THE HUMAN NATURAL WORLD RELATIONSHIP

The Human Natural World Relationship

40

Bioregionalism, a term used to describe an area defined by natural systems instead of by

governments (Alexander, 1996). The Bioregional Movement is described by Robert

Thayer (Thayer 2003, p. 4) as those that have discovered their “life-place, their bioregion”,

a sense of place in nature. While Jerry Mander expresses this discovery as “relocalisation”,

Gary Snyder used the term “reinhabitation” (Thayer 2003, p. xiv). Metzner (1999) explains

the bioregional philosophy as decisions and control of an area left with a community

charged with preserving the region, while being economically self-sufficient.

The Human Natural World Relationship within Bioregionalism recognises humans as part

of nature that must reconnect with their sense of place in nature, for human wellbeing

(Thayer, 2003). According to Ralph Metzner, Bioregionalism and Ecopsychology hold

similar views. Both are concerned with altering the human view of nature and ecosystems

and to reconsider our place in nature. Both believe that traditional communities had a

closer relationship with nature and that humans must learn to understand themselves in

relation to natural places (Metzner, 1999).

Eco-socialism (1979)

Contemporary scholars consider William Morris to be one of the earliest eco-socialist

thinkers (McDonald, 2004). He promoted ecological regeneration and sustainability (Morris,

1979a; 1979b; 1979c; 1979d) and from 1883 combined socialism with the concept of 'limits

to growth' to explain how socialism could create a practice of ecological sustainability

(McDonald, 2004). With a new wave of environmentalism emerging in the 1970s, the

continuing debate between socialists and environmentalists lead to the emergence of eco-

socialism. The Human Natural World Relationship of those that follow an eco-socialism

approach is anthropocentric in nature with a belief that capitalism is the cause of

environmental degradation (Pepper, 1993). Although the connection with nature as part of

the self is recognised in eco-socialism, collective control within the natural limits of nature is

also advocated (Mebratu, 1998).

The Human Natural World Relationship

41

Biophilia Hypothesis (1984)

Harvard Biologist, Edward Wilson, used the term Biophilia to explain the human need to

relate to other life forms (Wilson, 1984). Wilson explained that humans evolved deeply

interconnected with nature, and that we still have this affinity with nature ingrained within us

(Johnson, 1994; Wilderdom, 2001). To understand this concept it is useful to consider both

Biophilia and its opposite Biophobia.

Biophobia is a complete aversion to nature, which is common in urban environments where

“whole societies are capable of losing the capacity to relate to nature, because as civilisations

advance the sense of wonder declines” (Orr, 1994, p. 39). This draws a parallel with the loss

of place attachment. The Biophobia view of the Human Natural World Relationship is both

fearful and a cause of discomfort. Alternatively, those with “a passionate love of life and all

living things” seen as a sign of mental and physical health are termed as Biophilia (Orr, 1994,

p. 38). The Biophilia view of the Human Natural World Relationship is explained through

participation in nature such as nature writers, artists, musicians, myths and religions and in

the lifestyle of humans before modernisation. Wilson’s question to modern societies, “Is it

possible that humanity will love life enough to save it?” reinforces Stephen Gould’s view of

forging a necessary bond with nature “for we will not fight to save what we do not love”

(Orr, 1994, p. 39).

Wilson is also known for coining the term “Sociobiology”. His book “Sociobiology: The

New Synthesis” explained the evolutionary roots to social behaviour of humans and non-

humans (Wilson, 1975). Sociobiology, a branch of sociology and biology, brings together

elements of psychology, ethnology, evolution, sociology and genetics into the study of

human behaviour. Sociology, a precursor to evolutionary psychology and based on

evolutionary theory, had its critics such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin (Penn,

2003). The debate centered on the use of biological factors, as determinants to how a system

behaves, with disregard to social or environmental influences, and on whether the findings of

Wilson and his supporters could be proven scientifically (Johnson, 1994).

The Human Natural World Relationship

42

Ecopsychology (1992)

The name Psycho ecology was originally used by Robert Greenway in 1963 and later revised

to Ecopsychology (Davis, 2004; Greenway, 1999). The term Ecopsychology first appeared

in Theodore Roszak’s “Voice of the Earth”, although some of these ideas were present in his

earlier work “Person/Planet” (Roszak, 1979) and in Paul Shepard’s “Nature and Madness” in

1982 (Scull, 1999a). According to Roszak, the essence of Ecopsychology is to bridge the gap

between psychology and ecology with a focus on seeing the planet and the person as a

continuum (Metzner, 2001).

