![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was reading a little bit about Carl Sagan last night, and Wikipedia claimed that he both defended humanism and argued against anthropocentric views. I was confused, as I thought these two views were contradictory, so I did some further digging.
Anthropocentrism seems to have two possible meanings to me. In astronomy, it is taken to mean that the universe was created especially for humans. The second definition is the one that Wikipedia seems to favour, that for humans, humans must be the primary concern, and hence it is not wrong to exploit other animals as long as humans benefit. Carl Sagan seems to have argued against both these views:
"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. " -- Carl Sagan
"It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly towards other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behaviour of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us. " -- Carl Sagan
It is the second view that I thought was in direct opposition to the humanist viewpoint.
There are two forms of humanism. The wider meaning of the term covers a broad catagory of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on a moral code determined by rational thinking, and rejecting supernatural influences such as gods. This philosophy seems to place human self-interest as being of high importance, and has been critisized for speciesism.
The life stance Humanism is a formal statement of these values, with the minimum tenet that "Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." These two definitions don't seem very different to me in any real sense.
Carl Sagan certainly thought that human beings were important:
"Every one of us is precious in the cosmic perspective. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. " -- Carl Sagan
He was also an extremely intelligent and rational man, and did not believe in the supernatural. I suppose it might be possible that he and others could hold to the major principles of humanism whilst not believing that human apes are superior to other animals. However, the spirit of humanism still seems to me to require some anthropocentric element of thinking.
I had a run-in with a Humanist friend of mine over the following scenario. A man poaches endangered tigers from a protected area in order to feed himself and his family. Is he justified in doing this? My friend claimed he was, and I said he wasn't. I think we were both horrified by the other's viewpoint.
Anthropocentrism seems to have two possible meanings to me. In astronomy, it is taken to mean that the universe was created especially for humans. The second definition is the one that Wikipedia seems to favour, that for humans, humans must be the primary concern, and hence it is not wrong to exploit other animals as long as humans benefit. Carl Sagan seems to have argued against both these views:
"Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. " -- Carl Sagan
"It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly towards other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behaviour of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us. " -- Carl Sagan
It is the second view that I thought was in direct opposition to the humanist viewpoint.
There are two forms of humanism. The wider meaning of the term covers a broad catagory of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on a moral code determined by rational thinking, and rejecting supernatural influences such as gods. This philosophy seems to place human self-interest as being of high importance, and has been critisized for speciesism.
The life stance Humanism is a formal statement of these values, with the minimum tenet that "Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." These two definitions don't seem very different to me in any real sense.
Carl Sagan certainly thought that human beings were important:
"Every one of us is precious in the cosmic perspective. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. " -- Carl Sagan
He was also an extremely intelligent and rational man, and did not believe in the supernatural. I suppose it might be possible that he and others could hold to the major principles of humanism whilst not believing that human apes are superior to other animals. However, the spirit of humanism still seems to me to require some anthropocentric element of thinking.
I had a run-in with a Humanist friend of mine over the following scenario. A man poaches endangered tigers from a protected area in order to feed himself and his family. Is he justified in doing this? My friend claimed he was, and I said he wasn't. I think we were both horrified by the other's viewpoint.
