The arguments of Richard Watson raise two main points which lead to a valid challenge to the ecological philosophy of many anti-anthropocentric biocentrism views. The first point Watson makes of George Sessions view, particularly his contention of the intrinsic value found in ecological equilibrium raises an important question of the extent to which value can be placed on nature itself. More importantly, he raises an even greater question challenging the ecosophy view of what the ultimate goal of human life is.
As Watson points out, the concept of human’s role in nature as superior does not have to result in a destructive end. It may very well result in that but it seems to be presumptuous to say that human beings as actors in nature should not be considered apart of it. I especially like his argument contending the ecosophy view that humans should not change the ecology of the planet. Since humans are as much a part of nature as a rat or fish, they should be able to do what they are naturally capable of doing. That includes thinking and utilizing their rationality to better themselves and their lives. The goal of humanity will never be to simply end its existence, but like Watson said it could very well end up happening. In that light, I am all for humans being allowed to live within their natural disposition and act within their nature. If it is within human nature to ultimately destroy itself than let it happen. We cannot change human nature to suite a desired outcome in our dealings with the environment. It seems if we tried to we would end up in the same position if we hadn’t tried.
What is to say that we cannot work in light of human nature and go with the very relationships that define humanity? Humans should utalyze their rational faculties to improve their relationship with the environment. It only seems natural to go this route.
The second argument made by Watson challenging Spinoza’s contention that the ultimate good of humanity to arrive at a greater understanding of nature. It does not seem to be the ultimate goal of humanity being as most people don’t do it. Moreover, just because it would bring you joy to realize a greater understanding of nature, does not mean that it is the ultimate end of humanity. It is dangerous to associate such sweeping assumptions to an argument for an ecological ethic. It made sense for Watson to contest this point and it is perfectly logical to assume human nature is contrary to that which Spinoza posits.