Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics

I believe that Watson’s position against ecosophy fails to recognize certain counterarguments. He says that according to ecosophy, nature is natural only when human beings are not present or restraining their natural behavior, and that this assumes that humans are separate from nature. I would argue that nature is as it should be when no one species is causing astronomical and devastating effects on the environment—it just happens to be that humans are that species, and it would be just as bad an action if it were done by any other species. He also says that other species are morally neutral and their behavior can be neither good nor bad, but that the moral evaluation of human behavior sets humans apart. I might argue that each species has its own unique characteristics that distinguish it from others, for example, human morality. On one level, certainly, all species are different, but on a much deeper lever perhaps all things are one. One might also say, to make things a bit more equal, that an action of any species can be bad or wrong, and that no behavior is morally neutral; however, any animals, not just humans, that are able to understand the moral significance of their actions ought to be held responsible for any wrong actions, and in this way the division is not made between nonhumans and humans, it just happens to lie there as far as we know. Watson also says that it is the nature of humans to flourish at the expense of other species and the planet’s ecology. From this position, I am led to assume that he believes that this nature is inherent in humans; however, I believe that there can be, and have been, individuals and even societies who do not live by causing massive destruction. If this nature can be separated from the human, then it is not inherent, and so should not serve as a reason why such destruction is a natural part of being a human being. Watson also comments that humans alter things, and that this is their destiny and nature’s way. It might be any being’s nature to alter things a bit, but I do not see evidence that humans inherently must cause a large scale of devastation to the planet. In addition, just because it is does not mean that it ought to be. Slavery, at a time, was widely accepted, but just because it existed does not mean that it ought to have existed. Even if humans do tend to ruin their environment, it does not mean that they ought to, let alone that their very tendency to damage their surroundings gives them the right to ruin them.