Transition from Anthropocentrism to Biocentrism: Critical Appraisal The critical response to anthropocentrism has diverse forms and versions. The most

animals as a concept of “total” something. Naess took the term self-realization for all living beings. Without considering the nature of the self, it is quite impossible to realize the reflection of self-realization. Self, according to Naess, has two dimensions: “individual self” is small in nature, and “expansive self” is ecological.

However, the size of self is smaller or larger does not reflect their separation from each other. In fact, Naess confirms with the view of diversity of different souls. But, he also takes principle “diversity in harmony” as central tenet of his Ecosophy-T, which works within ecological communities, local conditions and social culture. So, community reflects as a view of totality in Naess’s philosophy. To some extent, the term totality is also existed in Indian traditions.

Indian perception of environmental values is also closely interconnected to the notion of totality. Totality reflected in cultural and religious tradition of India within the conception of interdependency, interrelation, sympathy and mutuality. Baird Callicott also recognize such properties in Indian (he refers to Asian traditions) religious and spiritual value system. But, non-dual Indian school Adaita Vedānta expounded by Śamkara seriously obtained a discontinuity between Brahman and earth of experience. Sureśvara, early commentator of Śamkara, succinctly states that

“Between the world (Existence) and the rock-firm Self (Relaity) there is no connection whatsoever except that of ignorance.”¹⁵⁸ However, early Indian traditions particularly Vedism, Jainism and Buddhism expounded a view of interconnectivity between the cosmic personality and the living earth. In forthcoming chapters, I will show that these traditions include interdependence and mutuality with all components of living beings. Before entering into in-depth discussion, the next section will show how a transition from anthropocentrism to biocentrism has been occurred in both the eastern and the western traditions.

3.2 Transition from Anthropocentrism to Biocentrism: Critical Appraisal

ethical focus is given on the world of life in its full-breadth. In contrast to anthropocentric position, life-centric ethics has got its historical roots in Indian, Japanese, and American religious and philosophical beliefs. Whatsoever, biocentrism is a critique of anthropocentrism as well as of life-centric worldview. In this respect, there is a difference between anthropocentrism and biocentrism. This difference will give a sense of biocentric environmental ethics. The former view embodies the

“attitudes of respect for human beings”, whereas biocentric view “embodies the attitudes of respect for living beings of nature”. Most biocentrists have firstly criticized anthropocentric worldview, which emphasizes the interest of human beings.

What is the value of nature? Is it anthropocentric or bio-centric? The dispute regarding these questions has remained unsolved. In the modern era, the anthropocentric trend has got an important philosophical stand through the views of Immanuel Kant. Let us explain briefly the view of Kant’s anthropocentrism. It grounds on “dignity of rational nature”, and it always follows the principle to “treat humanity as an end in itself”¹⁵⁹. The anthropocentric intention of this principle appears to be clear while he refers to the term humanity in the sense of “capacity to set ends according to reason”¹⁶⁰. Humanity refers to three original dispositions of human nature: animality, rationality, and personality. These three predispositions can promote our survival, sociability, reproduction and personality. Kant defines personality as rational capacity, which gives us moral laws and indicates us to obey those.¹⁶¹ Regarding this definition of Humanity, it can be said that no other biological species can get membership of Humanity. If human beings are of rational nature and are the only end in themselves, it implies that other things are considered as a means to human beings that we found in his literature:

“The fact that the human being can have the representation ‘I’ raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person… that is,

159 Kant, Immanuel, 1911. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten. Gesammelte Schriften IV. Berlin, 434-435.

Also see :

Wood, Allen W., 1999, Kant's Ethical Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

160 Kant,1911.

161 Kant, I, R 6:26, VA 7:321-324. VA, Anthropologie in pragmatischer Hinsicht (1798) Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloen Vernunft (1793-1794)

a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one’s discretion”¹⁶²

Kant’s concept of rational capacity gives emphasis on only human beings. Tom Regan, a noted Kantian critic, defends the view that animals can possess inherent value and should give them membership in the moral community as of the subject of life. Regan, in his quasi-argument, proposes to extend the morality to animals. On the basis of this argument, Tom Regan ¹⁶³ launches a right-based zoocentrism.

Philosophically, such a view is a kind of journey towards the extension of life. In fact, this is also a journey towards biocentrism.

We foresee that a strong criticism of anthropocentrism has been offered by Taylor¹⁶⁴, Stone¹⁶⁵, and Drengson¹⁶⁶. They hold that environmental objects should be preserved not merely for the instrumental value to human beings. To them, value should be counted from the egalitarian standpoint. An egalitarian view about intrinsic value is especially tempting in view of the long history of unjust discriminations which have wreaked havoc on the earth. These are the various forms of racism, sexism, age-based and religion-based rejection and exploitation of persons. Thus, it is understandable that one would approach the so-called “inegalitarian” views with serious skepticism.

In the context of present environmental situation, a lot of examples, can be explored which are the results of our anthropocentric worldview, i.e., extinction of species, losses of natural ecosystems, ozone layer depletion, contamination of soil, or any other exploitation of ecosystem. These phenomena imply that almost all scientific research and human activities are intensely anthropocentric, visionless, and dangerous. In fact, environmental objects should be preserved not merely for instrumental value to human beings. This is my contention that anthropocentric value systems have failed to provide a stable ground for the development of a suitable environmental ethics. But, it is time to reconsider environmental crisis. And, it is

162Wood Allen W., 1998. “Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement, Volume LXXII.

163 Regan, 1983.

164 Taylor, Paul, 1986.

165 Stone, Christopher, 1987. Earth and Other Ethics, New York : Harper & Row, p.85

166 Drengson, Alan. 1995. The Practice of Technology: Exploring Technology, Ecophilosophy, and Spiritual Disciplines for Vital Links, Albany: Suny Press.

essential to discourage of ecological processesing and preservation of ecosphere.

Unless there are priorities to the understanding of ecological systems and values, there will remain few people for tomorrow who have the knowledge to speak in defense of the earth and its processes. So, we must set the priorities of ecological guiding principles.

While criticizing anthropocentric worldview, we may point out that only human action is responsible for making environmental crisis. Therefore, we should have courage and moral commitment to change our attitudes and action. We need to perform those things that should depend upon moral ground, fairness, and are justifiable. Therefore, we need to ask the fundamental questions: What are we as human value? Why do we value the things? How should we lead our lives? Only biocentric understanding of environmental insight can help us overcoming the limitation of anthropocentric outlook. Because, it makes an understanding that life is not isolated from the natural system, rather it depends on others aspects of nature.

The next section will focus on the concept of life.