Biocentric equality is based on the denial of anthropocentrism - the thesis that all value must be ultimately grounded in value for humans.
It seems that a universe without human-like beings is a world without the concepts of good and bad, right and wrong. The 'law of the jungle'
makes no provision for ethics. Predation of the weak and helpless by the strong, even the occasional acts of cannibalism of parents destroying ©
their young, are not wrong in a pure state of nature. Callicott writes 'there 3-
is no value without a valuer,' and humans and human-like beings are ^
the only valuers in the abstract sense of evaluation in relation to ethics.2 b
But, as Callicott also observes, from that we are the only valuers, it does o o not follow that humans are solely the locus of all value.3
Biocentric equality might mean several different positions. One might
¡2 begin, like Taylor, and identify each living thing as an individual and o x then argue that each has equal value.4 The holistic position of Leopold's
"o land ethic begins with the ecosystem. Individuals have value only in a secondary sense based on their participation in the system. We are then a equal to the rivers, trees, and birds, in that our value also depends on
"5 our relation to the system. Again, to quote Callicott, the land ethic is
Was this article helpful?