Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the belief that human beings occupy a central or superior position in relation to the natural world. It frames humans as distinct from and more significant than other entities, including animals, plants, ecosystems and minerals, often viewing these as resources for human use. The concept has played a significant role in shaping cultural values, scientific reasoning, religious interpretations and environmental thought, and it remains a central theme in debates concerning humanity’s relationship with nature.

Background and Core Characteristics

Anthropocentrism is frequently described as a worldview that interprets the world primarily through human values, experiences and interests. Many modern cultures incorporate assumptions of human centrality, often unconsciously. Within philosophical analysis, three main types of anthropocentrism are commonly distinguished:

• Perceptual anthropocentrism, grounded in the limitations of human sense data.
• Descriptive anthropocentrism, which places Homo sapiens at the conceptual centre of theoretical paradigms.
• Normative anthropocentrism, which asserts the superiority of humans, their moral primacy or the privileged status of human values.

While some critics consider anthropocentrism to be a root cause of ecological degradation, others argue that a long-term interpretation of human wellbeing necessarily requires sustaining the environment. Advocates of this latter perspective distinguish between shallow anthropocentrism, which focuses narrowly on short-term human interests, and enriched anthropocentrism, which interprets human flourishing as inseparable from a diverse and healthy biosphere.

Anthropocentrism in Environmental Philosophy

Environmental philosophy has long scrutinised anthropocentrism for its influence on how societies view nature. Some theorists regard it as a key element in a broader human impulse to dominate or master the Earth. This critique points to a pervasive bias embedded in traditional Western thought, shaping human identities and attitudes toward non-human life.
Val Plumwood argued that anthropocentrism occupies a parallel position in environmental thought to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in antiracist discourse. Her work emphasised how human-centred thinking underpins exploitative relationships with the natural world and obscures the interdependence of ecological systems. Earlier philosophical works such as John Passmore’s Man’s Responsibility for Nature were criticised by proponents of deep ecology for maintaining anthropocentric assumptions characteristic of Western moral thought.
Defenders of anthropocentrism, particularly in the context of environmental crisis, assert that valuing the environment for human benefit is not inherently flawed. William Grey’s argument for an enriched anthropocentrism challenges the view that human-centred ethics must be shallow, suggesting instead that human interests should be conceived broadly enough to encompass the wellbeing of ecological systems. Critics, however, argue that such frameworks still fail to address the deeper structural assumptions that position humans above nature.

Anthropocentric Thinking in Cognitive Psychology

In psychology, anthropocentric thinking is defined as a tendency to reason about unfamiliar biological phenomena by analogy to human experiences. This reasoning pattern can promote misconceptions; for example, people may assume that because human death is experienced as undesirable, biological processes such as programmed cell death function negatively in nature, when in fact they are essential to ecosystems.
Another consequence is the mistaken belief that dissimilar organisms lack features found in humans, such as blood circulation or reproductive mechanisms. Research shows that anthropocentric thinking is especially common among young children, particularly up to about ten years of age. Studies in Japan, for example, reveal that children sometimes attribute human qualities to species such as rabbits, grasshoppers or tulips.
Although anthropocentrism tends to diminish with age, it may persist into young adulthood, even among students with substantial biological education. The assumption that anthropocentric reasoning is innate has been challenged by research illustrating its cultural and environmental basis. Urban children with limited exposure to diverse species tend to use anthropocentric reasoning more frequently than children raised in rural environments, who often develop more ecologically grounded understandings. Studies among Indigenous communities in the Americas show markedly reduced anthropocentric thinking, suggesting that cultural worldviews and ecological familiarity significantly shape cognitive patterns.

Anthropocentrism in Judaeo-Christian Intellectual Traditions

Within Judaeo-Christian contexts, anthropocentrism has been both supported and challenged. Interpretations of the Book of Genesis, particularly the reference to human “dominion”, have historically been used to justify human superiority and stewardship over nature. Some scholars argue that this may reflect mistranslation or misinterpretation, noting that biblical texts ultimately place primacy on God as creator rather than elevating humans as the axis of creation.
Medieval Torah scholar Maimonides rejected anthropocentric ideas, describing humans as insignificant in the wider universe and warning that human-centred thinking leads to mistaken beliefs about natural phenomena. This perspective questioned the assumption that nature exists for human benefit and emphasised the importance of humility in understanding humanity’s place in creation.
Contemporary Christian thought has continued this critical engagement. Catholic social teaching emphasises human pre-eminence as a form of service rather than domination. In Laudato si’ (2015), Pope Francis argues that denying any special value to human beings can undermine the commitment to human welfare, but he also acknowledges that misinterpretations of Christian doctrine have historically encouraged unjustified exploitation of the environment. He stresses that concern for humanity must be inseparable from care for the planet, viewed as a shared home for all forms of life.

Broader Implications and Contemporary Debates

Anthropocentrism remains central to discussions of environmental responsibility, biodiversity conservation and global sustainability. Philosophical debates continue to contrast anthropocentric ethics with alternative frameworks such as biocentrism and ecocentrism. While critics view anthropocentrism as a major obstacle to environmental protection, defenders argue that human wellbeing and environmental health are interlinked, requiring an approach that recognises both ecological limits and human needs.
Cognitive studies further demonstrate that anthropocentric reasoning influences education, shaping how people conceptualise biological systems and species relationships. Cultural backgrounds, lived experience and exposure to nature play important roles in determining the extent to which individuals adopt human-centred interpretations of the natural world.
Religious and cultural traditions also contribute to evolving understandings of humanity’s place within the wider ecological context. Whether framed as stewardship, dominance or interconnectedness, these interpretations continue to shape moral attitudes toward environmental responsibility.