Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection

Environmental ethicists have always emphasized a major emphasis on discussing whether human - centric or non - human - centric theory provides a more appropriate means to defend the environment. This paper argues that philosophers, scientists, and policy makers should pay more attention to certain types of humanity centrality. Although these human-centered indirect discussions (AIA) protect environmentally sound behavior or policies, they are policies based on beneficial effects on humans (eg new work, cost reduction, stronger community) Respectively. It is caused by its environmental benefits. AIA seems to have many attractive features and those weaknesses do not provide compelling reasons to avoid them. To clarify these arguments seems to suggest that social scientists and philosophers will study the various aspects of the ethical and effective use of AIA and how much they will increase or decrease public support for environmental protection It should prompt.

Hayward (1997) argues that the term human-centered is liable to be misused as a criticism of the whole human being, which is counterproductive and even hate even environmental protection. The Hayward argument is reflected in the broader literature dealing with human institutional and environmental damage and protection issues, which will be discussed in this paper. In the next section, we outline Hayward's argument and argue. We believe that attempts to rework Hayward's definition of humanism centricity only mean compassion for human beings and humans, and we believe that this definition contradicts its long-term general meaning. On the contrary, we believe that the distinction between legitimate and illegal anthropocentrisis is useless, and in essence humanity centrality supports Utilitarian assertions.

Environmental ethicists have always emphasized a major emphasis on discussing whether human - centric or non - human - centric theory provides a more appropriate means to defend the environment. This paper argues that philosophers, scientists, and policy makers should pay more attention to certain types of humanity centrality. Although these human-centered indirect discussions (AIA) protect environmentally sound behavior or policies, they are policies based on beneficial effects on humans (eg new work, cost reduction, stronger community) Respectively. It is caused by its environmental benefits. AIA seems to have many attractive features and those weaknesses do not provide compelling reasons to avoid them.