Anthropocentrism is called the theory of philosophy that places the human being at the center of everything. This doctrine, therefore, holds that the interests of men require more attention than all other questions.
For anthropocentrism, the human condition must be the only thing that guides judgment. By extension, the rest of living beings and the universe in general should always be considered based on the well-being of people. Thus the intellectual and moral concern for other creatures is subordinated to the need of our species.
According to DigoPaul, anthropocentrism can be considered from different perspectives. This doctrine is often understood as opposed to theocentrism, which places God as the measure of everything. In the Renaissance, anthropocentrism managed to prevail over the theocentrism that reigned in the Middle Ages.
In fact, it can be indicated that the transition from medieval culture to modernity is marked by the loss of preponderance of theocentrism and, in return, by the development of anthropocentrism.
Whereas until the fifteenth century God used to be taken as the origin and cause of the entire universe, from then on man began to be placed at the center. This supposed a new worldview and a resounding change in the way of understanding reality.
Anthropocentrism, however, is often questioned. The belief that human interests are above the interests of the rest of the species or that only man is capable of moral consideration is criticized by activists in favor of animal rights.
One of the points that serve to unleash controversy in this context is that we are the only animal species on this planet that claims to dominate the rest for the simple fact of feeding its ego, instead of its stomach: the rest of living beings do not They attack nobody unnecessarily, but they fulfill the task that nature has entrusted to them to maintain balance.
Although from the typical pride of many human beings, the life of animals lacks complexity compared to ours, we should be grateful to many of them for supporting the different ecosystems that, on the other hand, we strive to destroy in our desire to manufacture rockets, tall towers and artificial islands.
On the other hand, animalists often remind those who defend the ideas of anthropocentrism that our species does not hunt with its own nails and teeth, but instead resorts to the creation of artificial weapons: if we really were omnivores, as most sources indicate conventional, then we could get our own food without the help of any tools.
The scope of anthropocentrism is much greater than the mere displacement of the other species on planet Earth, and this can be seen in the vast majority of classic works of fiction in which extraterrestrial beings appear. Although it is true that in almost all of them visitors have more advanced technologies than those developed by humans, which is why they have been able to arrive from other galaxies, they rarely have an appearance consistent with their supposed intellectual superiority.
The posture known as intelligent design, on the other hand, postulates that living things and the universe itself have been created by beings of superior intelligence. This is a point of view relatively opposed to anthropocentrism, and which many scientists accuse of being a creationist; its proponents, however, argue that it is a much more likely explanation of our existence than natural selection. As expected, neither side can offer irrefutable proof of their theories.