[Pre-Print]Buddhist Environmental Humanism (Ch. 1 - Introduction, Part 3)

 

Concerns of Anthropocentrism in Buddhist Environmental Humanism

           

In the final section of this introductory chapter, I would like to address the elephant in the room. And this concerns the question: Is Buddhist environmental humanism anthropocentric? In the field of environmental ethics, the term ‘anthropocentric’ or ‘anthropocentrism’ is a dirty word. 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. Thus, this question will ultimately be raised regarding Buddhist environmental humanism in order to determine its viability as an environmentalism.

The Conundrum of Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is often cited as a primary cause of the ecological crisis, encompassing a spectrum from benign to tyrannical views. Essentially, this worldview prioritizes human interests above all, reserving moral consideration primarily for humans. Since the emergence of environmental philosophy in the 1970s, debates have frequently centered on anthropocentrism, the intrinsic value of nature, and ecological perspectives.[1] In the 1990s, Warwick Fox noted that virtually all eco-philosophical writings address the question, "What’s wrong with being anthropocentric?" [2]

The term anthropocentrism, meaning "human-centeredness," has been around since the 1860s and was initially used in discussions on Darwin’s theory of evolution to describe the belief that humans occupy the center of the universe.[3] The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines 'anthropocentric' as “a belief in humans and their existence as the most important and central fact in the universe.” [4] This implies that humans hold ontological and moral superiority over all other entities, both biotic and abiotic. Warwick Fox described anthropocentrism as “the arrogant assumption that we humans are central to the cosmic drama; that, essentially, the world is made for us.” [5] This view, reflecting a sort of human chauvinism, is deeply embedded in our culture, as observed by John Seed.[6]

This perspective leads to the ethical view that humans have the right to exploit nature as they see fit, with non-human entities valued only for their utility to humans. Frederic Bender describes this as “the deeply ingrained assumption that humans have the right to draw down ecospheric integrity – without concern for limits – to satisfy even the most peripheral human desires.”[7] Consequently, when human needs and desires conflict with those of non-human entities, human interests are given priority.[8]

Beyond the ontological and ethical dimensions, anthropocentrism also includes an epistemological view, often overlooked in ecological discourse. According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, anthropocentrism is “interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences.” [9] Eugene Hargrove remarked that epistemologically, anthropocentrism is unavoidable because humans can only perceive the world from their own locatedness.[10] Frederic Ferré termed this “perspectival anthropocentrism,” noting that humans have no choice but to think as humans,[11] even while trying to transcend egoism by cultivating sympathy for other centers of intrinsic value.[12] Despite efforts to empathize with non-human creatures, humans ultimately rely on their own perspective.

Tim Hayward argued that anthropocentrism is not only unavoidable and unobjectionable in certain respects, but also desirable for performing its critical function.[13] This complexity has led to alternative terminologies to resolve the tension between human-centered perception and the tendency to dominate nature. William Grey advocated for an “enriched and enlightened” anthropocentrism, where human interests do not overshadow environmental balance. Grey asserted that “anthropocentrism is natural and inevitable, and when properly qualified turns out to be perfectly benign.”[14]

Similarly, Bryan Norton’s concept of weak anthropocentrism involves humans controlling their decision-making process by examining their preferences through sound aesthetic, moral ideals, robust scientific theories, and a suitable metaphysical framework.[15] Norton distinguished this from strong anthropocentrism, which entails uncontrolled exploitation of nature for human benefit and must be resisted.

Both Grey’s benign anthropocentrism and Norton’s weak anthropocentrism affirm the inevitability of human-centered decision-making while rejecting its potential abuses. They critique non-anthropocentric paradigms, such as Deep Ecology, which may marginalize human concerns.[16] As Hayward noted, if the goal of ethics is to guide human action, human reference is essential, even when extending moral concern to non-humans. Ultimately, values are always the values of the valuer.[17]

Hayward, Grey, and Norton all agree that a completely non-anthropocentric value system is impossible because values inevitably stem from human experience and existing human values. The idea that values can exist independently of human interpretation is misguided. Even ecocentrism's concept of natural balance is influenced by human notions of balance.

