a distinction can be made here between SOURCES and ENDS of valuation. as
i understand it (and certainly as it can be understood), 'anthropocentric'
refers not to the source, but the end of valuations--such that, sure,
human beings are making the valuations (remaining agnostic on the
subjectivity/objectivity question), but there is an option in deciding
where to direct the ends of values--that is, our ends can be
human-centered or they can expand the species boundary. callicott's
distinction between 'anthropoGENIC' and 'anthroCENTRIC' makes perfect
sense, where the former is the seemingly indisputable 'human-centeredness'
that refers to the sources of valuation, and the latter refers to the
condemnable human-centeredness in our chosen ends of valuation (i'm not
sure if callicott first made this distinction). in short, there is no
problem with ideals of non-anthropocentrism.
-aaron
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|