Biocentrism is a simple concept that all living things can be considered equally important and need to be treated with ethics and fairness. In all its angles, let’s consider the question: Has Biocentrism been disproved?
For many Biocentrism is a not-so-new but much more refined view for understanding the universe. Other people struggle to understand it. In the past, various people have developed various arguments for as well as against the biocentrism ethical system. It is true that philosophical and scientific examination has revealed that the theory is prone to errors and lacks evidence from the empirical However, is it possible to debunk Biocentrism?
In this article, we attempt to understand Biocentrism, and look at its origins, strengths and weaknesses, as well as criticisms. The most important thing is that we point out its benefits for you as a conscious citizen of the planet.
What exactly is Biocentrism Theory?
Biocentrism Debunked
Simply put Biocentrism asserts that all living creatures on earth are equal. Thus, we must consider all living things equally. The term “biocentrism” is derived from two Greek words “bio” meaning life and ‘kentron’ meaning the center.
Biocentrism is a way to address issues such as the self-preservation right of all living forms, as well as the moral obligation that all living things have.
To understand the concept of Biocentrism, we’ll take a review of the following terms.
Environmental Ethics
This discipline of philosophy examines the connection between humans and their environment from the ethical and moral point of view. It tries to figure out how to best engage with the natural world.
There are a myriad of different schools of thought in the field of the ethics of environmental protection and Biocentrism is just one of them.
Moral Standing
Moral standing refers to the status of a person or entity that allows it to consideration for morality over other entities. That is, if an entity is morally sound it’s well-being must be considered by all other entities.
Moral standing means that an entity has intrinsic value. This means that it is worth something on its own and not just because of its functions.
In the field of environmental ethics There have been numerous attempts to define a standard for how to determine what companies are morally reputable and what doesn’t.
Biocentrism affirms it is that the life of an organism itself constitutes the sole non-arbitrary criteria for the determination of intrinsic worth and determining moral standing for an entity. So, all living creatures including non-sentient life forms, should be given an ethical consideration.
Biocentrism is a philosophical position that defends the ethical stance by presenting a variety of ideas. One of them is the teleological notion that each living thing is born with its own purposes And having this goal is a sign of moral value.
Another tenet of Biocentrism is that living things and consciousness form the world that we experience. It is heavily based on the theory of observer-effects in quantum mechanics to prove this concept. Therefore, in the view of Biocentrism, our perception of time and space are simply tools of understanding for animals and are not part of the realm of the mind.
Biocentrism implies that human life is not less or more valuable than other living thing. A roadside weed enjoys exactly the same right as you do when you decide on their health.
Biocentric ethics proposes four main guidelines that humans must adhere to when they interact with other living things.
Non-maleficence
Human beings are not to harm living creatures either in any way, whether directly or indirectly.
Non-interference
Humans are not to interfere with the pursuit of its goals whether by interfering, limiting the process, redirecting it, or speeding it.
Fidelity
It is not acceptable to manipulate or exploit, or make use of other living things in order to satisfy the needs of humans.
Justice in the restitutive sense
If living creatures are accidentally caused harm by human activity An action of restitutive justice must be taken to restore moral and ethical equilibrium.
Biocentrism is akin to. Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism
Biocentrism declares itself to be the complete opposite of anthropocentrism, which is a human-centered ethical system. Anthropocentrism believes that humans are separate and as superior to all the animal and plant life. This perspective permits for the use of nature for the benefit of humanity.
One of the flaws that people have attributed to anthropocentrism is that it focuses exclusively on human beings living in the present with no consideration for the next generation. A prime example is the unsustainable use of finite resources such as petroleum.
A school of thinking that is known as humanistic anthropocentrism that is enlightened agrees that we have a responsibility to the natural environment. However, this obligation is not for any intrinsic reason it’s for the negative impact that pollution has on other human beings.
Biocentrism is in opposition to Ecocentrism
Ecocentrism promotes moral value to living organisms as well as natural non-living entities like mountains, soils and water bodies. It emphasizes the wellbeing of ecological systems, such as ecosystems as well as species and habitats. It’s also known as eco-holism.
