Hi everybody,

 From time to time we've had some discussion on the list of various
papers that address fundamental issues in environmental philosophy.
Here's one that I thought might spark some interest:

William Grey. 1993.  "Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology."
Australiasian Journal of Philosophy, 71(4): 463-475.

The full article is available on the web at:

http://www.uq.edu.au/~pdwgrey/pubs/anthropocentrism.html

In the article Grey argues that "allegedly non-anthropocentric points
of view incorporate a covert anthropocentrism," and he cites some
representative examples from the biocentric/deep ecology literature
that illustrate "the inevitability of anthropocentrism."  From there
Grey concludes that anthropocentrism is "not necessarily something to
be deplored."  He has some interesting things to say on the topic of
future generations and on the significance of the planet's
evolutionary history for environmental ethics.

Here's the abstract and a couple of excerpts:

ABSTRACT:
         "A predominant theme in environmental philosophy is the
claim that we need to correct an anthropocentric bias in our
attitudes to the nonhuman world, and in particular to extend moral
concern across time and across species. This is the central claim of
'deep ecology', which maintains that the uncritical acceptance of
anthropocentric values has abetted reprehensible practices with
respect to the nonhuman world. In this paper I argue this central
claim of deep ecology' is mistaken and provide a defence of qualified
anthropocentrism."

Grey writes:

        "A great deal of hyperbole has been deployed in articulating
the claims of deep ecology. It is common, for example, to encounter
claims that destructive human activity-and in particular human
technology-is threatening life on the planet; that we are disrupting
the delicate fabric of the ecosphere, and driving it towards
collapse. Such claims are exaggerated. There have been far more
traumatic disruptions to the planet than any we can initiate. From a
long-term planetary perspective, this is alarmist nonsense. However
from an anthropocentric point of view such fears may be well founded."

        "My aim however is not to bury anthropocentrism, but to
defend it, at least in a qualified form. My claim is that if we
attempt to step too far outside the scale of the recognizably human,
rather than expanding and enriching our moral horizons we render them
meaningless, or at least almost unrecognizable. The grand perspective
of evolutionary biology provides a reductio ad absurdum of the
cluster of non-anthropocentric ethics which can be found under the
label 'deep ecology'. What deep ecology seeks to promote, and what
deep ecologists seek to condemn, needs to be articulated from a
distinctively human perspective. And this is more than the trivial
claim that our perspectives, values and judgements are necessarily
human perspectives, values and judgements. Within the moral world we
do occupy a privileged position."

Jim here:  Just thought I'd pass this along to the list, especially
since it's been so quiet of late.

Jim T.