Abstract The paper summarizes and critiques several different theories associated with the ethical treatment of animals. The paper focuses on the treatment of animals as it relates to hunting and trapping animals, eating animals, using animals for research, and the manner in which domestic and wild animals are treated. The paper summarizes and critiques several theories including anthropocentrism, animal liberation, strong animal rights theory, weak(er) animal rights theory, two-factor egalitarianism, biocentric egalitarianism and ecocentric views.
Outline:
Introduction
Anthropocentrism
Animal Liberation
Biocentric Egalitarianism
Weak Animal Rights Theory
Strong Animal Rights Theory
Two Factor Egalitarianism
Ecocentric Views
Opinion Concerning Ethical Issues and the best Theory to Address These Issues
Conclusion
From the Paper "Finally, as it relates to the manner in which domestic and wild animals are treated, there must be standards associated with their treatment. As it relates to domestic animals there are many laws that govern their treatment and the responsibilities that owners have for their pets. As it relates to wild animals there is a definite need to have animals at zoos for the purpose of educating people. If an animal is near extinction people might have more compassion and a greater understanding of the plight of the animal if they were educated about their existence and why it needs to be preserved. Educating people may also challenge them to do what they can to preserve a particular species. As with domestic animals there are rules a regulations that govern the treatment of animals at zoos and aquariums, these regulations should be adhered to and in some cases the laws. "
Abstract In the chapter titled "Environmental Values" from the book, "Environmental Values in American Culture" by Willett Kempton, James S. Boster and Jennifer A. Hartley (1995), the authors try to find out about American's feelings and ideas about the environment. The paper shows that one of the key terms in this discussion is the word 'values'. It shows that, according to the authors, the word 'values' means rules followed by people in their relationships with themselves, other people and living things. By interviewing different people and dividing their opinions into three sections, the authors attempt to form a general idea of the environmental values of Americans.
From the Paper "The authors think that most Americans relate to the environment in three different ways. In the first section, the authors assess how Americans look at the environment from the point of view of traditional religion or other forms of spirituality. Although the Bible contains sayings that seem to encourage human beings to control the environment, the respondents do not agree. They believe that God has created the environment for all living creatures. To them, it is not right for human beings to destroy the environment, so that other living things such as certain types of animals disappear forever from the planet. In this section, it is interesting that although people can believe in the same religion, their interpretation of the Bible can be different (Kempton et al., 1995, pp. 89-91)."
Abstract Michael Smith's article in question falls within the category of a critique of anthropocentrism. This paper will analyse the concept of 'egalitarianism' and the general problems with 'ethical reasoning'. It will be argued that while his critical arguments are sound, there are problems with biocentrism and the reference to Spinoza. It will also be argued that he rejects this because this latter notion is fraught with traditional problems of metaphysics.
This paper compares Norwegian philosopher Arme Naess' ecology philosophy called "deep ecology" with Indian author Ramachandra Guha's ecological philosophy of "anthropocentrism".
Abstract This paper explains that Arme Naess' philosophy of "deep ecology" encourages respect for the environment, not because humans depend on nature, but because nature and its inhabitants have inherent value. The author points out that Ramachandra Guha's ecological philosophy of "anthropocentrism" declares that all environmental responsibility is derived from human interests alone, which challenges this "deep ecology" philosophy. The paper concludes that Ramachandra Guha, who alleges that "shallow ecology" is sufficient for providing a satisfactory ethic of obligation and concern for the non-human world, is not rational; rather the concept of "deep ecology" needs to be extended especially toward non-human individuals, wilderness areas and across time and species.
From the Paper "Assuming characteristically anthropocentric perspectives and values is a defect, we should, instead, assume a biocentric perspective. We should certainly abandon crude conceptions of human needs that equate them with the sort of needs that are satisfied by extravagant resource use. One of the problems with shallow ecology lies in anthropocentrism, specifically the fact that they are characteristically short-term, sectional, and self-regarding. Suppose that astronomers detect a modest asteroid on collision course with Earth. The impending collision would be perfectly natural. Such periodic disruptive events are natural, though they probably destroy most of the then extant large life forms. These times of renewal provide opportunities for smaller, flexible organisms to radiate opportunistically into vacated niches, and life goes on. There is little doubt that our demise would provide comparable opportunities for development that we currently prevent. Even then, we should step aside so that evolution can continue on its majestic course."
This paper argues the concept of ecocentrism, as expressed in the philosophy of the deep ecology platform, the basic tenets of which are explained in this paper.
Abstract This paper explains that, for all of recorded history, Western cultures have operated on an implicit foundation of anthropocentrism, which assumes that human beings are the most important beings in the world. The author points out that ecocentrism, also known as biocentrism, is the exact opposite of anthropocentrism in that it sees the ecosystem itself as central. The paper relates that the first principle of the deep ecology movement, as formulated by Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984, gives expression to the essence of ecocentrism. The author further states that the deep ecology platform is a foundation that might make it possible to save the planet, humans and most of the other still surviving species; however, none of the above will come easily to most people, accustomed to considering humans as the center of the universe and the pinnacle of all creation.
From the Paper "However, sacrifices will have to be made. One cannot drive a luxury SUV through a Garden-of-Eve like paradise - one of them has to go. The trick will be for enough people to realize it is the SUV that needs to go. Of course, the SUV is meant as a metaphor for the many excessive luxuries that so many people insist on, generating a consumerism that has sustained the multinational corporations that are devouring the resources of our planet. Thus, what needs to happen is a total shift in what we value."
