ShuYing Sun* Yan Xiao
(Environment & Planning College of Henan University; Kaifeng; 475001, China)
Abstract: At present environmental crisis has been the focus of the entire world. This article thinks deeply of the serious consequences resulted from anthropocentrism. On the basis of it,cultural sources of ecological civilization are discussed, and the environmental ethics of sustainable development are put forward.
Key words: anthropocentrism; ecological civilization; sustainable development; environmental ethics
Ⅰ. Foreword
From human’s naissance, man is filled with fear and admiration to the nature. After industrial civilization, science, productivity and the number of population have been enhanced, and the ranges of man’s activity domains and using natural resources have become wider than before. Human begins to act on the nature on a large scale. Views, which are that ‘man must defeat nature’ and ‘man is the master of nature’, become sonorous slogans. But industrial civilization has two sides. While it prospers our society, it also leads to serious environmental crisis such as the diversity of creature sharply reducing etc, which intensifies the contradiction between human and environment, and is caused by man ignoring the nature and ecological rules. From 1980’s, human begins to think deeply of the dilemma, and strengthens studies of related theories to try to get rid of anthropocentrism’s restraints and probe environmental ethics of sustainable development, which can resolve the world environmental crisis.
Ⅱ. The Reflection of Anthropocentrism
Ⅱ.Ⅰ The Background of Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism is that we judge everything from the angle of human’s benefits [1], and it’s a concept and a foremost theory centering round human himself that gradually produces or forms after getting rid of nature’s restraints because of poor productivity. In the early society, productivity was very low and man was obedient to and fear of nature. Though human beings destroyed and varied critter species at part regions, human was still dominated by environment and thus imposed relatively less influence upon environment. During the period of agricultural society, productivity’s improvement made man strengthen the activity and go-aheadism of changing nature. The degree to damage environment was reinforced. When industrial civilization appeared, the progression advanced at unprecedented speed. When human was quickening to extort from nature, behavior philosophy was gradually formed which man was the nature’s dominator and could control or take advantage of nature [2].
Making a comprehensive view of anthropocentrism’s development, there were four schools [3]. The first one was John Passmore and Henry John Mccoskey’s “enlightened anthropocentrism”. They, Australian philosophers, respectively set forth their views in Man’s Responsibility for Nature (1974) and Ecological Ethics and Politics (1983). The former attributed environmental problems to absolutism, which thought that the nature had no inherit value but only existed for humankind, but not to anthropocentrism itself. Man had moral duty on nature and was its governor. Man himself communicated the interactions between human and nature. The latter persisted that man caused environmental crisis, so we must settled it by global political means. Mccoskey also advocated people’s profits were still the core content of contemporarily environmental consciousness. The second one was Russian’s anthropocentrism of modern social practice that Ю.A.ШKOJIEHKO was on behalf of it. In Philosophy, Ecology and Astro-navigation in 1983, Ю.A.ШKOJIEHKO put forward “anthropocentrism would keep up in the level of not only social practice but also views of value until more intelligent things came into being because of human contacting, interacting and cooperating with other civilizations”. The third was Bryan.G.Nordon, an American philosopher’s weak anthropocentrism. Nordon differentiated anthropocentrism as weak and strong ones in his Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism (1984) and Why Preserve Natural Variety (1987). Weak anthropocentrism was a value theory from people’s some wills, which could satisfy man’s profits and demands after rational appraisals, while strong anthropocentrism only satisfied current profits and demands from the angle of sense and addiction. Nordon thought environmental ethics should regard weak anthropocentrism value as basic tenet. The fourth was modern anthropocentrism. As a modern anthropocentrism’s deputy, William.H.Murdy concentratedly expounded his idea in Anthropocentrism: A Modern Version in 1993. In his opinion, modern anthropocentrism was a reasonable and necessary point we should adopt after considering man’s position in the nature. Human occupied special position and lived on natural things. Every individual of our society was dependent on not only its social colonies but also its ecological system. Man had special abilities of accumulating culture and knowledge and creating, so he could realize and fulfill his indirect obligations for nature, and could maintenance nature’s ecological balance.
Ⅱ.ⅡThe Harm of Anthropocentrism
Firstly, the harm comports in the cognition of ecological civilization. Ecological civilization introduces the relationship between human and nature into man’s valuable views judging things. Under the premise of keeping people alive, moral concepts are enlarged to natural zoology [4]. Anthropocentrism egregiously emphasizes predomination and using the nature while it ignores the dependence on nature and cultivating it, i.e. anthropocentrism stresses man’s rights but neglects his compulsories for nature. The mode of being eager for quick success and instant benefit to treat nature makes ecosystem unbalanced and the earth go beyond its burden.
