EXTENSION AND OBFUSCATION: TWO CONTRASTING ATTITUDES TO THE MORAL BOUNDARY

At the dawn of environmental philosophy, Asian thought, especially Japanese thought, was expected to be a plentiful source of inspiration to improve the relationship between human beings and nature. However, the influence of Asian thought upon environmental philosophy seems to be very limited, or remains superficial. Concepts and theories in this field are almost all Western, while genuine Asian concepts and theories hardly appear outside studies about particular Asian cases. This paper compares the modern, Western, environmental mind and the natural thought found in Japanese culture. Through this comparison, we see the characteristics of both more clearly, in terms of advantages and limitations. To this end, this paper, firstly, analyzes the concept of anthropocentrism, secondly, shows how Western environmentalism attempts to overcome anthropocentrism, and thirdly, considers anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism in Japanese culture. I. Three Types of Anthropocentrism Criticism and defense of anthropocentrism frequently appear in studies of environmental philosophy. Some researchers have become wearied by repeated disputes about anthropocentrism and turned their attention to more practical fields. Environmental pragmatists in particular “resist the dominant trend to homogenize environmental philosophy” and “cannot tolerate theoretical delays to the contribution that philosophy may make to environmental questions.” Indeed, it is unclear how philosophic researchers can contribute toward the solution of environmental issues. This paper does not aim for the homogenization of environmental philosophy, either. However, for the further development of comparative environmental philosophy, analyzing the concept of anthropocentrism more precisely has great significance. This task might not contribute toward policy making directly, but it could better clarify our view on our relationships with nature. 1. Anthropocentrism I and Non-anthropocentrism I There are three types of anthropocentrism: The first type, anthropocentrism, means that Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies 44 (2012), pp.21-33. C Hitotsubashi University * Graduate School of Social Sciences, Hitotubashi University, Japan. Email: kumasaka.motohiro@gmail.com 1 Andrew Light and Eric Katz, “Introduction: Environmental Pragmatism and Environmental Ethics as Contested Terrain,” in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Andrew Light and Eric Katz (London: Routledge, 1996), 4. the world is made for human beings or exists to be used by human beings. In the epochmaking essay “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Lynn White Jr. stated that this kind of anthropocentrism in Christianity is the underlying cause of the modern environmental crisis. Non-anthropocentrism regards the world as made not only for human beings but also for other beings, or existing for no reason. Anthropocentrism might be regarded as a religious anthropocentrism. 2. Anthropocentrism II and Non-anthropocentrism II In the studies of applied ethics, principally in environmental ethics, the second type of anthropocentrism is typically used. Anthropocentrism is an ethical type of anthropocentrism. In the framework of anthropocentrism, only human beings are moral objects. Non-human beings are not granted membership of the moral community; humans have responsibility “for” nature, but not “to” nature. In other words, non-human beings have instrumental, but not intrinsic value. Although legal systems can be extremely anthropocentric, and theoretically a perfectly non-anthropocentric society could exist, it is difficult to imagine an individual or a group that behaves either totally anthropocentrically or totally non-anthropocentrically. 3. Anthropocentrism III and Non-anthropocentrism III Anthropocentrism is also an ethical concept, or more precisely speaking, a meta-ethical and axiological concept. This idea claims that the source of values lies in the valuations of valuers, namely human beings. Anthropocentrism is used in this paper as a synonym of subjectivism. Non-anthropocentrism is the idea that there are values that exist independently of individual judgment. The arguments about this type of anthropocentrism have a close relationship with the arguments about the concept of intrinsic value. Anthropocentrism might be confused with the attitude that regards nature as having only instrumental value for human beings, but this would be an incorrect association. To acknowledge human beings as the source of all values does not necessarily require one to regard nature only as natural resources, nor does it hinder one from admitting the intrinsic value of nature. Even for anthropocentrists, it is obvious that water is valuable for animals and plants, even if those animals and plants are totally useless species for human beings and for the stability of local and global ecosystems. Filthy soil can be harmful to human health, but at the same time, it is an indispensable habitat for many types of organisms. In nature, there are certainly values relevant for other beings, but not for humans. However, we can think about the values for non-human beings only if we comprehend what is valuable for them through scientific research, reasoning, and empathy. If there are values we cannot recognize at all, no HITOTSUBASHI JOURNAL OF SOCIAL STUDIES [December 22 2 See, Lynn White Jr., “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis,” Science 155 (March 1967): 1203-07. 