Buddhist Environmental Humanism: A Humanistic Spirituality to Address the Ecological Crisis (Working Paper, Part 1)

Introduction

Some years ago, I participated in an academic conference on religion and the ecology at a university in the United States. As a contribution to the event, I delivered a paper from the Buddhist perspective while other participants presented theirs from that of other religious traditions. As part of the format, each session consisted of about three papers followed by reaction from a person designated by the conference organizer. In the session that I was scheduled, our reactor, after listening to the papers from different religious perspectives, observed that while the papers provided very profound religious and spiritual insights to address the ecological crisis, these perspectives were nonetheless very ‘anthropocentric.’ The comment was meant to not only highlight a common thread running throughout the various religious environmentalisms but also to draw attention to what might be perceived as a shortcoming in environmentalisms rooted in religious traditions.

In the field of environmental ethics, the term ‘anthropocentric’ or ‘anthropocentrism’ is often associated with ideologies and ways of thinking and behaving that prioritize human status, rights and desires at the detriment of non-human beings such as animals, plants and other biotic and abiotic entities. Anthropocentrism comes in various degrees from weak (benign) to strong (tyrannical), but when push comes to shove, this worldview entails that human interests ultimately come out on top and moral consideration is reserved first and foremost for human beings. This paper, however, argues that environmentalism inspired by Buddhist teachings is not anthropocentric but should be properly characterized as ‘humanistic.’ There is a distinct difference, in fact, almost opposite, between these two outlooks, which the paper will demonstrate. Moreover, this paper argues that Buddhism environmental humanism is an environmentalism that is both viable and beneficial to promoting environmental sustainability and flourishing to address the contemporary ecological crisis.

Anthropocentrism vs. Humanism

Due to the fact that religiously inspired environmentalisms are perceived as being anthropocentric to some degrees, not everyone has embraced them. Some opt for building ecosophies that move away from being human-centered towards those that are ‘eco/bio-centered’ as to avoid the perceived difficulties present in systems of thought that focuses on the human person as the locus of value and agency. While non-religious ecosophies are able to pursue this approach, religious environmentalisms, unless undergoing a radical reframing, cannot simply ignore human agency in the matter being considered. After all, religious systems are created in order to address directly the human spiritual condition with the intent to improve the human lot, both in this life and in the next. Thus, any environmentalism that emanates from religion needs to confront and embrace the role and responsibility of human beings not only as the source of environmental problems but also the instrument of resolution.

Notwithstanding that there is an ongoing debate among environmental philosophers about whether anthropocentrism is as terrible as it is made out to be, the details of this debate will not be delved into in this paper for the sake of brevity. It suffices to say that environmental philosophers such as Paul W. Taylor (biocentrism), Lawrence E. Johnson (ecocentrism), and Arne Naess (Deep Ecology) represent the various approaches to the non-anthropocentric worldview. Whereas biocentrism is concerned with the ‘inherent worth’ of biological individuals, ecocentrism provides moral considerability to entire systems comprising of both biotic and abiotic entities such as air, water, land, and ecosystems. Deep ecology, on the other hand, is not so much an environmental ethics as a philosophical orientation or an ideology that advocates Self-Realization to the extent that one fully identifies oneself with the world and that one’s behavior and thinking naturally are in harmony with nature. On the other side of the debate are scholars such as Tim Hayward (1997) who says that “it would also appear to be unavoidable that we should be interested in ourselves and our own kind” (51). However, anthropocentrism is only truly objectionable “when humans give preference to interests of members of their own species over the interests of members of other species for morally arbitrary reasons” (Ibid, 52). In such a case, Hayward says what we have is actually “human chauvinism” and “speciesism,” which is bad and cannot be condoned. Bryan G. Norton (1994) calls for categorizing anthropocentrism into ‘weak’ and ‘strong.’ Norton adopts the former position which provides the basis for critiquing human preference to see whether they are exploitative of nature or contrary to human ideals. For Norton, environmental protection can be achieved without having to confer intrinsic value to nature. Instead, human preferences must be carefully considered for environmental outcomes that ‘converge’ with the vision of those advocating nonanthropocentric ethics. In general, scholars on this side of the debate do not feel that anthropocentrism can be eliminated from any ethical system based on human perspectives because the values espoused ultimately reflect human values.

Despite this rather extensive debate, it seems that at least in terms of the public consciousness, the word ‘anthropocentrism’ is still largely seen as a ‘dirty’ word when speaking about human behavior and attitudes toward the environment. Thus, when religious environmentalisms are characterized as ‘anthropocentric,’ as was done by the commentator mentioned in the introduction of this paper, one cannot help but feel that this characterization is meant to be a critique. I believe that when it comes to religious environmentalism, it is not helpful to frame the discussion within this ‘anthropocentrism’ vs. ‘nonanthropocentrism’ debate because it would always be the case that religious ethical ideals, even those concerning the environment, would be ‘anthropocentric’ in some way. After all, religions in every instance were first created by humans and for humans as the first priority. While some religious soteriologies involve non-human beings, the focus and the central concern is always human happiness and spiritual liberation. Religious environmentalisms cannot depart fromt his fundamental worldview because the concern for the environment has to be integrally connected to the concern for human beings. The question that religious environmentalism attempts to address is essentially how promoting environmental wellbeing and flourishing can be seen as part and parcel of the human soteriological aspirations, and that one cannot successfully achieve full humanhood unless one takes into consideration the wellbeing of others – humans and nonhumans alike.

It is because of this that I believe it is misleading and unhelpful to refer to religious environmentalisms as ‘anthropocentric’ since this term carries too much baggage that can cause religious environmentalisms to not be understood within its own context and epistemology. It reduces environmental thinking inspired by religious thought to be merely axioms to be evaluated like other secular environmental ethics in the field. Religious environmnetalisms, however, can be characterized as ‘humanistic’ – a notion which has found acceptance across many religious traditions and of course, in the secular sphere as well. Indeed, the term ‘humanism’ has been employed by numerous groups and individuals across history, religions, philosophies, cultures and worldviews. Despite the many usages of the term by various groups to suit their own metaphysical assumptions and needs, the common thread that runs through every thought system that claims to be humanistic is the emphasis on human value, integrity and agency. Both religious and secular humanisms advocate for human beings to achieve full self-realization, to become their best self, to be truly human. Only in being fully and truly human, can human beings achieve what is best for themselves as individuals but also what is good for others. Unsurprisingly, each thought system will have its own version of and approach towards paradigmatic personhood. While Christians look to Jesus as the model of perfect humanity, Buddhists may imitate the Gautama Buddha in their quest for perfection. Atheist humanists strive to achieve human perfection without reference to any spiritual or transcendental beings. However different their starting points may be, humanistic thought systems tend to have a positive outlook on the human potential and the individual and collective good that can be achieved when that potential is fully realized.

Religious environmental humanism, particularly, Buddhist environmental humanism, adopts this outlook on the human person. It believes that positive contribution to environmental protection can be achieved when the human person undergoes self-cultivation in order to achieve self-transformation, spiritual progress, and ultimately, emancipation from the cycle of suffering. Buddhist environmental humanism sees the role and flourishing of the environment as integrally connected to the effort of achieving human spiritual growth necessary to the quest for lasting happiness. Thus, there is a causal relationship between the quality of the human person and the flourishing of the natural environment in the Buddhist environmental approach. The rest of the paper will demonstrate this proposition in further details.

To be continued.....