In Ecopsychology, Devereaux (1996) considers that a sense of place in nature is most

beneficial to human wellbeing and that there is a reciprocal bond between planetary and

human wellbeing. In Ecopsychology, nature is considered part of self and when humans are

separated it can lead to suffering for both the environment and humans. Suffering manifests

as ecological devastation in nature and as grief, despair and alienation in humans and when

this suffering is recognised the connection between humans and nature is healing for both

(Davis, 2004). According to John Seed (1994), Ecopsychology also has the following traits,

which help to explain the Human Natural World Relationship. The earth provides healing

potential for humans through contact with nature, and when humans experience the psycho-

emotional bonding with the world this will form the basis for environmental action (Seed,

1994).

Ecotheology (1996)

Ecotheology emerged in response to criticism from environmental groups, which was

directed at Judeo-Christian religions. These critics believed that traditional religions taught

domination of nature which lead to environmental damage and disrespect of nature.

Ecotheology, a form of religious deep ecology sought to reinterpret the view to include

human and non human nature (Mebratu, 1998).

The Human Natural World Relationship

43

A leading figure in Ecotheology is Thomas Berry a cultural historian and catholic monk who

progressed from a theologian to referring to himself as a geologian, an earth scholar (Tucker

2005). His interest in earth history has been integrated into his studies of cultures in “The

Great Work” (Berry, 1999), to produce profound insights and directions about the Human

Natural World Relationship. His directive to world leaders, economists and communities to

preserve the earth at this critical point in the world’s history has propelled him to world status

at a time when the world is looking for answers to the ecological crisis (Spirit in the Smokies,

1999). According to Berry, a change of worldview is necessary to propel a reverence for life

and an understanding of our role in guiding the evolutionary process (Tucker, 1996).

Western religions traditionally hold a view of “power and importance and the capacity to

dominate and control nature” (Weiskel, 1997, p. 1) and Berry (1999, p. 2) concludes “unity in

nature has not been considered seriously due to the anthropocentricism of both biblical and

humanistic traditions”. Szenberg (1997, p. 630) supports this view as he explains the

“hierarchical structure of the biblical ecological system as humans at the top of nature with

animals and vegetation to serve them”. Weiskel believes that “contemporary theology must

restate that we did not create the world and we cannot control it, but must live like other

creatures within its limits” which he terms “a theology for a small planet” (Weiskel, 1997, p.

5).

Thomas Berry echoed the concern of scientists such as E.O. Wilson, Norman Myers, Peter

Raven, Paul Ehrlich and others that “humans and the natural world are on a collision course”

and we are “killing the earth” (Berry, 1999, p. 1). He believes that in geological evolutionary

terms the world is living in the “Terminal Cenozoic” due to an industrialised economy, which

is supported by scientific evidence. He believes that humans must now choose between a

“Technozoic” or an “Ecozoic” planet (Weiskel, 1997). Berry (1999, p. 5) defines the Ecozoic

period as a time when “human presence on the earth is mutually enhanced, and displays a

continuity between humans and non humans as a single integrated community”.

The Human Natural World Relationship

44

Natural Capitalism (1999)

Natural Capitalism is a business model that suggests a way that companies can gain from the

opportunities that sustainable natural resource management can offer. The principles

developed by Amory and Hunter Lovins and Paul Hawkins in 1999, sets out to turn

sustainability into “a management goal” and “business opportunity” (Hargroves, 2003, p.

116). The model supports a dwindling natural resource base by developing new green

technologies and creating competitive advantage and opportunities for business (Hawkins,

Lovins & Lovins, 1999).

In implementing the model, humans must look to historical events, which have shown that

preserving political power has taken precedent over implementing sustainable systems, and

since the first Industrial Revolution, there has been no natural mechanism for human societies

to halt environmental degradation until it has been too late (Gowdy, 1994, p. 43). If humans

are to have a sustainable relationship with the natural world, Gowdy believes that they must

take a long-term view and consider solutions in a period of hundreds of years. However,

concern is still raised as to “how much of the natural world will exist by the time a

sustainable relationship is reached” (Gowdy, 1994, p. 53).