3 Passmore made the difference between “responsibility for nature” and “responsibility to nature.” See, John Passmore, Man’s Responsibility for Nature, Ecological Problems and Western Traditions, 2nd ed. (London: Duckworth, 1980), xii. 4 Intrinsic value also has several meanings and is a very confusing concept. In this paper, intrinsic value is always used as a non-instrumental value. For further analysis of the concept of intrinsic value, see, John OʼNeil, Ecology, Policy and Politics: Human Well-being and the Natural World (London: Routledge, 1993), 8-25; Paul W. Taylor, Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 71-80. matter how valuable they are, they will not merit our consideration. Value does not have to be for human beings, but it has to be understandable for human beings. Every value we can consider has its source in the value systems of human beings in this sense. In other words, the idea of anthropocentrism cannot consider values beyond human understanding, although it does not deny the possibility that the existence of a non-instrumental value of nature can be proved in an understandable way for humans. Therefore, the concept of non-instrumental values is compatible with anthropocentrism. Non-anthropocentrism is the idea that there are values in nature beyond our understanding that we should protect or promote. For example, if you want to protect nature principally and primarily for the sake of Godʼs will, regardless of whether we fully understand why it is valuable, your attitude can be called non-anthropocentric . Contrary to the case of anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism, anthropocentrism is compatible with secular environmental thought, while non-anthropocentrism might be regarded as a religious belief. As mentioned above, anthropocentrism does not mean that one must regard nature only as natural resources, nor does it mean one is hindered from admitting the intrinsic value of nature in theory, but it is still not easy for anthropocentrists to identify the intrinsic value of nature. Intrinsic value is usually expected to be defined as value that is independent from the interest of human beings, but it is a difficult task to define such value without a neutral observer beyond human beings. We will return to this problem later. Now, we have seen three types of anthropocentrism and the correspondent types of nonanthropocentrism above. Each type of anthropocentrism can be combined with other types of anthropocentrism or non-anthropocentrism. In the following sections, we will take a general view of Western environmentalism and Japanese natural thought, and consider how both are constructed. There are a number of theories in environmental philosophy. The character of Japanese culture also varies depending on the region and the time period. Furthermore, Japanese culture is a blend of several religions and philosophies, e.g. Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Taoism, and other local cultures. Their attitudes to nature vary greatly. If we simplify Western environmental philosophy and Japanese culture down to two monotone units, or arbitrarily choose some of their features when we make comparisons between them, we will miss the richness in both and the meaning of the comparison will be diminished. However, through the analysis of the anthropocentrisms/non-anthropocentrisms that they contain, we can see there are remarkable differences between the Western environmental mind and Japanese natural thought regarding the human-nature relationship. II. Extension: The Western Strategy to Overcome Anthropocentrism Although Western environmentalism varies widely, most environmental theories and practices seem to consist of non-anthropocentrism and non-anthropocentrism, aside from stewardship, which consists of anthropocentrism and anthropocentrism . Most Western environmentalists deny that the world is made for human beings, and claim that certain or all beings are moral objects in their own right. Another common element seen in much Western environmental thought is the frequent mention of “extension” or its synonyms. As Lynn White pointed out, mainstream Christianity, which is one of the foundations of Western culture, EXTENSION AND OBFUSCATION: TWO CONTRASTING ATTITUDES TO THE MORAL BOUNDARY 2012] 23