the belief that humans are the center of reality whereas ecocentrism is the belief that nature is at the center of reality. With a focus on environmental concerns, ecocentists believe that anthropocentrists are the cause of the increasing ecological crisis and concerns. The morality dimensions of these two opposing perspectives is whether or not they are able to coexsist in a harmonious and balanced relationship with mutual respect for each other's viewpoints. Humans and nature are codependent. I believe that the existential perspective does relate to the environment because human existence depends on nature to esure survival. With the "green" initiative, humanity is more apt to realize how strong the tie between human survival and ecological trends are. Dr. Snauwaert discusses how humans always have an anthopocentric view when writing about nature because nature does not have its own voice. Humanity determines what is best for both ourselves and for the encironment in which we live. Dr Snauwart explains that "the right to live is one and the same for all individuals, whatever the species, but the vital interests of our nearest, nevertheless, have priority." Whether or not this is just is debatable, but in today's society, humans are acting with good intentions towards nature.
ReplyDeleteThe anthropocentric views nonhumans as only valuable if they are needed by humans. The ecocentric views nonhumans as creatures independent of human judgment. The discussion is basically a battle between if the Earth and the objects on it are here just to help humans.
ReplyDeleteIf you view the environment as an actual being, I do not believe that it has freedom or responsibility because of humans. The majority of humans have an anthropocentric view, being that the environment is here for our gain. We have gone so overboard that we are almost controlling the environment. Humans decide what animals deserve to live, what trees need to be cut down and made into houses, and even how warm our planet should be. We are almost acting as God to our environment because we are trying to control it. We have taken the environment’s freedom.
Snauwaert is implying that “the good” is treating the environment with respect because it has its own intrinsic value. His discussion talks a lot about knowledge because we cannot completely accept nature into our moral community until we have the knowledge that it has intrinsic value. Only things that have intrinsic value will be accepted into a moral community therefore in order to accept it, or take an ecocentric view, we need to know that nature has intrinsic value. As for truth, Snauwaert thinks we need to be truthful, or respectful, to nature by giving them the same rights as humans. He believes that the right to live is the same for everyone, no matter if they are human or nonhuman. We need to be truthful with ourselves about the fact that the world is not here just for our gain and it does have intrinsic value of its own.
The discussion is based around the opposing anthropocentric and ecocentric views. The anthropocentric view regards the human being as central to the universe, in that everything is viewed and interpreted through the human’s experiences and values. On the other hand, the ecocentric view is a nature-based values system. The moral dimension is that a person cannot be on or the other and in the discussion an expansion to include all livings beings, human as well as non-human is argued for. Since, as Dr. Snauwaert explains, all theories of nature are written by human they have an anthropocentric view, it is important that there be a combination of anthropocentric and ecocentric views.
ReplyDeleteThe existential perspective of radical freedom and responsibility play a role in that when discussing the environment, it is important to have an anthropocentric view because it is the human’s world and humans have to do what is best for it. People have the freedom to do whatever they want in their lives, but they have to realize their responsibility besides that of to their own body, but to respect their environment also, and know the consequences of the negative, harmful things that they do.
Dr. Snauwaert’s discussion would claim that “the good” is to have a combination of anthropocentric and ecocentric views and to use your radical freedom for the best of both yourself and the environment you live in. It fits into knowledge because it is important to have knowledge of both views because they are different, and it is also important to know the consequences of both as well. Lastly, people need to know their freedoms and use them wisely and in the best way possible.
Overall, there are two different ways to look at the world we live in: anthropocentric and ecocentric. An anthropocentric view means that we look at the world with humans as the center of reality. On the other hand, some believe an ecocentric view which means that nature is the center of reality. People’s morals differ greatly depending on which view you look at. For example, someone with an anthropocentric view on life will not have a problem cutting down trees for the benefit of humans whereas someone with an ecocentric view will value nature and feel that conserving it is more important. I feel that existential perspective of radical freedom and responsibility do relate to the environment. We as humans have are required to care for environment because without it we could not exist. We are just as dependent on nature as it is on us. We cannot exist separately because nature provides a source of food, oxygen, and a safe environment to live in. Currently, we are experiencing problems because of the lifestyle that we have been living. Because of our dependence on fossil fuels and our obsession with using it as a main source of fuel, we have severely damaged the environment. It has cause a lot of air pollution, as well as ozone depletion. The ozone is just another way that nature protects us. By destroying it, we are permitting harmful rays from the sun to enter our environment. We have also been exploiting the land that we are living on. We have cut down many forests, over-farmed our fertile land, and as a result we are running out of natural resources. Currently, the life we are living is taking a serious toll on the environment. We need to learn to balance our anthropocentric view with a more ecocentric view. While we need to treat the environment better for our own benefit, Dr. Snauwaert argues that there is another reason we should be kinder to the world we live in. He argues that “the good” is caring for the environment for the sake of the environment, and not for our own selfish purposes. By doing this we will look at thing s with a more ecocentric view. He feels that this is how to achieve “the good”.
