A biocentrist strikes back

Environmental Ethics 20 (4):361-376 (1998)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Biocentrists are criticized (1) for being biased in favor of the human species, (2) for basing their view on an ecology that is now widely challenged, and (3) for failing to reasonably distinguish the life that they claim has intrinsic value from the animate and inanimate things that they claim lack intrinsic value. In this paper, I show how biocentrism can be defended against these three criticisms, thus permitting biocentrists to justifiably appropriate the salutation, “Let the life force (or better the ethical demands of life) be with you.”

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,779

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Biocentrist Strikes Back.James P. Sterba - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (4):361-376.
To Swat or Not to Swat.Mark A. Michael - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (2):165-180.
To Swat or Not to Swat.Mark A. Michael - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (2):165-180.
Is Stellar Nucleosynthesis a Good Thing?Lawrence E. Cahoone - 2016 - Environmental Ethics 38 (4):421-439.
Intrinsic Value, Moral Standing, and Species.Rick O’Neil - 1997 - Environmental Ethics 19 (1):45-52.
Uma leitura crítica do biocentrismo de Paul Taylor a partir de James Sterba.Carmelita Schulze - 2008 - Ethic@ - An International Journal for Moral Philosophy 7 (3):83-92.
The value of microorganisms.Charles Cockrell - 2005 - Environmental Ethics 27 (4):375-390.
The Value of Microorganisms.Charles Cockrell - 2005 - Environmental Ethics 27 (4):375-390.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
86 (#192,430)

6 months
9 (#438,283)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

James P. Sterba
University of Notre Dame

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references