Secondly, the harm behaves on the consciousness for intrageneration and intergeneration. Because society is a unitary system and everyone is equal, so man and his offspring have the same right to develop and utilize natural resources. However, anthropocentrism only unilaterally emphasizes an individual or colony’s benefits and current benefits while ignoring unitary and long-term profits.
Thirdly, it also shows in the cognition of harmonizing nature, society and economics. Anthropocentrism only pursues economic development while mankind’s progression bases on the environment. It is its premise that economic development harmonizes with balance of ecosystem and social stabilization. As a value concept, anthropocentrism gives people’s benefits expanding and blindly using natural resources a reasonable theoretical basis, which makes people weigh their statuses, honors and values from the number of matters occupied, and value concepts centering on human himself are produced. These views dissever the opposite and uniform relationship between man and nature together with individuals and society. Furthermore, it thinks more of material civilization than the dependence on nature and identity of every subsystem in our society.
Besides, anthropocentrism’s imperils also comport in the sense of humanism. Man is at the root of anthropocentrism that differs from sustainable development. Sustainable development considers that development must unite with integrality and general developing of human, and satisfy the demands of not only materials but also spirit and environment while anthropocentrism only stresses on materials.
The last is in global homestead. Human’s development needs every one and every country to cooperate with each other. Anthropocentrism pinpoints one individual or unity to govern others but passes over their harmonies, which results in people brutally fighting for resources for their benefits.
In the relationship between man and nature, anthropocentrism makes unilateral mistake because of human’s irreversible dependence on nature. But anthropocentrism leads to blindness and liberty when people changes and utilizes nature, thus global problems are becoming more serious and inevitably endanger human in the end. In fact, the essence of global environmental crisis is a cute opposite relationship between man and nature.
Ⅱ.Ⅲ The Rising of Non- anthropocentrism
The appearance of environmental crisis compelled man to think deeply of anthropocentrism’s ill aftermaths. With the deepening of globalization, the range destroyed by man expanded and non-anthropocentrism was put forward. Albert Schweitzer(1875～1965), a French scholar and gainer of Nobel Peace, and Aldo Leopold, an American, were its founders. Schweitzer and Paul Taylor set forth that we should hold such ethics as respecting livings and regarding the relationship between human and critters (especial animals) as a moral relation in their Cultural Philosophy: Civilization and Ethics (1923) and Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (1986). Their creature centrism took respect for livings as basic principle. Consequently, Australian philosopher, Peter Singer, carried forward Schweitzer’s idea and put forward the theory of animal liberation in his Animal Liberation in 1970’s. He thought that animals were equal to man and liberation asked us to enlarge the range of morals to animals. If we didn’t change that “animals existed for our foods”, animals couldn’t be liberated, let alone human relying on natural ecosystem [5]. As the deputy of ecocentrism, Leopold brought forward land ethics in The Land Ethics in 1949. From his view, ethics should spread to treat with relationships between man and land, man and animals, even man and plants living on the land from early man and man, and individual and society. Human and other critters were at the same position, and both of them were less important than the land community. Later, Arne Naess and Holmes Rolsdon gradually consummated ecocentrism [3].
Though these schools were different in some views, they all appeared to be against anthropocentrism and put forward that anthropocentrism was the source of environmental crisis. So such view was a breakthrough for anthropocentrism’s restraints. They considered that the ranges of ethics caring for should include nature and man, and “human should take direct moral responsibilities for both man and nature. What’s more, the latter wasn’t indirect manifestation of the former”. [6] These schools tried to construct their environmental ethics from a just angle and focused value on natural entities and procession. Critters and nature had not only extrinsic values but also intrinsic values. However, critters and human were equal parts of nature, and had the same rights, so man must respect livings, use moralities to treat with relationship between man and nature and restrain from abusing and destroying nature. However, non-anthropocentrism didn’t see the essence behind man and nature’s relations, which weren’t simply changing and being changed or using and being used. Man was integration of all social relationships, and so environmental problems were matters of human and the judgment on environment crisis still based on man. The relationship between man and nature finally should belong to relationships of men.
Ⅲ.Cultural Sources of Ecological Civilization
Ⅲ.ⅠThe Environmental Cognitions of Christianism
Christianism thought “heaven was Yahveh’s heaven and land was given to the world” (Psalm 115:16) [7]. God was the land’s creator. Through creating the land, God became the owner of the earth and gave human rights to dominate it while these rights were limited. Human was only God’s deputy on the earth and exerted rights of God for nature on behalf of God. God provided resources such as foods and energy, and made people possess the earth storing these resources. However, man didn’t create natural procession but cooperated with it when exerting his rights. To control the nature only made it civilization. If God didn’t exist, there didn’t mention man to dominate nature. Christianism considered there wasn’t absolute possession or property and we should catch on it under the larger background of rights, i.e. all of us had rights to utilize all the wealth, private properties were obedient to common use and wealth belonged to all people. So man had compulsories to protect nature for others and offspring when he exerted rights to govern the nature, and man didn’t have rights to treat environment at his will. Eminent domain wasn’t equal to dominion or even the right to destroy nature but only implied that we could use it. Therefore, the right to dominate nature was a responsible domain.