One view of balance is that humans should not interfere with nature, letting events unfold naturally. For instance, if a virus invades a bird population, it has as much right to exist as the birds, and humans should not intervene. Another view is that humans should use their knowledge to 'enhance' natural balance by intervening, such as removing a destructive pest threatening an animal population. A third view is that humans, as part of nature, should act according to their nature, and any resulting destruction is just another event in the planet's history. If human beings end up destroying themselves along with present ecosystems, one million years after human extinction, nature will still be nature, whatever that may look like. E.O. Wilson provided clarity when he said, “If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”[18]

These varying interpretations of balance show that the preferred view reflects human desires and experiences. It's more realistic to acknowledge that our perception of natural balance aligns with what humans want for themselves and the world, rather than claiming it represents nature's desires. As Mary Anne Warren noted:

We are not gods but human beings, reasoning about how we ought to think and act. Our moral theories can only be based upon what we know and what we care about, or ought to care about. If this makes our theories anthropocentric, then this much anthropocentrism is inevitable in any moral theory that is relevant to human actions.[19]

Despite extensive debate, 'anthropocentrism' is often seen negatively in discussions about human behavior and environmental attitudes. Thus, when religious environmentalisms are labeled 'anthropocentric,' it is often meant as a critique.

Is Buddhist Environmental Humanism Anthropocentric?

Regarding this question, some scholars argue that Buddhism is anthropocentric for several reasons:

The first charge is Buddhism places significant emphasis on human liberation from suffering (dukkha) and attainment of enlightenment (nibbana). The ultimate goal of Buddhist practices, such as the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path, is centered on human spiritual development and transcendence. Early Buddhism predominantly prioritizes human spiritual liberation over biocentric concerns. The natural environment is often seen positively only insofar as it serves as a backdrop for pursuing spiritual transcendence.[20]

The second charge is aimed at Buddhism’s anthropocentric cosmology and utilitarian view of nature. Traditional Buddhist cosmology often portrays the human realm as the most favorable for spiritual progress and attainment of liberation. Other realms, including animal realms and certain celestial realms, are seen as less conducive to spiritual growth. Ian Harris argued that Buddhism's emphasis on spiritual goals prioritizes humans over animals and nature. While acknowledging the interconnected destinies of humans and animals, Buddhism traditionally views animals as unfortunate because they cannot progress in the dhamma (teachings) and vinaya (monastic rules) nor serve as monks.[21] The plant world also receives little regard within this framework. Harris summarizes the canonical perspective on nature as either needing improvement through cultivation or as a therapeutic challenge.[22]

According to the Buddhist scholar Lambert Schmithausen, Buddhism exhibits two distinct approaches to civilization and nature. The first, termed the pro-civilization strand, favors human development and views wild nature as potentially threatening or needing adaptation for human benefit. Schmithausen critiqued this strand as anthropocentric, attributing its perspective more to broader Indian cultural influences than to core Buddhist teachings. This viewpoint is supported in Buddhist scriptures advocating activities such as planting fruit trees and creating parks to enhance human habitats and aesthetics, reflecting a perception of natural beauty aligned with human preferences. In contrast, the second strand, identified as the hermit strand, involves forest-dwelling monks who seek spiritual fulfillment in natural solitude and hardship. Despite this pursuit of spiritual growth in natural settings, Schmithausen observed that even this strand remains anthropocentric, as forest protection primarily serves human spiritual needs rather than prioritizing a biocentric ethic centered on the well-being of nature itself.[23]

The third charge has to do with treatment of animals. According to Schmithausen, early Buddhism's approach to animal protection and ahimsa (non-harming) can be viewed as anthropocentric for several reasons. Buddhism generally portrays animals as beings experiencing unhappiness or suffering. Protecting animals in ecological terms might be seen as prolonging their suffering unnecessarily. Schmithausen acknowledged other arguments for animal protection within Buddhism, such as the idea that humans may be reborn as animals, thereby suggesting a self-interest in their protection or caring for ancestors' interests.

