Humanism, Biocentrism, and the Problem of Justification

Abstract

Curren and Metzger's work makes a bold, normative claim: The moral goal of sustainability is human flourishing. Their eudaimonic theory has as its summum bonum 'living well' according to the fundamental psychological needs and potentials of our species. With this, Curren and Metzger implicitly affirm precisely what, today, many theoretical ethicists strain to deny -a stable human nature. (Or what Marx, emphasizing humanity's sociality, termed 'species-being') Relatedly, Curren and Metzger's work stands in clear opposition to the 'deep ecology' tradition as well. For deep ecology criticizes any special focus on human need as an illicit 'speciesism' and instrumentalization of nature. Though the authors do not engage with deep ecology specifically, their contrast (and surprising confluence) with this school of thought is well worth exploring. For the meta-ethical assumptions on either side of this humanist/biocentric divide have real import for how sustainable policies are conceived and crafted.Curren and Metzger approach environmental ethics with a refreshing theoretical seriousness in a field dominated by casuistry. According to them, their overall argument leads 'not to a specific set of policy recommendations, but to a broad conceptualization of the normative principles that should inform such recommendations ' (2017, p. 238). Their project also seeks to make use of timeless facets of human nature in filling out these normative strictures. Indeed, one dominant feature of their ethic of sustainability is an unapologetic focus on 'the human' as the locus of moral concern. As such, they outline a 'eudaimonic theory of justice' , concerned with a flourishing of the human collectivity, undergirded by an imperative to 'respect others as rationally self-determining persons ' (2017, pp. 232).In this, Curren and Metzger appear diametrically opposed to another strongly speculative approach within environmental ethics, that of Deep Ecology. Though a diverse tradition, Deep Ecology is marked by a rejection of anthropocentrism in favor of 'biocentric egalitarianism' , or the equal inherent value of each living thing. A second grounding principle, that of 'holistic ontology' , emphasizes the interconnectedness of all biological life on Earth (Taylor, 1986).Prima facie, Curren and Metzger's stance has a pragmatic advantage over Deep Ecology. As has been pointed out in the literature, the Deep Ecologist is ill-equipped to offer any specific moral or policy guidance, owing to their unwillingness to prioritize some life forms