Robin Attfield in “Biocentrism Talk” writes that “a biocentric stance is a life-centered one. It rejects the view that humanity alone matters in ethics, and accepts the moral standing of (at least) all living creatures” (1).  Attfield, upon defining biocentrism, then explains that biocentrism can apply to all sorts of species from flora/fauna to sophisticated mamals like whales and dolphins. Biocentrism, because of its emphasis on valuing “the good of all living creatures” over and above humans while considering at all times the impact of human behaviour on nonhuman creatures, is thus an a consequentialist ethic. He notes finally that biocentrism despite being consequentialist is also Kantian from the point of view that the beneficience of all species is in sight but with the difference that this is not a contractarian theory in which the utilitarian motive shines through with a consideration of the right of all species to that of happiness Attfield is interesting on this point because he has juxtaposed beneficience and well being of a species against that of the equality and happiness of all species. However, I wonder what beneficience looks like so I will trace his logic through with an eye towards the beneficience of ecosystems.

From an anti-anthropocentric point of view, I liked Attfield’s notion of biocentrism since he suggests that ecosystems containing many species may well have priorities over and above that of one species’ happiness. But I was left to wonder how a biocentric point of view would help us to define priority in an ecosystem of many species. Attfield notes that one way to define priority would be to consider a species rights in terms of self-defence and thus in terms of the harms that species is up against. In this sense biocentrism is further defined as a consequentialist ethic in that right of consideration goes to those who need it most. Last but not least Attfield then says if we pursue a consequentialist agenda then we must finally give way to the idea that all species are indeed equal and must be equally considered where harm is concerned. If we do pursue such an ethical valuation then the final conclusion is that we must all become vegetarian since one species’ rights cannot prevail over that of others as all are harmed if we elevate some species rights over that of others. I liked Attfield up until that moment. This takes me back to the issue of an ecosystem and I can’t but concede that in an ecosystem all species have equal rights, at least in theory, but real life and environmental issues dictate that some species rights must take priority over others to preserve the better part of the balance of the system. Some members of a species will die and their deaths may well enable others of the same and different species to live. On, the other hand, as I said agenda is everything here. Decisions can not always be left to mother nature because we lose the lives of all sorts of species everyday and needlessly. We cannot de-extinct those that we lose except in only a few rare cases. So, while biocentrism is at least a bit more hopeful as far as addressing the ills of the environment in its egalitarian and consequentialist approach, a generalist ethic concerned with beneficience that makes a claim for consequentialism and egalitarianism will not be enough without a notion of priority when life is held in the balance.