Giving moral consideration to non-living objects is among the most fundamental aspects of ecocentrism which differentiates it from Biocentrism.
Biocentrism concentrates on individualism. It is a mental construct that it does not place more importance on one person than one. In contrast ecocentrism puts the survival of species and ecosystems over individuals.
From the perspective of ecology It is accepted to eliminate a single person if its existence is threatening the future of the whole species. Aldo the land ethic of Leopold is among the most significant ethics in ecocentric philosophy.
The History of Biocentrism
Biocentrism
In the latter half of the twenty-first century Western philosophical theories systematically dealt with the concept of biocentric ethics. This development can be traced back to the growth of morality as a means of addressing the pressing environmental problems.
Environmental philosophers advocated for expanding moral responsibilities to include animals such as plants, later ecosystems and other ecosystems. Thus, Biocentrism was born as one of the positions that environmental ethicists take.
But biocentric ideas have been present for many years in a variety of religions. In numerous Native American traditions, there is a profound reverence for the natural world. They hold a view of the world that holds living things and natural objects sacred.
The first Buddhist ethics is to refrain from killing or harming living things. Saint Francis from Assisi believed in a biocentric ethos by preaching to animals and giving great attention to plants. The biocentric nature of his theology has led many think of him as one of the saints who protect the environment.
The 18th as well as 19th century, the Romantic movement pushed the notion that nature had intrinsic worth. This reverence for nature stood in sharp contrast to the instrumentalist view of nature during that time.
Some of the most prominent proponents of Biocentrism
Biocentrism
Albert Schweitzer
Schweitzer was a 19th-century philosopher who is credited for creating the term “reverence for life. The phrase came drawn from his book Philosophy of Civilization 2. which was written in 1923.
He believed that this was the most appropriate way to look at the existence of all living creatures. He believed that life itself is the most important element in determining the moral worth.
While he did not employ the term ‘biocentrism’, the idea was that every living thing, not only humans, ought to be of moral significance. He believed that it was crucial for the survival of the civilization.
Paul Taylor
The year 1986 was when Taylor in 1986, Taylor Respect for Nature the book which may be the most scathing defence of the biocentrism hypothesis 1.. In his arguments his argument, he argued that the fact that you are alive is enough to determine moral status since all living creatures strive to achieve their own goals.
Taylor created four fundamental premise to support Biocentrism:
- Humans are part of the living community on earth just as other species are.
- Earth’s community is an intricate web of interdependent members.
- Each living thing is at the heart of existence since it has a reason for existence and is therefore intrinsically important.
- The notion that a human can be superior, or even more important against other creatures is the result of an humanist bias.
Robert Lanza
Lanza an eminent research scientist in stem cells is among the leading biocentrism voices today. He has been credited for formulating the concept of biocentric universes in the year 2007. He has published two books about the theory thus far.
Within the course of his biocentrism concept, He lays out on the biocentric idea of consciousness and existence. He posits Biocentrism as the theory that explains the universe and everything that is.
He believed that consciousness and life create the universe and not and vice versa, which is widely accepted. The ability to observe the flow of time by a conscious observer is the basis for the flow of time observed by the person who is watching.
Biocentric ethics and its criticisms
Biocentric ethics
There is no ethics without criticism. The criticisms that are made can improve concepts and eventually make them universally accepted.
Below are some suggestions that critics have provided to discredit Biocentrism.
The real-world application of biocentric rules
One of the main criticisms against Biocentrism is that its rules are excessively demanding. For example, critics contend that observing the principle of non-maleficence is a strict requirement that the human being isn’t allowed to eat that would require killing both animals and plants.
Based on a biocentric perspective it is the moral dilemma. Since humans have a fundamental objective of survival for the reason that eating food is essential and a biocentrist should avoid taking the life of another living creature.
Define all goals as well
According to Teleology, all living things strive to achieve their goals using specific methods. Biocentrism believes that pursuing these objectives is the very essence of living and is what defines each living creature’s goodness and moral value.
