I.V.+Counter-Arguments

=Counter-Arguments - Joseph Homer =

= = As there are a multitude of philosophical perspectives that follow a nonanthropocentric line of reasoning, there are, too, those that aim for a critique. S ome of the major philosophers in this arena are Eugene Hargrove and Bryan G. Norton.

Philosopher Overview
Due to the contributions he makes both towards distinguishing intrinsic value from nonanthropocentricism, as well as critiquing each position, Eugene Hargrove is a significant figure in the counter-argument camp to nonanthropocentric environmental theorizing. Hargrove responds to multiple forms of nonanthropocentric frameworks, namely those of objectivist nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theorists and subjectivist nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theorists. It is important to note that his emphasis is on constructing complementary systems that work with nonanthropocentric theories and frameworks, rather than debunking them entirely.

Argument Overview
 Describing the position of the objectivist nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theorists, Hargrove relates, “…Objective nonanthropocentric value theory…is supposed to be independent of and override individual human judgment and…cultural ideals…” (pg.176). In response, Hargrove seeks to point out that not only does such theorizing actually depend on anthropocentrically determined value systems but that weak anthropocentrism can be beneficial and complementary to some of the stated goals of nonanthropocentric theory.

Hargrove asserts that there is an element of anthropocentrism even in proposed nonanthropocentric intrinsic value systems. Using the example of the aliens from the movie __Alien__, Hargrove comments, “…(nonanthropocentric) inherent worth or good of its own…produces a concern and consideration if and only if a human decides (or humans collectively decide) to intrinsically value…” (Pg.180). Thus, he establishes that intrinsic value found in nonhuman items is dependent on human judgment, as we can see in the example of a creature that is a direct and present threat to human beings. The threat then does affect perception of intrinsic value, calling into question the source of this value and reestablishing it as part of the human purview. The good of the animal for itself, then, is a consideration only when it is that it satisfies, as he says, two criteria: “first, the human and all other humans…would have to be safe from the organism” and “second, the creature would have to be in its natural ecosystem” (pg.180). In many cases, one or more of these criteria have already been met, preventing the ethical confusion found in the case of the creatures from the movie __Alien__. (perhaps spell it out directly here, ie, there appear to be no plausible grounds for assigning intrinsic value to an alien creature that embeds itself inside host-humans, and then, upon maturation, erupts violently through the torso thus killing its human host in a most gruesome, blood-spurting manner.) Hargrove also observes that the emphasis on a nonhuman ethical focal point, in the case of nonanthropocentrism, can have a chilling effect on popular understanding of environmental theory. Instead of “defending these values as culturally derived values…[which] will presumably strengthen them,” certain nonanthropocentric theories instead attempt transcendence to a system of values that is supposed to exist independent of cultural (human) values (pg.171). This move will, as Hargrove observes, likely create and reinforce a rift in action that will work in opposition to “a wise long-term environmentalist strategy” (pg.177). So, although a system of values based around nonanthropocentric considerations may be plausible, it is important to consider also the implications on popular discourse and action. (ok, good and perhaps provide some of the reasons that Hargrove gives for thinking that locating environmental values transcendentally will undermine environmental objectives).

Finally, nice job here but... this page should really be a general summary/synthesis of the most often - or most compelling - counter arguments to non-apc along with any comments you may have about these counter-arguments. Specifics on a given philosopher should be confined to the relevant philosopher page.

Links to Philosopher Page: Eugene Hargrove
**Bryan G. Norton **

Philosopher Overview
In his essay “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism,” Bryan G. Norton explores the means by which effective change can be made in attitudes towards the environment. Considering both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric techniques, he comes to the conclusion that anthropocentric approaches (albeit weak ones) are more effective in appealing to human tendencies, and consequently prove more able to achieve the stated ends of environmentalism. 

Argument Overview
Norton echoes Hargrove in the discussion of the importance of an ethical system that appeals at a popular level by considering how alternate interpretations can yield similar results. Like Hargrove, Norton reminds us of the necessity of “…avoiding difficult-to-defend references to the intrinsic value of nonhuman natural objects…”(pg.169). Although he does not provide us with a lot of detail in the way of elaborating on this point (ok, but based on other readings in the anthology what is he most likely getting at here? ie - do other philosophers address this issue of hard to defend IV?), Norton does go as far as to say that there are other ways in which to achieve a certain degree of environmental action on the popular level that do not require theories which lay-person will find difficult to understand and accept. Referring to the ideal of harmony with nature, Norton observes that “such an ideal need not attribute intrinsic value to natural objects, nor need the prohibitions implied by it be justified with nonanthropocentric reasoning..." (Pg.165). Here, Norton makes the claim that nonanthropocentrism is an unnecessary means by which to achieve the end of environmental consciousness. Instead, as he points out, there are anthropocentric avenues by which we can come to that same thing. (such as??) Further, if one were to apply Ockham's razor to most effectively achieve an end, Norton believes that nonanthropocentric appeals would lose out to anthropocentric ones. <span style="background-color: rgb(0, 255, 0);">(how? in what sense?)

<span style="background-color: rgb(0, 255, 0); font-size: 10.4pt;">This section on Norton should really be added to the Norton page...!

<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">Links to Philosopher Page: Bryan Norton
<span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive; color: rgb(0, 128, 128); text-align: right; display: block;">