Ⅲ.Ⅱ Ecological Concept of Buddhism
Buddhism contained rich ideas of ecology and had unique ecological concept including versions of ruthless and tangible nature, everyone’s equality and ideality pursuing pure land. It was a basic view that we should respect and cherish lives. Buddhism demarcated all flesh out of human, and thought all flesh could be divided ten kinds including all livings in the world. Every thing had Buddha hood and equal values to exist. Then Buddhism put forward life practices of respecting lives and not killing critters, and thought the relationships of all livings as “one was ens for others owned, one exists because of others’ existing, one was naught because others had nothing, and one deracinates for others killed out.”[8] Everything came into being and developed under correspondent conditions and relations, and didn’t exist without others. This was “genesis and non-appetite” what we said. Universalism based on Buddhism didn’t regard nature as people’s attachment but classified human as a part of the nature from the cosmic position. It believed comeuppance and persisted “Causes couldn’t disappear. There must be nemeses if there were causes. If causes differ, nemeses could vary accordingly.” [8] Man’s behaviors influenced not only man but also the environment, nature would retaliate us if we excessively used or destroyed environment. On the contrary, if we protected and cherished nature, nature would provide us good foundation to develop.
Ⅲ.Ⅲ The Ecological Ethics of Confucianism and Taoism in China
Confucian scholars thought heaven and earth were breeders of all critters. Human and universe were integers. Man must esteem and emulate nature. Confucianism reckoned benevolence as moral foundation, enlarged the moral ranges to nature, namely from “cherishing civilians” to “affecting things”, and advanced that “we should broaden our affections for our families to civilians and things”[9]. Man and nature were brothers or friends, so man must acclimate and cherish nature, and ascertained moral grades using “intimacy and alienation of love”. On one hand, Confucianism more cared for man than nature and considered moralities between people were more important than ecological moralities. On the other hand, it claimed that we should build a reasonable relationship between man’s moralities and ecological moralities [10]. Taoism also extended principles of affection to nature. Universe’s fountain was Tao, and then Tao produced gases that engendered universe. For the same source, man should take responsibilities for all livings. Lao Zi, the Taoist creator, opposed Confucianism’s “honoring heaven and earth as parents of all things”. He reckoned Tao as universe’s fountain prior to heaven and earth. “Things blended earlier than heaven and earth”. “Man followed earth, earth followed heaven, heaven followed Tao and Tao followed nature” [11]. Man must emulate nature. In the relationship between man and nature, both schools kept up same viewpoints that man and nature were uniform and human should protect nature like as himself.
Ⅳ. Environmental Ethics of Sustainable Development
Ⅳ.Ⅰ The Ethics Connotations of Sustainable Development
The limits of anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism make how to look on relationship between human and nature and to ensure harmony of man and nature become many scholars’ focus. Environmental ethics and sustainable development provides a new study and theoretical base to solve global environment problems. Sustainable development, a new concept about development, which is on the premise of sustainable development of economy, bases on sustainable use of natural resources and good environment to pursue general progresses and developments of our society [12]. In this view, man is seen as a root of all things, and it emphasizes not only the sustainability in our existence and development but also development based on the sustainability from our holistic and long-term benefits. Justice and harmony are its essential principles. Justice, including intrageneration and intergeneration, means human has the fair rights to utilize natural resources while harmony refers to harmonizing society with economy and environment. Sustainable development doesn’t ignore the important role of environment in our society, although it focuses on man and ends up with man’s society. In 1992, The Rio Declaration, which was passed in the first “World Summit on Sustainable Development” in Brazil, pointed out that human should have the right to live healthily and fruitfully by way of harmony with man and nature [13]. In other words, sustainable development implies that we should protect ecological environment, get well along with nature, and pursue sustainable, steady and healthy development of the compound system including economy, society and ecology, which happens to have same views with environmental ethics. The form and practical procession of sustainable developing theory are the procession that human thinks deeply of traditional concepts about value and development, and also are to negate traditional economic behaviors abusing natural resources at the cost of environment. Sustainable development forms a new ecological civilization together with views of new values, ethics and consumption.
