The issue of anthropocentrism in ethics

Criticism against “anthropocentrism” has become frequent in recent bioethical literature, especially after the increasing favor enjoyed by animal ethics and environmental ethics. In an action there is usually an acting subject and an object that is affected by the action. Moral responsibility only concerns the subject and it is clear that only subjects endowed with the capability of understanding and deciding can be morally responsible. In this world only humans have such capability; therefore, only man is a moral subject and can have duties in a proper sense. These duties regard man's conduct towards the object of an action, and ‘traditional ethics’ distinguished duties towards God, oneself and others (therefore not only man was the object of moral duties). In ethics a reciprocity’ between duties and rights is often recognized: one has a duty towards someone which has the right to receive a certain treatment and is in principle morally obliged to reciprocate this treatment. The concept of responsibility, however does not entail reciprocity: we may be responsible towards beings that do not have the same duties towards us. In such a way it is ethically right to admit that we have duties also towards animals, environment, future generations, that have no rights in a strict sense, and cannot reciprocate our care for them, We can say that, in this sense, man is not the only ‘moral object’ (i.e. the object of moral duties). This position is even better expressed through the moral category of respect. In this perspective it is possible to recognize to man a particularly high position in the ‘ontological hierarchy’ of the existing beings, without making of it the only morally relevant object. This amounts to the imperative not to destroy or damage any form of existence without an adequate reason, and this is why not whatever interest of man can morally justify damaging other forms of existence, but only according to a reasonable judgment of necessity and proportionality.