Furthermore, Schmithausen critiqued the anthropocentric viewpoint for potentially justifying harm and suffering inflicted upon animals for human benefit, which contradicts Buddhism's principle of avoiding harm (ahimsa). He argued that Buddhism fundamentally opposes causing such suffering and suggests that portrayals of "unhappy animals" in Buddhist texts serve didactic purposes, illustrating the workings of kamma rather than making definitive statements about animals' nature or worthiness of protection.[24]

The issue of anthropocentrism in Buddhism can be summarized as follows: Buddhist philosophy places significant emphasis on human birth as the exclusive realm where the highest spiritual goals, such as achieving enlightenment, can be pursued and attained. This emphasis implicitly suggests that human life holds paramount value within the Buddhist worldview. Anthropocentrism, on the other hand, asserted that humans occupy a central position and assigns intrinsic or supreme value exclusively to humans. Therefore, because Buddhism focuses on human existence as pivotal for spiritual advancement and enlightenment, it can be interpreted as endorsing an anthropocentric perspective where humans are regarded as the primary locus of moral and spiritual importance. This alignment underscores a philosophical tension regarding the extent to which Buddhism considers and values non-human life forms and ecosystems in its ethical framework.[25]

Buddhist Environmental Humanism is Weakly Anthropocentric

Some scholars acknowledge that Buddhism exhibits anthropocentric elements, although they assert these are not indicative of strong anthropocentrism. Sahni argued that early Buddhism challenges conventional egoism and anthropocentrism through its profound philosophical tenets and ethical teachings. Buddhism fundamentally rejects the concept of a permanent, substantial self, viewing human beings as transient entities shaped by causes and conditions. This foundational belief undermines claims of strong anthropocentrism, as ethical considerations are not centered around a lasting "human" entity. Instead, Buddhism emphasizes liberation from suffering (nibbana) through moral conduct, contemplation, and insight, accessible only to humans.

While highlighting the importance of human life in spiritual development, Buddhism integrates altruistic practices like loving-kindness and ethical behavior that benefit both practitioners and others. This approach reflects a broader cosmological and ethical framework where actions are evaluated based on their consequences within an interconnected network of beings and phenomena.

Moreover, Buddhism advocates for "considered preferences," aligning actions with ethical norms and long-term consequences rather than immediate desires, thereby promoting balanced personal and collective well-being. In essence, early Buddhism emerges as weakly anthropocentric, prioritizing spiritual growth and ethical conduct that transcend narrow self-interest, challenging traditional notions of egoism and anthropocentrism in philosophical discourse.[26]

Similarly, Chih-Wei Peng shares this perspective, categorizing Buddhism as weakly anthropocentric rather than strongly anthropocentric due to its philosophical stance and ethical principles. While emphasizing personal liberation as a central goal, Buddhism does not advocate achieving this at the expense of others. The Buddha's teachings emphasize compassion, loving-kindness, and non-violence toward all sentient beings, evident in practices like meditation and virtue cultivation aimed at benefiting others as well as oneself.

Buddhism acknowledges the unique opportunity humans have for enlightenment but does not promote tyrannical domination over other beings or the environment. Instead, Buddhism promotes ethical conduct (sila) which includes principles of non-harming toward all living beings, extending moral consideration beyond human interests alone. Furthermore, Buddhism encourages adherents to critically examine and adjust desires and preferences based on ethical and rational considerations, supporting a perspective of weak anthropocentrism. This worldview allows for critique and abandonment of harmful behaviors and preferences conflicting with principles of non-harming and ethical conduct, showcasing Buddhism's potential as a foundation for an environmentally sensitive ethic.[27]

Buddhism is Non-Anthropocentric

Among scholars, there is a debate regarding whether Buddhism aligns with a non-anthropocentric worldview. When discussing non-anthropocentrism, it's insightful to consider several environmental paradigms that fall within this category. Environmental philosophers such as Paul W. Taylor (biocentrism), Lawrence E. Johnson and Holmes Rolston III (ecocentrism), and Arne Naess (Deep Ecology) represent different approaches to this worldview.

Biocentrism emphasizes the intrinsic worth of individual biological entities and argues against any human-centric view of their place in the world. According to Taylor, humans share a common relationship with other species and are fundamentally interconnected with the Earth. He proposed a 'biocentric ethic' where all living organisms possess intrinsic value as centers of life, with their own goals of living, flourishing, and propagation. This perspective suggests that humans should adopt norms that prevent interference with the development and flourishing of non-human life forms.[28]

Ecocentrism expands moral consideration to entire systems comprising both living (biotic) and non-living (abiotic) entities such as air, water, land, and ecosystems. Holmes Rolston III argued that each organism pursues a 'valued state' based on its DNA-programmed activities, seeking certain states while avoiding others. This pursuit of 'natural value' and 'systemic value' in nature is objective and not dependent on human perceptions.[29]

Deep Ecology, not merely an environmental ethics but a philosophical orientation, advocates for 'Self-Realization' where individuals fully identify with the world, leading to harmonious behaviors and thinking aligned with nature. It addresses the disconnection between humans and nature by emphasizing unity, aiming for a sense of 'self-realization' to resolve issues like denial, assimilation, homogenization, and exploitation.[30]

In aligning Buddhism with these ecosophies, particularly Deep Ecology, efforts have been made to bridge philosophical principles. The book Buddhism and Deep Ecology asserts a core similarity in their focus on feeling at home in the universe.[31] Arvind Kumar Singh noted how self-realization in Deep Ecology parallels Buddhism's interdependence tenet, shifting consciousness beyond anthropocentrism to view the self as ecological and inclusive of all beings and the planet.[32]

Joanna Macy, a prominent Buddhist scholar, synthesizes Buddhism and deep ecology in her "Work That Reconnects" project. Drawing on Buddhist teachings of interconnectedness, impermanence, and compassion, Macy addresses moral and psychological challenges posed by social and ecological issues. Her work promotes ecological sustainability and responsibility grounded in deepened awareness of interdependence, advocating beyond human-centric perspectives.

Buddhist Environmentalism is Humanistic

As evidenced by the diverse perspectives on Buddhism's approach to ecological concerns, the lack of consensus reflects a nuanced and intricate discourse. Scholars debate whether Buddhism inclines towards anthropocentrism or non-anthropocentrism, interpreting teachings on human liberation, cosmology, and ethics through diverse lenses. Historical contexts rooted in traditional texts sometimes conflict with modern reinterpretations emphasizing ecological sensitivity and non-anthropocentric values. Efforts to integrate Buddhism with environmental philosophies like biocentrism and Deep Ecology further complicate the discourse, revealing both resonances and tensions with contemporary ethical imperatives. Continuing this dialogue encourages ongoing exploration and critical engagement, highlighting Buddhism's evolving interpretations and potential contributions to global environmental ethics.

Given the complexities and diverse interpretations within this discourse, labeling Buddhist environmentalism as simply 'anthropocentric' or ‘non-anthropocentric’ may oversimplify its unique context and epistemology. Moreover, religious environmentalism, including Buddhist environmentalism, should not be confined to aligning itself with principles solely derived from secular environmental ethics for identification. Therefore, I propose the use of the term 'humanistic' to characterize Buddhist environmentalism. This term offers a more inclusive and contextually sensitive framework, acknowledging the emphasis on human concerns within these religious contexts while recognizing Buddhism's broader ethical engagements with the natural world across different cultural and historical contexts. This approach encourages a deeper understanding and appreciation of religious environmental ethics on their own terms, beyond the limitations of secular paradigms, fostering dialogue and engagement that enriches both religious and secular environmental thought.

In conceiving of a conceptual framework for this book, I believe it is most appropriate and beneficial to make use of the existing Buddhist framework to address the ecological crisis. The term “crisis” in itself informs us that there is a problem, a state of imbalance, disharmony, dislocatedness, and lack of peace. Thus, the Buddhist approach to the ecological crisis needs to take the same analogous course as that which pertains to the entire human condition by first, making a diagnosis of the perceived problem, then present a goal or vision for the problem, as well as a practical course of action that helps to realize that vision.

In my presentation of Buddhist environmental humanism, under the guide of this conceptual framework, I will do the following:

1) Diagnose the ecological crisis as a problem stemming from human moral and spiritual malignancies causing disharmony in human-nature relationship, and negatively harming both human as well as nature.

2) Present a vision for human-nature relationship characterized by wholesome qualities contrary to the ones being observed.

3) Offer the course of action that one takes in order to realize this vision of wholesome and healthy human-nature relationship.

As we can see, the conceptual framework for this study adheres faithfully to the Buddhist framework presented above. I believe it is important to retain this framework even at the risk of the critique of being unoriginal. I do not mind this critique because I think there is much room for fresh perspectives even when one employs familiar concepts. What is important is that these concepts are examined creatively and seriously in order to discover nourishing truths and insights.

