In Robin Attfield’s Biocentrism Talk, essential to understanding his message is that moral consideration for all life is required to bring about benefits (and prevent more harm) for all lifeforms across the globe.

Attfield’s Views

Biocentrism can be defined as a moral philosophy centered around all life, not just human life. Biocentrism “rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics, and accepts the moral standing of (at least) all things.” (§ 1). It is also stated that moral consideration is not given to abiotic things as they lack an intrinsic good for themselves, excluded from help or harm (§ 5). This presents a basic definition of biocentrism as (of course) life focused, all life, and excludes only those things which do not have a good they work towards. A plant works towards fruit, a bear to hunt, a human to press on. All work to preserve this good to themselves and are then alive. A rock or cloud exist as is and will have no consideration if crushed or blown away, they simply are then, are not.

Biocentrism may give priority to some life, but values all life, period. “Creatures with more sophisticated capacities such as dolphins and gorillas” may be prioritized over a shrub or fungus for instance (§ 7). This does not mean that the shrub and fungus are worthless, explained in Attfield’s use of a thought experiment from Donald Scherer in 1982 (§ 9 as described in text). Examine the following planets: a barren planet (‘Lifeless’), a planet populated with plant life (‘Flora’), and a planet populated with animal and plant life (‘Fauna’). Lifeless may be overlooked but both Flora and Fauna are cherished for hosting life, no matter what form. From these points Attfield makes clear that biocentrism can place certain lifeforms over others in consideration, but all lifeforms are ultimately considered.

Biocentrism allows for global crises to be taken with urgency due to a more global moral responsibility. The potential harm of global warming affects the ‘flourishing of a life form’ in all living things, not just humanity (§15). Urgency then to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels draw consideration from lifeforms all over the world, not just anthropomorphic and not just human (§ 18). If this perspective is considered in other spheres, such as in ‘should we demolish a rainforest’ or ‘should we dump in the oceans’ it will not be limited to the effects on humans who typically overlook such things (being so far removed from that part of the world, and they from us) but extend to considering ‘a lost rain forest or polluted reef impedes the good of so many other lifeforms’ and this perspective is what Attfield believes must be adopted, to understand that a change in philosophies can so drastically change the appearance of a issue thought meaningless or not important enough in other outlooks.

Applications

A value of responsibility to life forms globally places greater urgency to a solution that may be postponed otherwise. Human focused thought allows for laziness. In the case of global warming it feels as though ‘we can live on, and if things got really bad, we would figure something out’. Whether true or not, a solution is put off in favor of what appears to be more important (pick any number of incentives that halt ecological protections, ex. Expanding industry over preservations), but if the issue were to consider how many species are lost with many more to be in danger soon, the threat of betraying our fellow lifeforms to extinction fuels a duty to assist in their preservation.

Critique

An issue I had with Attfield’s thoughts on biocentrism is the implications of prioritization of certain lifeforms over others. This is not to say that some prioritizing is not proper, to save a dog from immediate suffering seems right over helping a maple tree that would require attention over a few years. However, does this mean pine forests being destroyed by mountain pine beetles should be put on que regarding first saving the panda? What about the beetle itself? It only means to promote its own good by ravaging (incidentally, it means no evil) so many forests, which we still value for themselves. Is vilifying one life form proper to save another, especially to the case where the pine trees do not seem able to defend themselves on the scale of attack the beetles have displayed in far western Canada? Another thought when considering Attfield’s ideas on prioritizing certain lifeforms would be the issue of quantity and quality. Quality in the sense of sophistication of mental capacities, not that it is superior to another less sophisticated lifeform. Imagine the countless trees destroyed by forestry, mountain pine beetles, fires, etc. and look to a (seemingly) more sophisticated animal like the panda. Is the number of tress enough to overtake the que simpler life forms are put behind relative to a qualitatively higher lifeform but with quantitively less members in danger? Such a question is not addressed by Attfield but seems to be of major importance. The honey bee is a fairly simple species compared to the gorilla, yet the honey bee does more for the community of life forms (pollination) than a gorilla does, further that there are many more ‘units’ of life in danger with the threatening of honey bees (as all life is considered) despite the gorilla exhibiting tool use and complex social behaviours. One could argue the bee’s eusocial quality in this same manner to a ‘lone’ bug like the butterfly.

In conclusion, I believe Attfield has a good thought in humanity adopting a more biocentric view when it comes to what should be morally considered in solving a problem. With a little more development I think it would appeal to many individuals and hopefully inspire many more to extend their moral considerations to all our fellow earthlings.

Jaden

Works Cited:

Robin Attfield. Biocentrism Talk. https://eclass.srv.ualberta.ca/pluginfile.php/6160295/mod_resource/content/1/attfield_biocentrismtalk.pdf