Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning about Ecological Commons Dilemmas

When do humans extend their ethical scope to include nature? Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism are two ways of understanding an extension of ethics to nature. In an anthropocentric ethic nature deserves moral consideration because how nature is treated a¡ects humans. In an ecocentric ethic nature deserves moral consideration because nature has intrinsic value. In two experiments participants (n=91 and 84) generated moral reasoning responses to ecological moral dilemmas. The reasoning was coded as ecocentric, anthropocentric, or nonenvironmental (i.e., social contracts, truthfulness). Individual di¡erences and situational variables were examined in relation to moral reasoning about ecological dilemmas. Pro-environmental attitudes were related to more ecocentric and anthropocentric and less nonenvironmental reasoning. The presence of information about the impact of ecological damage on the environment, especially a more ‘‘wild’’ environment, elicited more ecocentric reasoning, while the presence of a social commitment elicited more nonenvironmental moral reasoning. The implications of the research for con£icts over environmental commons dilemmas are discussed. # 2001 Academic Press Ecocentrism and Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning about Ecological Dilemmas There is as yet no ethic dealing with man’s relation to land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it. . . The extension of ethics to this third element in human environment is. . .an evolutionary possibility and an ecological necessity. (Leopold, 1949, pp. 238^9) Aldo Leopold, sometimes called the father of environmental ethics, expressed these ideas over 50 years ago in his revolutionary essay ‘‘The Land Ethic.’’ Today we have clearly not accomplished the ‘‘ecological necessity’’ he called for. Environmental crises, such as species extinction, global warming, air and water pollution, and wild land destruction, are some of the most important problems currently facing our society. How we deal with these problems largely depends on how we perceive our relationship with the land. Do we view nature as property for us to use however we wish for our own bene¢t, or does nature have intrinsic value, value aside from its usefulness to humans? A half-century after Leopold gave us his land ethic, just how far and in what ways have our land ethics developed? The purpose of this project is to examine some issues in how people extend ethics to the natural environment. Environmental ethics was given a central place in debate among scientists by Hardin (1968) who argued that the human race is faced with the dilemma of how to prevent overuse and depletion of natural resources when individuals desire to maximize their gains. As noted by Dawes (1980), many environmental issues can be construed as social dilemmas: a) each individual receives a higher payo¡ for a socially defecting choice (e.g., having additional children, using all the energy available, polluting his or her neighbors) than for a socially cooperative choice, no matter what the other individuals in the society do, but b) all individuals are better o¡ if all cooperate than if all defect (p. 169). In the present research we examine moral reasoning about social dilemmas centered on environmental issues. Environmental ethics is based on the idea that morality ought to be extended to include the relaJournal of Environmental Psychology (2001) 21, 000^000 0272-4944/01/000000+ 00$35.00/0 # 2001 Academic Press doi:10.1006/jevp.2001.0205, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on JEVP: 20010205 6.06e/W (Aug 31 2000) GRACY Mohan