Some critics have expressed disapproval of the idea that every purpose is intrinsically beneficial. If a disease is pursuing its goal of thriving and eventually kills all species, what’s “good” in this?
The idea that living things exist for its own benefit and not for the benefit of others has yet to be established beyond with any reasonable doubt.
Interference with other systems can also cause harm.
One of the tenets in biocentrism calls for humans to not interfere with other living organisms. In certain situations, this could lead to the recipe for destruction when the ecosystem’s health is at stake.
For example an invasive species flourishing within its native habitat can threaten native plant life that can’t thrive elsewhere. Could that be a valid motive to harm and defend the native species?
The complex nature of life and consciousness
Biocentrism asserts that time and space exist because conscious minds observe it. However, this idea is extremely controversial since consciousness itself while a vital aspect of existence remains a major mystery.
In accordance with The Big Bang theory, the universe was in existence for millions of years prior to the time that consciousness was born. Furthermore, verified data from theory of physics and cosmology prove that the existence of the universe is not dependent on observation.
What can we learn from biocentric ethics?
Biocentric ethics
Biocentrism has been disproved and it is impossible to follow this ethical code completely. There are many things opportunities to gain knowledge about our surroundings through a flexible biocentric approach.
Each and every day is a gift with intrinsic value.
The interdependence between life forms is evident in their unique importance. The way you view that value is determined by your relationship with nature. The most sustainable way of the value of nature is one of gratitude and respect.
Values placed on the existence of all living things will allow us to become advocates of the natural world. The act of caring for the creatures around us simply because they are here and not based on how valuable it is really noble. The causes for conservation of habitat, animal welfare conservation and circular economics will be more appealing for those who have an unwavering respect for the world around us.
Human beings act as Stewards not superiors.
In reality, most humans consider themselves to be the centre of the universe. They are the first and the rest of life forms are a step behind. A sense of superiority that is over the top has resulted in a view of nature as a an elemental material that can be used to meet the needs of humans. A soaring consumption of natural resources is the result.
Biocentrism implies that humans strive to be as equal to other living species that live interdependently. As we depend on nature for our survival and thrive, nature depends on us to take care for it.
We need to protect our natural environment.
Biocentrism is a way of ensuring that human interests shouldn’t overshadow an environmental issue. But, a variety of human actions can be directly and indirectly accountable for damage to billions of living organisms every day.
Being aware of how your actions could affect other living creatures helps you make better choices. You can lower waste and pollution and avoid being linked to animal cruelty.
What is Biocentrism Science?
The response of the scientific community to Biocentrism has been one of curiosity and doubt. Although it is an intriguing concept of the world however, there is a strong argument that it is a significant departure from the established scientific paradigm.
The most popular theories of science generally stem from solid physical evidence, and produce anticipated, valid predictions that are testable. Based on these principles Biocentrism is a weak argument since it has only limited evidence from the empirical and only a handful of testable theories.
A major obstacle is the Biocentrism’s resentment against conventional physical theories. The theories that have been established are constructed on the foundation of a universe that is independent of human beings or any biological evidence.
The biocentric view – which suggests that the existence of the universe is dependent on living things – is a significant departure from the commonly accepted view.
The scientific community demands certain predictions that are repeatedly tested and independently under the scientific protocols that validate Biocentrism.
The absence of tangible scientific proof keeps Biocentrism in the realm of speculation. Biocentrism is, therefore, an intriguing concept shift, it’s much more of a philosophical idea. In this sense, it is not able to be able to meet the demands of science.
Conclusion The question is: Is Biocentrism being questioned?
Biocentrism gives moral consideration to all living things sentient or otherwise. It advocates for animal rights as well as the rights of plants. But, as with any philosophical theory there are loopholes. Why should you debate Biocentrism? We should instead learn from it.
If you are a believer or not the biocentric ethic, it is important to admit that it enables humans to reconsider their relationship to nature. The idea of being part of nature rather than an individual is an ideal that can help correct negative attitudes.