61
exploitation or malevolence. The Hebrew word for “work it” in Genesis 2:15 is abad.
This word means ‘to serve, till’. It means to be attentive to, to work the earth in a way that is to its benefit. This command focuses on the earth, particularly cultivation (Gen.
2:5, 15).This ‘subduing’ implies developing in the created order, offering to human beings the task of intra –creation development, of nurturing the world to its fullest possible potential (P.17).
Again the pontifical council for justice and peace (2014) insists and articulates that “the lord entrusted all of creation to their (humanity) responsibility, charging them to care for its harmony and development. This special bond with God explains the privileged position of the first couple in the order of creation” (P.451). Ibeh (2003) in furtherance of the pro-environment theology of Genesis chapter 1:26-28; and Genesis 2:15 says that, “man has a double position in relation to other creatures. On one hand, he is an integral part of the created order; on the other hand, he is empowered to use nature’s gifts in a creative manner to satisfy his needs. This authority goes with responsibility and care, according to the duty and injunction to ‘cultivate and guard in Genesis 2:15” (P.64).
From the foregoing anthropocentrism understood both from the dominion and steward stances have very serious contribution to environmental protection in the context of this research. Thus, miners and mining industry ought to embrace the “cultivate and guard”
principles of anthropocentrism. The true understanding of the fact that they as part of the created order have the above responsibility will help them shun the exploitative tendencies while mining.
62
ethical point of view that extends inherent value to all living things. It stands in contrast to anthropocentrism which centers on the values of humans. Advocates of biocentrism always promote the preservation of biodiversity, animal rights and environmental protection.
Mouchang and Yi (2009) define biocentrism as a term that encompasses all environmental ethics that “extend the status of moral object from human beings to all living things in nature”
(p.22). Hence the key arguments of biocentric can be summarized as follows:
(i) All species have inherent value not extrinsic value.
(ii) Humans are not inherently “superior” to other species in a moral or ethical sense.
(iii) Humans and all other species are members of earth’s community.
(iv) All species are part of a system of interdependence.
Biocentric ethicists include Albert Schweitzer popularly associated with the ethics of
“Reverence for life”, Peter singer known for ethics of Animal liberation and Paul Taylor (a philosopher) known for ethics of biocentric egalitarianism. Mouchang and Yi (2009) explain that Albert Schweitzer’s reverence for life principle was a precursor of modern biocentric ethics that denies any distinction between “high and low” or “valuable and less valuable” life forms. Schweitzer, they said, dismissed such categorization as arbitrary and subjective.
Similarly, singer (1979) argues that non-human animals deserve the same equality of consideration that is extended to human beings. His argument is roughly as follows:
(i) Membership in the species Homo sapiens is the only criterion of moral importance that includes all humans and excludes all non-humans.
(ii) Using membership in the species Homo sapiens as a criterion of moral importance is completely arbitrary.
(iii) Of the remaining criteria to be considered, only sentience is a plausible criterion of moral importance.
63
(iv) Using sentience as a criterion of moral importance entails that the same basic moral consideration (i.e. basic principle of equality) be extended to other sentient creatures than human beings.
(v) Therefore, the same equality of consideration extended to humans beings, ought to be extended to other animals.
Thus for Singer, other animals than human beings, should be considered because they too feel pain and suffer, and for him, that remains the only possible, explanation for their inclusion in the moral object argument.
Perhaps biocentrism is most commonly associated with Taylor (1986), who maintains that biocentrism is an “attitude of respect” (p.99), whereby one attempts to make an effort to live one’s life in a way that respects the welfare and inherent worth of all living creatures. He states that:
(i) Humans are members of a community of life along with all other species, and on equal terms.
(ii) This community consists of a system of interdependence between all members, both physically and in terms of relationship with other species.
(iii) Every organism is a “teleological centre of life”, that is, each organism has a purpose and reason for being, which is inherently “good” or valuable”.
(iv) Humans are not inherently superior to other species.(p.99)
Paul Taylor’s position above is similar to that of his co-proponents; the only difference is the addition of a teleological argument. Taylor added further to the key arguments of biocentrism that other species have purpose of being and there is no denial of the fact that no specie exists for nothing.
64
One of the criticisms of biocentric ethical theory grows out of the concern that it is an anti-human paradigm and that it will not hesitate to sacrifice anti-human well-being for the greater good of other species. It has also been criticized for its individualism; emphasizing too much on the importance of individual life and neglecting the importance of collective groups, such as an ecosystem. A more complex of the criticisms focuses on the contradictions of biocentrism. Opposed to anthropocentrism (which sees humans as having a higher status than other species), Carlos (2011) points out that “Biocentrism puts human on par with the rest of nature, and not above it” (p.55), which could suggest that biocentrics are playing double standard.
However, biocentrism promotes some values useful to this research in terms of environmental protection. It draws man’s attention to the fact that other species have value in themselves; not that accorded to it by man and therefore, demands to be handled with utmost care. Mining activities right from the exploration stage, disturbs the eco-system and so adversely affects fauna and flora. Thus, the appreciation of the above value of biocentrism by miners and mining companies will help them in implementing the resettlement of fauna and re-vegetation of flora at mine closure.