Theorists and Philosophers Summary

How humans relate to the natural environment, include scientific, theoretical and

philosophical approaches. These views consist primarily of presumptions that encompass

environmental, evolutionary, or creational thought or a combination of these. In summary

The Noble Savage concept perceived the Human Natural World Relationship as humans

being part of nature. The Theory of Natural Selection explains the Human Natural World

Relationship as humans and animals evolving from natural selection. The Human Natural

World Relationship aspect of Social Ecology perceives man as part of nature, but in

possession of a free will. Garrett Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons thesis portrays the

Human Natural World Relationship as human domination of the natural world. The Human

Natural World Relationship, within the GAIA concept, accommodates humans, as part of this

The Human Natural World Relationship

45

living organism. Deep Ecology questions humans’ place in nature through scientific insight

into the interconnectedness of all things. However, Deep Ecology and Animal Rights agree

that animals have absolute rights. The concept of Sustainability in connection to the Human

Natural World Relationship infers an anthropocentric focus, with the realisation that humans

are reliant on nature for their wellbeing. The Ecofeminist view of the Human Natural World

Relationship is interconnectedness between humans and the non-human world. The Human

Natural World Relationship within Bioregionalism acknowledges humans as part of nature,

while the connection with nature as part of the self is recognised in Eco-socialism. Wilson’s

Biophilia Hypothesis explains that humans evolved deeply interconnected with nature. In

Ecopsychology, nature is considered part of self and when humans are separated it can lead to

suffering for both the environment and humans. Ecotheology explains the Human Natural

World Relationship as a continuum between humans and non-humans, and a single integrated

community. Finally, Natural Capitalism is a business model, which supports developing new

green technologies to support a dwindling natural resource base. Subsequently in

implementing the model, humans must look to historical events, which have shown that

preserving political power has taken precedent over implementing sustainable systems

(Gowdy, 1994, p. 53), an invaluable lesson for contemporary society.

2.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter has shown that a relationship between humans and the natural world has existed

throughout human history. This historic view has demonstrated that attention has focused on

environmental issues at times when human existence is threatened, and the voice of concern

for the environment through different conservation groups and theorists is heard strongly. At

other times, humans consistently ignore warning signals in their pursuit of power and

progress. Innovation, technology and population growth have accelerated the use of natural

resources and propelled humans on a path that threatens their very existence. Yet, history has

shown that man also has the ability to overcome such crises. Just as there is diversity

amongst humans, there are diverse views towards the environment and addressing

environmental problems. Views towards nature consider it as sacred, a valuable resource,

The Human Natural World Relationship

46

part of human nature, separate from human nature, an organism, a provider or something to

be feared. Yet, the majority of human-environment views have either an anthropocentric or

an ecocentric stance in varying degrees. However, many agree that a crisis is facing the

natural world through the breaking down of the earth’s systems and the depletion of resources

and if this is not addressed in our time, the earth will not exist for future generations to

inhabit.

Charged with managing natural resources, governments, policy makers and protected area

managers are beginning to realise the importance of community support, participation and

involvement in issues that will affect the collective future of life on earth. Environmental

scientist and geographer William Meyer (2002) has stated that the planet’s struggle to

address human induced environmental impact has put the human-environment interaction

on the research agenda. Human causes of environmental problems such as human

consumption (Foran & Poldi, 2001; Imhoff et al., 2004) tourism growth (Buckley &

Pannell, 1990; Tubb, 2003), nature based tourism (Higginbottom, 2003), climate change

(Nicholls, 2004) and the threat to biodiversity and dwindling natural resources are widely

documented (Wearing & Neil, 1999; Worboys & De Lacy, 2003; Weaver, 2000). Hardin’s

(1968) view on collective resource management shows the dominance of self-interest as the

driving force. Preserving the earth and its resources is man’s most important challenge

today, and protected area management has an important role in this process. By

understanding the Human Natural World Relationship, managers will be informed in

decisions concerning community involvement in the management of protected areas.

While this chapter has discussed the scope of the Human Natural World Relationship, the

following two chapters will review the environmental ethics and place attachment literature,

which is integral to the relationship. Place attachment, can establish the type of attachment

the community has to the national park, as well as their commitment to the region.

Environmental ethics can uncover a community’s anthropocentric or ecocentric worldview

established through their ecological orientation and nature values, which are discussed in the

following chapter.