ReplyDeleteThe key difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric views does not necessarily lie in around whom our universe is centered, but rather in how value is assigned to nonhuman living things in the natural world. From an anthropocentric viewpoint, a being's value is measured by the worth it possesses to humans. In ecocentric terms, every living thing's value is intrinsic and independent of human need/judgment. In this debate, Snauwaert and Li both have the same essential agenda: to annex nonhuman living things as members of our moral community. Snauwaert shoots down the anthropocentric perspective as a means to achieve this extension of the moral community, while Li has argued the opposite. I think that Snauwaert's most powerful argument is that, if we look at the natural world from an anthropocentric viewpoint, we deem nonhumans as not having intrinsic value (only having value as a utility to us). On these grounds, we carry out the same objectification unto nature as the economy carries out unto the working people in Marx's writing we studied. Nonhumans are treated as things- things to be used- and they are not in control of their productivity. Snauwaert argues that something that is assumed to not have intrinsic value cannot be a member of a moral community. The ideas of existentialism that we have discussed in class can apply to both sides of the debate. The notion that we assign our own meaning to life would apply to anthropocentric ideology, in that we construct and assign meaning/value to nonhumans based on our needs. On the other hand, the idea that we are all responsible for one another applies to the ecocentric perspective, in that we are responsible for acknowledging the equal respect upheld by all living beings.
ReplyDeleteThe ecocentric perspective puts the environment as the center of all things while the anthropocentric perspective places humans and their values as the center of all things. The idea of radical freedom is not 100% true because although you can do what you would like at any time you will face consequences. And with the environment the consequences can be severe, if we continue letting chemicals freely into the air the rate at which global warming is happening will increase. Because we are all allowed to do whatever we please, it's impossible to put a restriction on the freedom we have. Some people who have realized the consequences and the toll pollution and various other things are taking on our environment and they have chosen to protest and push for people all over the world to "go green". Dr. Snauwaert argues that humans should want to take care of the environment for reasons other than themselves, because taking care of the environment shouldn't just be about the benefits humans receive by doing so. He clearly explains that the environment should be treated as humans feel they should be treated and its selfish to only want to take care of the environment for human benefit. He believes that by spreading word about the care of the environment people spread knowledge and truth to let people know about the "good" and without doing so when the environment hits rock bottom we will lose our freedom.
ReplyDeleteI think that an anthropocentric view of the world would be one in which a human would place themselves as the most important thing in the world. It is the total disregard for other things, such as animals. A person with an anthropocentric view would believe that the world was created for people as opposed to the eccocentric belief that nature and humans were created together in somewhat equality. Someone who is eccocentric would view humans and part of the earth but not supreme to nature. It is my opinion that if someone believes in the existential perspective of radical freedom and responsibility, must also be anthropocentric. The existential perspective of radical freedom and responsibility does not take into account anything but oneself as opposed to the eccocentric view which takes into account that all things are equal. Dr. Snauwaert believes that all writing is anthropocentric because nature and the environment do not have their own voice. I disagree with this because there are many eccocentric people in the world which is why the environment is of great importance. You could argue that nature has its voice through these groups and organizations that see themselves as eccocentric. Without eccocentric people there would be no such thing as the Evironmental Protection Agency of the United States government.
ReplyDeleteThe moral dimensions of the anthropocentric and egocentric views is that anthropocentrism is about glorifying humans as the best creature and ecocentric focuses on mature as the best thing. Dr. Snauwaert debates Li because Li believes in a non anthropocentric value. And that humans need to think this way in order to survive and sustain the world. Li says that humans created all beliefs and because of this some can be wrong. Dr. Snauwaert explains that every theory was made up by humans. Dr. Snauwaert wants to make people aware of his anthropocentric view which is necessary when discussing the environment because it is where we live. He also says that studying the environment is different from helping the environment. He says that helping the environment is better then just studying it which is a great point. Because why study it if you are not going to help it?
ReplyDeleteThe difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric ideals is that one favors humans and the other favors the unity of nature with mankind. The anthropocentric perspective is more based on how humans are the main focus of the universe; and whatever benefits mankind is good regardless of how it affects the environment. The ecocentric ideals are much more environmentally friendly. They focus on the importance of mankind along with the rest of what is in our environment. When looking into these two views it's interesting to ask the questions 'can the mankind exist with out nature?' and 'can nature exist without mankind?' When it comes to radical thought, it is clear that there is a direct link with the conditions of the environment. Acts that hurt the environment are irresponsible and when it comes down to it, selfish. Those who believe in radical freedom I would think would most likely agree with anthropocentric views considering they find their own needs to outweigh the needs of the world around them. Plus, Dr. Snauwaert's view that writings are all in an anthropocentric perspective I would have to disagree with. There is plenty of proof and writings that are based on morals that do not focus on mankind as the center of existence.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing a comparison between the anthropocentric and ecocentric philosophies it seems that anthropocentric ideals are that humans should be put on a pedistal and that the people that believe the world revolvs around them are correct. The ecocentric ideal takes the opposite point of view and discusses how nature is the most important thing on the planet. Personally I am going to have to take the ecocentric side of the argument because i believe humans to be part of nature thus humans will still be the most important aspect of the planet but accompanied with the rest of nature.
ReplyDeleteDr. Snauwaert discusses how this debate can not be resolved by humans because we will be biast no matter what due to the fact that we are humans. I am going to have to agree with the philosophy of Dr. Snauwaert because it is common sense and a fact of life.