In this article we focus upon a division between generalized schools of philosophical and ethical thought about culture and conservation. There is an ongoing debate playing out over conservation between those who believe conservation threatens community livelihoods and traditional practices, and those who believe conservation is essential to protect nonhuman species from the impact of human development and population growth. We argue for reconciliation between these schools of thought and a cooperative push toward the cultivation of an environmentally-focused perspective that embraces not only social and economic justice but also concern for non-human species. Our goal is to underline the ethics and tangible benefits that may result from combining the cultural data and knowledge of the social sciences with understanding of environmental science and conservation. We highlight instances in which social scientists overlook their own anthropocentric bias in relationship to ecological justice, or justice for all species, in favor of exclusive social justice among people. We focus on the polemical stances of this debate in order to emphasize the importance of a middle road of cooperation that acknowledges the rights of human and nonhuman species, alike. In conclusion, we present an alternative set of ethics and research activities for social scientists concerned with conservation and offer ideas on how to reconcile the conflicting interests of people and the environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.01.030 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
With the emergence of education for sustainable development (ESD), robust literature on ethics and ESD has emerged; however, ecocentric perspective developed within environmental ethics is marginalized in current ESDebate. The questions discussed in this article are as follows: Why is the distinction between anthropocentric and ecocentric view of environment salient to ESD? How can this distinction be operationalized and measured? Until now, little has been done to address complement quantitative studies of environmental attitudes by qualitative studies, exploring the sociocultural context in which ecocentric or anthropocentric attitudes are being formed. Neither of existing scales engaged with the interface between environmental ethics and sustainable development. This article will discuss ESD in the context of environmental ethics and present the results of the case study conducted with the Dutch Bachelor-level students. Results of qualitative evaluation of the scale measuring ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes will be presented, and the new Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Sustainable Development (EAATSD) scale will be proposed.
This article examines environmental ethics theories focused on the division between “anthropocentric” and “ecocentric” approaches in regard to three valuebases for environmental concern: self-interest, humanistic altruism, and biospheric altruism. The author argues that while applied anthropologists claim to be morally engaged, this engagement rarely supports biospheric altruism. Anthropological advocacy of indigenous rights as well as support for development enterprise on the part of applied anthropologists results in anthropocentric bias in anthropology. While moral engagement may be said to be the mark ofapplied anthropology, environmental ethics is rarely evoked and moral engagements seem to extend only to humans. On the other hand, constructivist anthropologists often describe environment, nature, or wilderness as social constructions and do not engage with questions of value and rights, resulting in relativism that ignores the urgency of conservation efforts. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2011.625951 https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