Environmental Ethics

47

C h a p t e r 3

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

“How narrow we selfish, conceited creatures are in our sympathies! How blind to the rights of all

the rest of creation” John Muir, 1867 (in Nash, 1990, p. 3)

Figure 4: Chapter 3

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter discussed the Human Natural World Relationship, which included

environmental ethics and place attachment in its interpretation. Aspects of environmental

ethics have been discussed previously through a brief look at human history and the Human

Natural World Relationship; the development of environmental thought illustrated through

the timeline, and the views of environmental theorists and philosophers. This chapter will

expand on the human-environment interaction through the concept of environmental ethics

and central themes as shown in Figure 4.

The chapter will explore moral status and nature values, which contribute to an

environmental worldview, believed to be a predictor of environmental behaviour (Stern,

Chapter 3 Environmental Ethics

Introduction Ethics Research

Environmental Ethics

Academic Field

Environmental Ethics Studies

Conclusion

Worldview

Protected Area Management

User Groups

Orientation Moral Status

Nature Values

Environmental Ethics

48

2000; Blamey & Braithwaite, 1997). Additionally, selections of studies that explore

environmental ethics relevant to park management are included in this chapter.

Environmental Ethics and Human-Environment Research

The discourse on environmental ethics was established in the 1970s (Centre for

Environmental Philosophy, 2006). Influences that have attributed to the extension of ethics

from humans to non-humans, reach back in history, and are evident in the writers and

theorists discussed in the timeline in the previous chapter. The independent moral status and

intrinsic value attributed to non-humans underpin discussions on environmental ethics

(Benson, 2000), which are anchored in social, historic and cultural beliefs (Michel-Guillou

and Baggio, 2004). Many of the theories and concepts discussed previously have been

influential in advancing a respect for nature and extending the moral view, such as the work

of Charles Darwin, Aldo Leopold, Rachael Carson and others. Nash (1990) also recognises

the contribution of “Henry David Thoreau and John Muir who developed systems that

reached past human duties to other humans, and Edward Evans and J. Howard Moore, who

were the first philosophers in the United States to look beyond a human centered moral view”

(p. 122).

Many theorists were also active environmentalists (Nash, 1990), who contributed by

extending a respect for nature through their life’s work This is evident in the life vocation of

Thomas Berry, who instilled a respect for nature in the area of theology. Prior to Thomas

Berry and others, Christianity was recognised to be at the root of preaching human centered

moral views, where the natural world was seen to have been created by God to serve humans

(Nash, 1990). Animal rights expanded the moral boundaries to include animals (Singer,

1975), while other concepts such as GAIA (Lovelock, 1979), Biophilia (Wilson, 1984),

Bioregionalism (Berg & Dasmann, 1977), Ecopsychology (Roszak, 1979, 1992), and Deep

Ecology (Naess, 1972), highlighted concern for the natural world. These activities gave way

to discussions on the independent moral status attributed to the natural world, and an active

debate has continued amongst those with opposing views.

Environmental Ethics

49

3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Environmental ethics is “a relatively new branch of philosophical ethics” (Benson, 2000, p.

1) and explores and discusses views on the moral status attributed by humans to the living

and non-living. Furthermore, Fennell (2006, p. 189) writes that “environmental ethics is not

an applied ethic like business ethics” as it presents an “alternative worldview [which should

be considered] alongside the application of business ethics in tourism”.

This thesis refers to worldview as either an anthropocentric or an ecocentric stance.

Worldview consists of pro or anti ecological orientation, as well as nature values, which

indicate ideas of instrumental or intrinsic values in nature. The terms ‘worldview’,

‘orientation’ and ‘nature value’, are used interchangeably in the human-environment

literature. This has resulted in some confusion in terminology used by researchers and a

convergence of the topics on ecological orientation and nature values in the discussion that

follows.

3.2.1 Ecological Orientation

Stern (in Winter, 2004), explains ecological orientation as a group of values. When values

are grouped, they can represent ecological orientation often referred to in the literature as

worldview. Worldview may include both moral status as well as intrinsic or instrumental

values afforded to nature, which are discussed in this chapter. Anthropocentrism “posits that

nature can only be conceived from the perspective of human values”, while biocentrism

“considers that all things in the biosphere have the right to exist equally” (Fennell, 2006, p.

190).

Some environmental ethics theorists adhere to the position that if a non-human has sentience

and consciousness then it should be afforded independent moral status (Attfield, 2003).

