Skip to main content

Biocentrism

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics
  • 188 Accesses

Abstract

The orthodox approach to the environment and its inhabitants is deemed to be anthropocentric in that it recognises the moral standing of human beings alone, and as such other beings are given at the most indirect moral consideration when their interests conflict with the interests of humans. However, many global environmental problems and worldwide practices directly affect not just human beings but many other creatures too. In the light of this, the anthropocentric approach has been accused by some philosophers of being too narrowly focused on human interests to creditably account for the true extent of our moral obligations. This article provides a conceptual outline of biocentrism as an alternative approach to ethics; one which widens the moral scope to include all living beings as candidates deserving moral consideration. The article also discusses how this approach might be applied to contemporary ethical issues which are international in their dimension, including environmental issues, as well as issues concerning our use of animals in worldwide human practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Attfield, R. (1994). The good of trees. In R. Attfield (Ed.), Environmental philosophy: Principles and prospects. Aldershot: Avebury (Originally published, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Attfield, R. (2014). Environmental ethics: An overview for the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK/Malden: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. (2000). Silent spring. London: Penguin Classics (Originally published 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane, A. (2007). Environmental ethics. In Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://www.iep.utm.edu/envi-eth. Accessed 24 July 2014.

  • Ehrlich, P. (1968). The population bomb. New York: Ballantine Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, J. (1974). The rights of animals and unborn generations. In W. T. Blackstone (Ed.), Philosophy and environmental crisis (pp. 43–68). Athens: University of Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. (1978). On being morally considerable. Journal of Philosophy, 75, 308–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naess, A. (1973). The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. Inquiry, 16(1), 95–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (2003). The case for animal rights. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press (Originally published 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodogno, R. (2010). Sentientism, wellbeing, and environmentalism. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 27(1), 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, D. (1983). Anthropocentrism, atomism, and environmental ethics. In D. Scherer & T. Attig (Eds.), Ethics and the environment. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation (2nd ed.). London: Pimlico Press (Originally published 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterba, J. P. (2010). Kantians and utilititarians and the moral status of nonhuman life. In D. R. Keller (Ed.), Environmental ethics: The big questions (pp. 182–192). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (Originally published 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, R. (1973). Is there a need for a new, an environmental ethic? In Proceedings of the 15th World congress of philosophy (Vol. 1, pp. 205–210). Sophia: Sophia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for nature: A theory of environmental ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Further Reading

  • Agar, N. (2001). Life’s intrinsic value: Science, ethics, and nature. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attfield, R. (Ed.). (2008). The ethics of the environment. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, A., & Lo, Y. (2011). Environmental ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2011/entries/ethics-environmental.

  • Varner, G. (2002). Biocentric individualism. In D. Schmidtz & E. Willott (Eds.), Environmental ethics: What really matters, what really works (pp. 108–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rebekah Humphreys .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Humphreys, R. (2014). Biocentrism. In: ten Have, H. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_41-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_41-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05544-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics