Biocentrism as a Model of Environmental Development of Society: Socio-Philosophical Analysis
The article is devoted to modern issues of bioethics and the problem of replacing anthropocentric values that lie in the relation of a man to nature with the values of biocentrism. Attempts to solve the environmental problems of modern society within the framework of the anthropocentric paradigm have not been successful so far, despite the fact that many theories have been created to prevent the environmental crisis. Philosophers and scientists all over the world increasingly come to the conclusion that man is not the center of the universe and must take into account the rights of other living beings, in particular animals. This is not a tribute paid to fashion, but an attempt to find a compromise in relations with nature in order to save it from the destructive influence of utilitarianism, which considers all living and nonliving natural resources as potential objects for profit and enjoyment. The issues of giving animals legal status in order to protect them from human arbitrariness are gradually moving from a theoretical plane to a practical one, being implemented in a number of legal acts regulating human attitude towards animals. Until a person exalts himself above other inhabitants of the ecosystem and considers it the highest value, global environmental problems cannot be solved, but if he changes his worldview to a biocentric one, he will create favorable conditions for their resolution. The purpose of the study is to analyze the phenomenon of biocentrism and show its advantages over the anthropocentric model of relations in the “society-nature” system. The novelty of the study lies in the analysis of modern Russian and foreign approaches to the problem of biocentrism and bioethics, and the development of proposals for the introduction of this model of the relation of a man to nature in everyday practice on their basis. Research materials can be used in the preparation of courses in social philosophy.
1. Michurin I. V. Itogi shestidesyatiletnikh rabot [Results of sixty years of work]. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo sel'skokhozyaistvennoi literatury, 1949. 672 p. (in Russian).
2. Carson R. Silent spring. Houghton Miffl in Company. 1962. 368 p.
3. Naess A. The shallow and the deep, long-range ecology movement. A summary. Inquiry, 1973, no. 16, pp. 95–100.
4. Goodpaster K. On being morally considerable. Journal of Philosophy, 1978, no. 75 (6), pp. 308–325.
5. Taylor P. W. Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton, Princeton university press, 1986. 329 p.
6. Koval E. A. Worldviews of social environmental practices in a “good society”. Zhurnal Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekologiya [Journal of Belarusian State University. Ecology], 2017, no. 3, pp. 4–10 (in Russian).
7. Avdeeva I. A. The transformation of humanism: from anthropocentrism to biocentrism in the context of constructing new principles for the relationship of humans to animals. Filosofi ya i obshchestvo [Philosophy and Society], 2018, no. 3 (88), pp. 66–82 (in Russian).
8. Anisimov A. P. On some philosophical and legal arguments in favor of a new concept of animal rights. Scientific Reports of Belgorod State University. Series: Philosophy. Sociology. Law, 2016, no. 3 (224), pp. 122–127 (in Russian).
9. Ole M. The ethics of wild animals suffering. Etikk i praksis. Nord J Appl Ethics. NR, 2016, pp. 91–104.
10. V Norvegii utverzhden zakon o blagopoluchii domashnikh zhivotnykh (Norway approves pet welfare law). Available at: http://goodnewsanimal.ru/news/v_norvegii_utverzhden_zakon_o_blagopoluchi... (accessed 28 January 2020) (in Russian).
11. Hall M. Plants as Persons: A Philosophical Bounty. Albany, State University of New York Press, 2011. 235 p.
12. Waldmuller Johannes M. Living well rather than living better. Measuring biocentric human-nature rights and human-nature development in Ecuador. International Journal of Social Quality, 2015, no. 5 (2), pp. 7–28.
13. Big-Alabo S. Paul Taylors biocentric ethics: a survey for contemporary environmental confl icts. The Philosophical Quest, 2019, vol. 6, iss. 2, July – August, pp. 99–111.
14. Ot veshchi k partneru: kak zakon ob obrashchenii s zhivotnymi izmenit zhizn’ vladel’tsam sobak i priyutov v Komi (From the thing to the partner: how the law on the treatment of animals will change the life of the owners of dogs and animal shelters in Komi). Available at: https://www.bnkomi.ru/data/news/96488/ (accessed 28 January 2020) (in Russian).