Sentience is defined as the ability to see or feel through the senses, while consciousness is

defined as being able to use your senses and mental powers to understand what is happening

(Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2005). So within the natural world, creatures that

Environmental Ethics

50

can feel pain and have a sense of understanding within their own world should be considered

valuable in their own right outside human use. Several philosophers believe that if natural

systems have value in themselves, then a new moral principle is needed. Those who think

that finding value in nature is ultimately determined by human interest, deem that existing

moral traditions are sufficient (Benson, 2000).

Huiying (2004, p. 18) considers that the challenge of environmental ethics is “for human

beings to break away from anthropocentrism”. Anthropocentrism refers to a human

centered worldview. To break away from anthropocentrism, Huiying (p. 20) explains,

“humans must take into account ecological equilibrium and the harmony between nature

and human existence whilst pursuing their interests and needs”. Within this context,

Huiying supports a view that considers humans as part of ecosystems where nature’s needs

are considered together with human needs. Additionally, Chiarelli (2007) and Sideras

(2007) call for a global bioethic to replace what Chiarelli refers to as “a blindly

anthropocentric view that ignores evolutionary and ecological behaviour (p. 104). In view

of the interdependent relationship that exists between humans and the natural world (Brulle,

2002), these views require consideration. The precautionary principle, if adhered to, may

provide some support to the natural world against perceived threats of environmental

damage (Westra, 1997a). The precautionary principle was defined in Principal 15 of the

1992, Rio Declaration.

“Where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full

scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent

environmental degradation” (Rio Declaration, 1992).

Moral Status

In the past, dissimilar views on the moral status attributed to nature had separated the

academic community as well as resulted in divisions in the environmental movement (Norton

1991). Arne Naess (1973) referred to these differences as ‘shallow’ or ‘deep’, while the

terms ‘reform’ and ‘radical’ and ‘green’ were also used. The term ‘green’ has been accepted

Environmental Ethics

51

generally to express different views because the term is not self-condemning by its label as

some of the other terms imply (Benson, 2000, p. 17). The disparate views of green

environmentalism are expressed as light green, mid green and deep green as shown in Figure

5.

Figure 5: A Framework of Green Environmentalism

Environmental Ethics

Independent moral status to humans

ANTHROPOCENTRIC

Light Green Environmentalism

Independent moral status to include animals of some species

SENTIOCENTRIC

Mid Green Environmentalism

Independent moral status to include all animals and

living things

BIOCENTRIC

Independent moral status to include non living components

such as species, forests and rivers

ECOCENTRIC

Deep Green Environmentalism

Source: Adapted from Benson (2000, p. 25)

A variety of terms has been used to make a distinction between the different views based on

moral status and intrinsic value attributed to nature. For instance, those who believe that

nature has intrinsic value are usually referred to as biocentric or ecocentric, while those who

argue that human interest is the determining factor are referred to as anthropocentric (Benson,

2000). These terms allow researchers to differentiate between worldviews.

There have been other terms used by researchers to describe worldviews. Merchant (2005)

distinguished these views as homocentric, ecocentric or egocentric, Holden (2003) as

instrumentalism, conservation, libertarian extension, or ecological extension, Stern, Dietz

and Kolof (1993) and Stern and Dietz (1994) as social altruistic, biospheric or egoistic,

Schultz, Shriver, Tabanico and Khazian (2004) as egoistic or biospheric, and Attfield (2003)

as anthropocentrism, sentientism, biocentrism and ecocentrism. Moral status attributed to the

natural world Evanoff (2007) suggests should only apply to non-human entities that are part

Environmental Ethics

52

of human interactions. However, there are some who put forward a new environmental ethic,

such as Schonfeld (2000, p. 414), who proposed “a hierarchical conception of interspecies

moral standing”. Meyers (2003) has identified the most widely used terms, which are those

used by Attfield as shown in Figure 6. This thesis draws on Attfield’s work and uses

anthropocentric, and ecocentric to define worldview.

Figure 6: Definitions of Worldview Concepts

Anthropocentrism Only humans have

independant moral value

Sentientism All conscious creatures have

independent moral value

Biocentrism All living creature have a good of their own and

intrinsic value

Ecocentrism All ecosystems have a good of their own and intrinsic value

independent of components

Source: Adapted from Attfield (2003)

Anthropocentrism

German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1948), proposed the Kantian principal in human ethics

which states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person

or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end”

(Kant 1948, p. 91). Although it is apt to “value others for their usefulness” (Benson 2000, p.