Ⅳ.ⅡThe Environmental Ethics of Sustainable Development
Environmental ethics of sustainable development is a new environmental concept that is formed during the procession of studying sustainable development and environmental ethics. It differs from modern anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism while persists in the concept of natural value and emphasizes to harmonize with man and nature. On the basis of it, it acknowledges human’s protection and moral deputy’s duty to the nature [12]. Environmental ethics of sustainable development regards the harmony with effective protection of environment, resources’ rational use and economic development as a cornerstone to treat relationship between man and nature. Because it conforms scientifically to modern anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism, it contains more than others. In anthropocentrism, man was seen as the core of all things, and had the absolute right to control nature while non-anthropocentrism enlarged ethics’ fields of vision to all critters and nature. Environmental ethics of sustainable development brings the relations between man and nature into human’s relations on the basis of unitary and long-term benefits, and thinks the relations between man and nature are interest relations of man and man in essence, in which nature is their medium, and still doesn’t dap man’s circle. It, too, admits that nature has not only instrumental values but also intrinsic values, and doesn’t only ascribe inherent values to nature itself but enhances it to the whole harmony of man and nature. Environmental ethics of sustainable development accepts the validity of the view that “man has activities” in modern anthropocentrism, and considers man is situated in moral deputy and environmental manager in this integer [12]. So environmental ethics based on sustainable development is a new environmental ethics idea. Its main principles are as follows:
The first is justice and equity. It means there are equal rights intrageneration and intergeneration using resources, consuming and living. Every individual or collectivity shouldn’t endanger others benefits for his own benefits. Men should utilize scientifically nature, and shouldn’t be at a cost of others or offspring’s interests when they satisfy their own consumptions and enjoy welfares brought by nature. And developing countries and developed countries have the same duties and obligations to father environmental pollutions and destructions.
The second principle is to respect nature. Human has the rights to dominate the nature, and nature also has the survival and developing rights according to ecological rules. Man must respect all livings of the earth and the harmony of nature, be obedient to natural development and protect natural environment. Man’s right to nature can’t lead to existence crisis of other critters.
The third is to pay attention to qualities of living. Development includes developing on quantities and qualities. Healthy and sustainable society needs a healthy and sustainable natural environment. High molar living of society is inseparable with high molar environment. Man’s living qualities involve culture, economy, politics and environment etc. Environmental ethics of sustainable development must pay attention to environment if it wants to deal well with the relations between physical and psychic enjoyment.
Ⅴ. Concluding Remarks
Environmental ethics of sustainable development is an ethics based on the sustainability deeply reflecting anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism. Considering human’s unitary and long-term benefits, it emphasizes justice of intrageneration and intergeneration, persists in general development of nature, society and economy, respects all livings and pays attention to lives’ qualities.
With the deepening of global procession, our world has gradually become open and united. As an organic integer, everyone must be influenced by ecological deterioration. So how to effectively resolve global environmental crisis will be an emphasis studied by environmental ethics of sustainable development in the future.
[Author's brief introduction] Shuying Sun (1977- ), person of Junan county of Shandong Province, Environment & Planning College of Henan University, a graduate student, research direction: ecological tourism and sustainable development.
References:
[1]Wujun Yin. From the View of Anthropocentrism to Ecological Civilization: Ecological Angle of View of Ecological Culture [J]. Southeast Academic Research, 2001(5), 38~42
[2]Xiaohua Zhu. Affection of Environmental Ethics on Coordinated Growth of Human and Nature [J]. Theoretical Research, 2001(2), 5~7
[3]Hua Fu. Exploration of Ecological Ethics [M]. Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House,2000,7～33,265～274
[4]Zaoling Zhang. Five Cognitions in the Concept of Sustainable Development[J].Guangxi Social Sciences,2001(1),42～45
[5]Zewen Yang. Animal Liberation: A Book Impelling Man to Reflection [J]. Forest & Humankind, 2000(8), 47
[6]Dongping Han. Whether Non-anthropocentrism is Practicable or Not? [J]. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 2001(1), 100～104
[7]Ximeng An. Whose Is the Earth: the Comment on Ecological Ethics of Christianism [J]. Pandect in Dialectics of Nature, 2001,23(5),84～88
[8]Dedong Wei. Ecological Concepts of Buddhism [J]. Social Sciences in China,1999(5),105～206
[9]Aihong Shan, Zhijie Wang. Ethical Thought in Environment of Confucianism and Its Realistic Significance [J]. Theory Journal, 2000(3), 109~112
[10]Yujun Pan, Qingzhong Ming. Environmental Ethics of Sustainable Development [J]. Journal of Yunnan Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) 2002, 34 (5), 20~24
[11]Zuyang Li, Ming Yang. Ethical Thought in Environment in Ancient China [J]. Nankai Journal (Philosophical and Social Sciences Edition), 2001(4), 62~68
[12]Nanlin Wang, Tan Zhu. The Environmental Ethics of Sustainable Development: A New Theory of Environmental Ethics [J]. Nankai Journal (Philosophical and Social Sciences Edition), 2001(4), 69~76
[13]Jun Hu. Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Development: the Reflection of Environmental Ethics [J]. Journal of China University of Mining & Technology (Social Sciences Edition), 2000(2), 16~21
