Anthropocentrism?

“Generalized accusations of ‘human speciesism’ invite us to overlook oppressions and divisions within the human community, and are ethically irresponsible if they imply that the cause of nature should be promoted at the cost of a concern with social justice and equity in the distribution of resources [the two causes may go hand in hand – Utisz]. The problem of the destruction of nature has to be located at the level of specific relations of production and consumption and cannot be attributed to some generalized set of human attributes or attitudes. Moreover, insofar as we can speak in general terms here, it is inevitable that our attitudes to nature will be ‘anthropocentric’ in certain respects since there is no way of conceiving our relations to it other than through the mediation of ideas about ourselves. To suggest that it could be otherwise is to be insensitive to those ways in which the rest of nature is different and should be respected for being so.” (Kate Soper, What is Nature?)

One thought on “Anthropocentrism?

  1. Pingback: Utile hurling « Dead Voles

Comments are closed.