RESEARCH STARTER

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the philosophical perspective that places human beings at the center of importance in the universe, asserting that human lives hold greater value than those of other species. This viewpoint often leads to the belief that nature has only instrumental value—meaning it is valuable primarily for its utility to humans. Proponents argue that humans possess unique characteristics, such as intelligence, self-awareness, and moral agency, which distinguish them from other living beings. However, anthropocentrism has faced significant criticism, particularly from environmentalists and animal rights advocates, who argue that this mindset contributes to environmental degradation, including pollution and species extinction. Critics also point out that anthropocentrism may lead to a hierarchy among humans, where those lacking certain traits are regarded as less valuable. In response to these challenges, alternative frameworks like deep ecology, biocentrism, and ecocentrism are being proposed, which advocate for intrinsic value in all forms of life. The debate around anthropocentrism underscores the need for a re-evaluation of human relationships with nature and the moral implications of those relationships.

Full Article

DEFINITION: The view that human beings are of central importance in the universe

Some environmentalists believe that anthropocentric attitudes are largely responsible for human actions that have led to environmental calamities such as air and water pollution, species extinction, and global climate change.

For anthropocentrists human lives have greater value than the lives of any other species. Anthropocentrists often point out that humans are the only beings that possess certain capacities. They note that, unlike other animals, humans are typically intelligent, self-aware, autonomous, language users, and moral agents; humans engage in play and make art, among other complex cognitive tasks. For anthropocentrists, only humans are intrinsically valuable. The rest of nature (including all plant and animal species) has only instrumental value—that is, nature serves only as a means to human ends. From the anthropocentric point of view, biodiversity should be preserved only if it is in the interest of humans to preserve it—any duties that human beings have to preserve biodiversity are owed to other humans, not to any other species.

Anthropocentrism is deeply rooted in most human cultures, but this viewpoint has faced increasing challenges from environmental activists, animal rights advocates, and others. Among the major arguments against anthropocentrism is that it is invidiously perfectionist—that is, logically, those humans who do not display all the characteristics that anthropocentrists assert are uniquely human (intelligence, self-awareness, autonomy, and so on) should be viewed as less valuable than those who do. Some environmental philosophers believe that humans must eradicate both anthropocentrism and the related viewpoint of speciesism, replacing them with deep ecology, biocentrism, sentientism (the view that all sentient beings have moral worth), and ecocentrism. The search for a convincing nonanthropocentric foundation for what is valuable in nature is at the center of environmental philosophy.


Bibliography

Boslaugh, Sarah. "Anthropocentrism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/anthropocentrism. Accessed 8 Sept. 2025.

Crist, Eileen, and Helen Kopnina. “Unsettling Anthropocentrism.” Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 38, no. 4, 2014, pp. 387–96. Humanities International Complete, www.jstor.org/stable/43895114. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Droz, Laÿna. "Anthropocentrism As the Scapegoat of the Environmental Crisis: A Review." Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 22, 5 May 2022, pp. 25–49, doi:10.3354/esep00200. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Liu, Alexander, and Sara Jill Unsworth. “Cross-Cultural Differences in Core Concepts of Humans as a Biological Species.” Jour. of Cognition & Culture, vol. 14, no. 3/4, 2014, pp. 171–85. Academic Search Complete. Accessed 14 Jan. 2015.

McIntyre-Mills, Janet Judy. “Anthropocentrism and Well-Being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?” Systems Research & Behavioral Science, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 136–55. Business Source Complete. doi:10.1002/sres.2131. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Nolt, John. “Anthropocentrism and Egoism.” Environmental Values, vol. 22, no. 4, 2013, pp. 441–59. Environment Complete, doi:10.3197/096327113X136907173206. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Oriel, Elizabeth. “Whom Would Animals Designate as Persons? On Avoiding Anthropocentrism and Including Others.” Jour. of Evolution & Technology, vol. 24, no. 3, 2014, pp. 44–49. Academic Search Complete, doi:10.55613/jeet.v24i3.32. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Full Article

DEFINITION: The view that human beings are of central importance in the universe

Some environmentalists believe that anthropocentric attitudes are largely responsible for human actions that have led to environmental calamities such as air and water pollution, species extinction, and global climate change.

For anthropocentrists human lives have greater value than the lives of any other species. Anthropocentrists often point out that humans are the only beings that possess certain capacities. They note that, unlike other animals, humans are typically intelligent, self-aware, autonomous, language users, and moral agents; humans engage in play and make art, among other complex cognitive tasks. For anthropocentrists, only humans are intrinsically valuable. The rest of nature (including all plant and animal species) has only instrumental value—that is, nature serves only as a means to human ends. From the anthropocentric point of view, biodiversity should be preserved only if it is in the interest of humans to preserve it—any duties that human beings have to preserve biodiversity are owed to other humans, not to any other species.

Anthropocentrism is deeply rooted in most human cultures, but this viewpoint has faced increasing challenges from environmental activists, animal rights advocates, and others. Among the major arguments against anthropocentrism is that it is invidiously perfectionist—that is, logically, those humans who do not display all the characteristics that anthropocentrists assert are uniquely human (intelligence, self-awareness, autonomy, and so on) should be viewed as less valuable than those who do. Some environmental philosophers believe that humans must eradicate both anthropocentrism and the related viewpoint of speciesism, replacing them with deep ecology, biocentrism, sentientism (the view that all sentient beings have moral worth), and ecocentrism. The search for a convincing nonanthropocentric foundation for what is valuable in nature is at the center of environmental philosophy.


Bibliography

Boslaugh, Sarah. "Anthropocentrism." Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/anthropocentrism. Accessed 8 Sept. 2025.

Crist, Eileen, and Helen Kopnina. “Unsettling Anthropocentrism.” Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 38, no. 4, 2014, pp. 387–96. Humanities International Complete, www.jstor.org/stable/43895114. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Droz, Laÿna. "Anthropocentrism As the Scapegoat of the Environmental Crisis: A Review." Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, vol. 22, 5 May 2022, pp. 25–49, doi:10.3354/esep00200. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Liu, Alexander, and Sara Jill Unsworth. “Cross-Cultural Differences in Core Concepts of Humans as a Biological Species.” Jour. of Cognition & Culture, vol. 14, no. 3/4, 2014, pp. 171–85. Academic Search Complete. Accessed 14 Jan. 2015.

McIntyre-Mills, Janet Judy. “Anthropocentrism and Well-Being: A Way Out of the Lobster Pot?” Systems Research & Behavioral Science, vol. 30, no. 2, 2013, pp. 136–55. Business Source Complete. doi:10.1002/sres.2131. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Nolt, John. “Anthropocentrism and Egoism.” Environmental Values, vol. 22, no. 4, 2013, pp. 441–59. Environment Complete, doi:10.3197/096327113X136907173206. Accessed 12 July 2024.

Oriel, Elizabeth. “Whom Would Animals Designate as Persons? On Avoiding Anthropocentrism and Including Others.” Jour. of Evolution & Technology, vol. 24, no. 3, 2014, pp. 44–49. Academic Search Complete, doi:10.55613/jeet.v24i3.32. Accessed 12 July 2024.

More Like ThisRelated Articles

Related Articles (4)

Related Articles (4)