Article Title：Taking humanism seriously: Obligatory'' Anthropocentrism
Abstract：
Humanism - in the sense that humans alone have moral standing, or else a surpassing degree of it - has traditionally dominated all of ethical discourse. However, its past formulations have succumbed to the temptation merely to stipulate such a criterion, such as rationality, which nonhumans are often deemed (without sufficient argument) to fail without exception. Animal liberationist arguments do exist in counterpoint to traditional humanism, but one current difficulty seems to be a simple clash of basic assumptions, with an indecisive result. Although the author of this paper is a nonanthropocentrist, he attempts to further the moral theoretical debate by constructing a more powerful version of humanism, based in a pursuit of the good, per se. The theory is premised upon viewing humans as generally having and leading lives of greater value, in some relevant sense. This essay prefigures the author's refutation of humanism, more generally, in the understanding that such a world view cannot truly be refuted unless its best version is answered. Whatever the status of this paper's offering of ``Obligatory'' Anthropocentrism, the theory can be seen to have a great deal more success than its predecessors in parrying, and apparently outdoing, contemporary animal liberationist philosophies.
Keywords: animal rights; anthropocentrism; empathy; environmental ethics; ethics; humanism
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009507315999
Source：JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Welcome to correct the error, please contact email: humanisticspider@gmail.com
