Anthropocentrism and Speciesism in the Context of Environmental Studies. A Synoptic Introduction

This new special volume of Ethics in Progress was inspired by the need to address the issue of anthropocentrism as the key concept in the light of which original and innovative readings of the human-environment relationship are provided, through a remodelling of frequently occurring problems in the field, i.e., the theoretical foundations and conceptual intercorrelations between human-centred narrations and attitudes toward the environment1. Starting from the 1960s onwards, the cumulation of scientific data regarding the ecological crisis has profoundly changed humans’ understanding of the environment, as well as that of their own relationship with it in a context that is, however, profoundly changed by modern science and technological civilization. Since then, a revision process applied to traditional ethical theories – as well as to the set of moral principles making up their core – has taken place. Environmental ethics was from the very beginning oriented towards a theoretical deconstruction of the cultural (including religious and philosophical) foundations on which disruptive human attitudes were supposedly rooted. What initially had been a critical appendix to traditional anthropocentrism then went on to consolidate as an autonomous theoretical corpus, serving as a guiding paradigm for all environmental challenges, so that nowadays it is even possible to speak of multiple families of environmental ethics. Environmental ethics was therefore born in the early 1970s as an extension of applied ethics, in the guise of a “post-disciplinary” field (at that time) with respect to the Western ethical system, and was grounded on a worldview that placed human distinctiveness as being based in the fact that humans are the privileged value-givers and value-holders in the world. According to Bartolommei (1995, 40–41), by anthropocentrism we mean

Starting from the 1960s onwards, the cumulation of scientific data regarding the ecological crisis has profoundly changed humans' understanding of the environment, as well as that of their own relationship with it in a context that is, however, profoundly changed by modern science and technological civilization. Since then, a revision process applied to traditional ethical theories -as well as to the set of moral principles making up their core -has taken place. Environmental ethics was from the very beginning oriented towards a theoretical deconstruction of the cultural (including religious and philosophical) foundations on which disruptive human attitudes were supposedly rooted.
What initially had been a critical appendix to traditional anthropocentrism then went on to consolidate as an autonomous theoretical corpus, serving as a guiding paradigm for all environmental challenges, so that nowadays it is even possible to speak of multiple families of environmental ethics.
Environmental ethics was therefore born in the early 1970s as an extension of applied ethics, in the guise of a "post-disciplinary" field (at that time) with respect to the Western ethical system, and was grounded on a worldview that placed human distinctiveness as being based in the fact that humans are the privileged value-givers and value-holders in the world. According to Bartolommei (1995, 40-41), by anthropocentrism we mean

Sara Sgarlata
ORCID: 0000-0001-8166-2556 the conception according to which nature exists apart from humans, for whom in nature nothing has value unless it satisfies some human-serving interest, need or preference.
Consequently, even assuming that nature has some kind of value, a differential treatment for humans and non-human nature would be legitimized, by principle.
The rejection of anthropocentrism constituted the dominant, if not foundational, ethical commitment of environmental ethics and philosophy, as well as its most effective political and intellectual justification (Minteer 2009, 4). However, what is strongly conveyed by the concept of anti-anthropocentrism is the need to postulate the non-instrumental, intrinsic value of natural things: only in this way will it be possible to develop an authentic ethics of the environment, rather than an ethics of exploitation (albeit conscious) of the environment. As Aldo Leopold (see Norton 1991, 92)  Furthermore, special room for discussion has been made with respect to the notion of speciesism, which is often regarded as a synonym of anthropocentrism. According to Faria and Paez's (2014) critical reconstruction, these two closely linked concepts are rather likely to explain different phenomena, although belonging to the same dominion.
The authors introduce a different understanding of the notion of speciesism. Speciesism is the "unjustified preferential consideration of members of a particular nonhuman species against members of others," or the "unjustified disadvantageous consideration of members of a particular nonhuman species, though not of members of other nonhuman species" (Faria & Paez 2014, 99). Anthropocentrism would be, then, a particular form of speciesism, consisting of the unjustified advantageous consideration of members of the human species to the detriment of those of non-human ones.
Closely connected with this topic, Enrico Giannetto's (Università degli Studi di Bergamo) contribution was guided by the topical question of the intimate correlation between epistemic anthropocentrism -that is, the fact that it is not possible to think as nonhumans -and moral anthropocentrism. "Understanding non-human beings is impossible within the framework of human philosophy, as it will imply some kind of dialogue with non-human beings, achieved through an experience of participant observation aimed at understanding and learning animal philosophies" (Gianetto 2020, in this volume). In contrast to Gianetto's argument, a specifically human mode of thinking, i.e., reasoning by concepts articulated in words and further processed in dialogical and discursive forms, According to Cecilia Della Torre (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano), "Sloterdijk uses technology to refer to a safe haven, as opposed to a natural and evil environment that has to be modified and redefined by humans. Indeed, Sloterdijk refuses the idea of nature as the protective good mother of every human being. According to him, human beings can no longer find safety and protection in nature, but rather they do so in their own actions and the related by-products. Therefore, technology appears to be the key for human salvation against this dangerous environment" (della Torre 2020, in this volume) by means of an Ark or "mechanical uterus". Her article advocates for the importance of philosophical readings of the integration, or co-belonging, between humans and the environment for designing human societies. In her critical -both provocative cannot be an obligation, should be perceived as a duty by anyone who feels challenged to live a morally and spiritually higher life" (Trianni 2020, this volume). The article also sheds light on the historical events and characters (belonging not only to the sphere of the Roman Church, but also to that of heretical cults), as well as on the doctrinal controversies that contributed to strengthening the carnivorous custom in the Judeo-Christian world.
By valorizing Christian authors that speculated in favour of and embraced a vegetarian life-style, Trianni advocates for sensitizing Christian thought toward contemporary issues related to anthropocentrism and speciesism -here by means of theology itself. We sincerely thank all the reviewers that contributed to the publication of this issue.
We are obliged as well to Marcin Jan Byczyński and Stephen Dersley for their fundamental contributions and diligent engagement with the edition process. We value and appreciate it to the greater extent. A special thank goes to Noemi Sgarlata, whose graphics enriched the visual look of the issue. "Support for Scientific Journals" granted to Ethics in Progress by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (2019-2021) made possible essential improvements in all papers and abstracts making up this special issue.