Anthropocentrism: This
is routinely defined as:1.Regarding
human beings as the central element of the universe. 2.Interpreting reality
exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
It is worthwhile to compare this definition with Ethnocentrism, which is usually
defined as:
1.Belief in the
superiority of one's own ethnic group.
2.Overriding
concern with race.
Anthropocentrism
can then also be redefined as: Belief in the superiority of one’s own species.
(sometimes referred to as Speciesism, Human Chauvinism, Spiritual humanism,
Secular humanism)
Human
Supremacy myth: the
conviction that human beings as a species or group, are superior in value to all
other life, based upon arbitrary or subjective criteria conveniently determined
by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination.
Anthropocentric
myopia: This may be defined as the condition demonstrated when the ethical and practical
arguments used in an attempt to ethically justify the harm caused to non humans,
fail to address and counter the effects these very same arguments would have if
applied fairly and equally to situations involving humans.(Weebler's note: it is my experience that countering and criticizing
any anti-animal rights argument along this line guarantees that your opponent
will be unable to respond effectively. Example:"Native/First
Nations people
have been trapping, whaling, and hunting for centuries--who is to say that
Europeans have the right to criticize what they do?"To
effectively negate this attack, simply point out that Native people had
also practiced human sacrifice, infanticide, and human slavery for centuries
before European colonialism---if they decided to resume these practices would it be correct to
criticize them for doing so? If yes, then the issue becomes one of showing why
human beings deserve special consideration and exemption, while non human beings
do not. If the answer is no (a very unlikely scenario), then the issue becomes
one of why non native/first nations peoples would still be restricted from engaging in infanticide,
human sacrifice or human slavery themselves. Is one group of humans superior to
another group? If not--then a harmonization of one's ethical conduct towards
others would be a necessity to avoid social chaos(i.e. people deciding to
discriminate according to race, religion, gender--as some already do). Essentially, Anthropocentric Myopia
points out that no one lives in a vacuum. Any attempt to excuse human beings
from the equation results in a blatant flaw in one's ethical philosophy and
system. It is also very beneficial for an animal activist to learn
how not to take the concept of human rights (as well as the Human
Supremacy myth) for granted. The notion of
universal, inalienable human rights is a recent phenomena, dating back
approximately 200 years. Prior to that there were certain preconditions to moral
value (whether you were male, believed in the particular deity, what language
you spoke, how much money you had etc.). Even today there are constant reminders
of how arbitrary and fragile the concept of human rights is--when one observes
how frequently these alleged rights are violated or ignored--even by countries
that claim to believe in them. I do not mention this to disown the concept of
human rights; on the contrary, the fact that human rights are just as fragile as
non human rights should serve as an incentive to be fair to all victims of
discrimination. To be consistent, you cannot have one
without the other, and any effort to justify discrimination against one
group--leaves the door open for someone else to discriminate along their own
arbitrary, subjective measure of designating moral value and worth.)
For more on debunking arguments involving First nations subsistence lifestyles
see the Misc. section.
Six
factors that fuel opposition to animal rights/ecological concerns:
1)
fear: of the unknown, or Nature, of death. Some people feel that by believing
they are superior in value to others, it makes them feel more secure about
themselves. Others witness the violence in Nature, and do not want to be
regarded as a part of that reality.
2) ignorance: either they haven't thought about these issues--or they
refuse to, in order to avoid confronting unpleasantness, or a shake up to their
accepted world view.
3) laziness: Some people are not insensitive to the causes, but just
don't find the time or motivation to change.
4) greed: they make money or gain some comfort from a form of
exploitation (or the by-products of it) so they don't want to change
that. 5)sadism: they get pleasure from causing suffering.
6)arrogance:
some people enjoy feeling superior to others, and treating them that
way.