.A taxonomy of views in environmental ethics
It is common to distinguish among views in terms of which things "count," morally speaking, according to each.
| Anthropocentrism | Sentientism | Biocentric Individualism |
(Pluralistic) Holism | ||||||||||||||||
| Human beings? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes
| Sentient animals?
| No
| Yes
| Yes
| Yes
| Non-sentient organisms?
| No
| No
| Yes
| Yes
| Species and ecosystems?
| No
| No
| No
| Yes
| |
More formally:
- Anthropocentrism =df the view that (morally speaking) only human beings count.
- Sentientism =df the view that all and only sentient entities count.
- Biocentric individualism =df the view that all (and only?) living organisms count.
- Holism =df the view that holistic entities like species and ecosystems count.
A) Pure holism =df the view that only such entities count.
B) Pluralistic holism =df the view that such entities count, but so do some or all of the things listed above.
And now, what does it mean to "count, morally speaking"? This is usually explained in terms of something's having intrinsic, rather than merely instrumental value. Here are some stipulative definitions of related terms:
- Instrumental value =df the value an entity has in virtue of its relationships to other things.
- Intrinsic value =df the value an entity has irrespective of its relationships to other things.
- Something is intrinsically valuable if it is in fact valued (or is suited to being valued) independently of its utility to conscious valuers (or suitably prepared valuers).
- Something has moral standing if and only if it has interests.
- Something has interests if and only if it has needs and/or desires, the satisfaction of which creates intrinsic value.
| [Exercise] |