One will notice the conceptual framework that is proposed for my study on Buddhist environmental humanism incorporates two extremely important dimensions in Buddhist pedagogy, which if lacking either one of the two, will render this presentation incomplete and handicapped. What lies within this framework is the implicit understanding that a Buddhist environmental humanism must include both the relational (horizontal) dimension of human life and the developmental (vertical) dimension of human mental and spiritual growth. The horizontal dimension refers to how we enter and maintain relationship with others and with the environment. The vertical dimension examines what needs to take place in order for us to achieve the necessary personal progress in order to avoid unhealthy relationships that are harmful to ourselves as well as to others.

---------

[1] Keith R. Peterson, A World Not Made for Us: Topics in Critical Environmental Philosophy (New York: SUNY Press, 2020), 1.
[2] Quoted in Peterson, A World Not Made for Us, 2.
[3] Elisa K. Campbell, “Beyond Anthropocentrism,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 19 (1983): 54-67.
[4] Cambridge Online Dictionary, “Anthropocentrism,” https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/anthropocentrism
[5] Warwick Fox, Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism (Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1990), 11.
[6] Quoted in Peterson, A World Not Made for Us, 20.
[7] Frederic Bender, The Culture of Extinction (New York: Humanity Books, 2003), 69.
[8] Katie McShane, “Anthropocentrism vs. Nonanthropocentrism: Why Should We Care?” Environmental Values 16, no. 2 (2007): 170.
[9] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, “Anthropocentrism,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropocentrism.
[10] Eugene Hargrove, “Weak Anthropocentric Intrinsic Value,” in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, eds. Andrew Light and Holmes Roston III (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003), 175.
[11] Federick Ferré, “Personalistic Organicism: Paradox or Paradigm?” in Philosophy and the Natural Environment, eds. Robin Attfield and Andrew Belsey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 72.
[12] Ferré, “Personalistic Organicism,” 72.
[13] Tim Hayward, “Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem,” Environmental Values 6, no. 1 (1997): 51.
[14] William Grey, “Anthropocentrism and Deep Ecology,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 71, no.4 (1993): 470.
[15] Bryan G. Norton, “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism,” Environmental Ethics 6, no. 2 (1984): 134.
[16] William Grey, “Environmental Value and Anthropocentrism,” Ethics and the Environment, 3, no. 1 (1998): 99.
[17] Hayward, “Anthropocentrism,” 57.
[18] Quoted in Elizabeth Kolbert, “Where Have All the Insects Gone?,” The New Yorker, October 25, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/01/where-have-all-the-insects-gone-e-o-wilson-silent-earth.
[19] Mary Anne Warren, Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 43.
[20] Donald K. Swearer, “An Assessment of Buddhist Eco-Philosophy,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 99, No. 2 (Apr., 2006), pp. 123-137, esp. 128.
[21] Ian Harris, "How Environmentalist Is Buddhism?" Religion 21 (1991) 105.
[22] Ian Harris, "How Environmentalist Is Buddhism?" 107.
[23] Schmithausen, “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics,” 24–8.
[24] Schmithausen, “The Early Buddhist Tradition and Ecological Ethics,” p. 28-30.
[25] Pragati Sahni, 80.
[26] Sahni, 80-89.
[27] Chih-Wei Peng, Thesis “Environmental Virtue Ethics in Buddhism,” 2015, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/6w924f48r?locale=en
[28] Paul Taylor, “The Ethics of Respect for Nature,” in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, eds. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 74-84.
[29] Holmes Rolston III, “Value in Nature and the Nature of Value,” in Environmental Ethics: An Anthology, eds. Andrew Light and Holmes Rolston III (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2002), 143-153.
[30] Peterson, A World Not Made for Us, 30.
[31] Daniel H. Henning, Buddhism and Deep Ecology (AuthorHouse, 2002), 2.
[32] Arvind Kumar Singh, “Buddhism and Deep Ecology: An Appraisal,” In The Proceedings 
of an International Buddhist Conference on the United Nations Day of Vesak on the theme
“Buddhist Virtues in Socio Economic Development” UNDV Conference Volume published
by ICUNDV & Mahachulalongkornrajavidyalaya University, Bangkok, Thailand, held from
May 12-14, 2011, pp. 413-427, esp. 427.