86), there are many ways to interpret the Kantian principal. Benson suggests that if viewed

negatively, human independent moral status is only attributed to those “humans of value to

me” (p. 74). This illustrates an anthropocentric view of human-to-human relationships,

which may explain the anthropocentric view that some project towards nature. Traditionally,

Environmental Ethics

53

the Western view on nature has been referred to as “a form of shallow environmentalism”

(Duffin, 2004), which equates to an anthropocentric (Luck, 2003) or light green worldview.

According to Pojman (2005, p. 90) most environmental worldviews are “anthropocentric”,

human centered, or at least “anthropogenic”, generated by humans, as the valuing occurs

from the viewpoint of the valuer. Pojman (2005) suggests that an anthropocentric view can

only be attributed in association with human participation. Some terms used by Routley and

Routley (1980) to describe this anthropocentric view are “humanistic” and “human

chauvinism” (Benson, 2000, p. 18). Key beliefs of an anthropocentric view centre on the

prospect that humans alone have intrinsic value, which affords them independent moral

status, and that non-humans require protection for securing ultimate human wellbeing

(Benson, 2000). However, if intrinsic value is afforded to non-humans, then non-humans are

still reliant on humans to project intrinsic value onto them (Pojman, 2005). Subsequently,

Norton prefers the notion of “human values more so than the concept of attributing intrinsic

value to non-humans” (Smith, 1997, p. 17).

According to Norton (1991), the Convergence Hypothesis guides many environmentalists, in

an attempt to find rational solutions to environmental problems. The hypothesis asserts that

all things are interrelated, including humans. Therefore, “policies that serve the interest of

the human species as a whole, in the long run, will serve also the interests of nature, and vice

versa” (p. 240). Similarly, Lamb (1996) also expresses a mutually beneficial relationship

between humans and nature. Alternatively, Westra (1997b) proposes a weak anthropocentric

approach to policy development and implementation, which she believes will be more

effective in producing environmental results.

Domination or Stewardship

Discussions on anthropocentricism need to consider if the view is one of domination or

stewardship towards nature, as highlighted in the debate between White and Passmore.

White (1967) considered that domination generated from western Judeo Christian beliefs

Environmental Ethics

54

about creation that taught dominance as a human right. However, Passmore (in Attfield,

2003) and Dobel (in Pojman, 2005) considered the biblical teachings to be non-

anthropocentric. Furthermore, Dobel concluded that the Judeo Christian attitude towards

nature was “one of stewardship” (p. 31). In support of this view Bourdeau (2004), claimed

that eastern religions consider humans as part of nature, while western Judeo-Christian

religions that traditionally taught domination have since tempered their view to one of

stewardship. Attfield (2003, p. 33) expands on this to surmise that the biblical teachings

about nature supported a stewardship interpretation more so than a “rightful mastery”

concept. Harrison (1999) who deduced that the historical interpretation of the bible was

allegorical, and was suggesting a mastery over our human inner animal nature, not over the

natural world, supports this view.

In summary, Attfield (2003, p. 188) refers to White’s interpretation of the biblical teachings

as a metaphysical belief that “the whole of creation exists purely to service humanity’s goals

and purposes”, which he considers is an extreme view known as teleological

anthropocentrism (p. 31). This is similar to traditional anthropocentrism where nature is

viewed on how it affects current humans, while intergenerational anthropocentrism is

behaviour towards nature viewed from its affect on current and future generations (Stenmark,

2002). Other terms used such as normative anthropocentrism considers “values, norms and

principles around the moral stance of humans” (p. 188), and is a more accepted approach.

Another approach suggested by Norton (1982) is weak anthropocentrism, which calls for an

educated and considered approach towards the natural environment that can be evaluated

ethically.

According to Frierson (2007, p. 171) the work of Adam Smith is recognised for its

contribution to environmental ethics through examples of appealing to “anthropocentric

metastandards as a way of swaying view” to adopt a more ecocentric stance. Similarly, John

Muir, whose philosophical view was in fact biocentric, used an anthropocentric approach to

save the American wilderness. Muir understood that if he used a biocentric approach, the

government and people would not accept his appeal. However, by using an anthropocentric