The Instigator
Manastacious
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Hurstman
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Resolved Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over biocentrism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Hurstman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,227 times Debate No: 11982
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Manastacious

Pro

Thanks in advance to the person who accepts this debate. This was a recent UIL topic that I enjoyed debating and wanted to try it out as my first debate on this site.
Ld Structure please (including CX)

William Baxter, the Professor of Law at Stanford University, stated that Anthropocentrism "...does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways, and they will be preserved because and to the degree that humans depend on them.". This shows that Anthropocentrism does not promote the senseless killing of animals and living things, it only promotes the preservation of Human life. Anthropocentrists only wish that a human's life should valued above the life of that of an animal. Because I agree with William Baxter, I stand firmly resolved that Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over Biocentrism because Biocentrism unreasonably infringes on human rights in ways that prevent humans from living a long, happy, and productive life.
In order to set the parameters for today's debate, I would like to offer the following definition of term. Anthropocentrism- considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), ought- being used to express obligation, value- worth Biocentrism being that

1.Humans are members of a community of life along with all other species, and on equal terms.
2.Every organism is a center of life, that is, each organism has a purpose and a reason for being, which is inherently "good"
3.Humans are not inherently superior to other species (according to Paul Taylor a leading biocentrist, and the professor emeritus in philosophy at Brooklyn College).

The criterion for today's debate is preservation of human life, being: believing the human life ought to be valued above that of an animal's life. Nothing compares in importance to a human's life, because humans have the ability to feel and understand pain, death, and emotional sadness. Every human on this earth is someone's child, and every human is more valuable in someone's eye than that of a parasite, or bacterium.
To better understand my position in the debater, I offer the following reasons:
Anthropocentric views create contextually valid prescriptions for ethical conduct. For example, anthropocentric justifications for environmental action make intuitive sense. "Since this anthropocentric orientation arguably has had, and continues to have, widespread support as a background assumption of many... practices affecting nature." (--Roger King) The anthropocentrist does not have a problem reconciling the domesticated landscape with the wild the way biocentrists do.
Also, Biocentrism creates contextually impossible prescriptions for ethical conduct. The "Respect for all life" moral is extremely self contradictory in the way that respecting some forms of life infringes on the respect for other organisms. Laura West, the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor put it this way, "If I respect all organisms equally and their right to exist, then my own corresponding 'right' to life can not be respected, as I can neither feed my self, nor defend myself from attacks of any sort." Also, the "Respect for all life" moral creates impossible Human Obligations to all creatures. This means that we must not only refrain from harming them, but must actively promote their life interests. According to that logic Nicholas Agar reasoned that, "..beyond taking care not to step on ants, we must strive to make the world a place where ants are less likely to be tread on.
Biocentrists also believe that fighting diseases that kill thousands of people is immoral. Gary Varner stated that, "One reason for doubt would be that... Paul Taylor... said... that we are guilty for merely keeping ourselves alive by eating and fighting disease." The problems with these morals are extremely obvious, as by respecting other life-form's right to live we practically throw away our right to live. This must be rejected as, this contradicts biocentrism's "respect for ALL life."
Finally, biocentrists resort to anthropocentric views in practice. Biocentrists "necessarily make concessions to anthropocentric values simply virtue of having to make their palatable to Human audiences." No sensible person can accept a value where human lives can not be considered as valuable as the life of a deadly bacteria that could decimate the population of the Earth.
In conclusion, anthropocentric views must be considered more valuable and more valid than biocentrism because it is more logically justified. Biocentrism's self-contradictory morals and unreasonable prescriptions for ethical conduct show that it should not be as highly valuable. Why should we accept a belief that infringes on our own right to live the way that biocentrism does? The answers we shouldn't and we won't.
Hurstman

Con

AC
------------------
My opponent starts off his case with a circle argument, saying the anthropocentric view preserves the environment because we as humans depend on them. This in itself should shows he puts more value in Biocentrism than in Anthropocentrism. My opponent goes on to state:

"Anthropocentrism does not promote the senseless killing of animals and living things, it only promotes the preservation of Human life."

Anthropecentrism doesn't PROMOTE killing living things, it ALLOWS it. My opponent even states in his case:

"The anthropocentrist does not have a problem reconciling the domesticated landscape with the wild the way biocentrists do."

My opponent doesn't explain the impacts of reconciling domesticated landscape. The Anthropocentrist justifies this because in his opinion humans are "the most significant entity of the universe". They do not mind destroying wildlife because it further benefits humanity. My opponent even states that "Anthropocentrism does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways". In the Anthropocentric world, they do not strive to harm the environment, but without any moral rules set to protect the environment, the likelihood of them not actually hurting the environment is minuscule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT side note- My opponent asked for LD structure. LD is a values debate. The whole point is to achieve a set value. My opponent provides no value, thus 1) Not achieving anything in this debate. 2) Not meeting LD structure or the pre-burden's of the round. 3) Being extremely abusive to the Negative because how do I fulfill my pre-burden to refute his value without being given a value. So, already, vote Negative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
His criterion of "preservation of human life", but goes on to define it as:

"believing the human life ought to be valued above that of an animal's life. Nothing compares in importance to a humans life, because humans have the ability to feel and understand pain, death, and emotional sadness. Every human on this earth is someone's child, and every human is more valuable in someone's eye than that of a parasite, or bacterium."

This definition would be RESPECTING human life. Once again, abusive because what do I attack? His criterion or definition. For all I know he will come up in the next round and say I didn't properly attack his criterion. Well, I have been put in the position to choose. I will refute "Preservation of human life", not "Respect of human life". I choose this, which actually helps my opponent, because his case follows the trend of preserving human life. This criterion should be downed because 1) Has no impact in this round because biocentrism, as I'll explain in my case, does not harm human life, thus nothing needs preserving. 2) No value to link to.

I'll address his arguments as contentions. Argument one is contention one, etc.

Contention one:

Cross-apply my earlier argument:

"My opponent doesn't explain the impacts of reconciling domesticated landscape. The Anthropocentrist justifies this because in his opinion humans are "the most significant entity of the universe". They do not mind destroying wildlife because it further benefits humanity. My opponent even states that "Anthropocentrism does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways". In the Anthropocentric world, they do not strive to harm the environment, but without any moral rules set to protect the environment, the likelihood of them not actually hurting the environment is minuscule."

Contention two:

My opponent lists off a set of authors all claiming a main claim. That biocentrism is self-contradictory and impossible to achieve. The problem here is my opponent and his authors do not understand what biocentrism is. It is not preserving all life, as my opponent wishes to do for humans in his case. It is "considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value".

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So in the biocentric world, we give intrinsic value to all life. So it would make it immoral to value one over the other if they both have intrinsic value. So his contention two should be dropped, I'll later explain in more detail in my case.

Contention three:

This argument is about how biocentrism uses biocentric means to achieve an anthropocentric view. He doesn't back this up with any warrants, so this should fall. His only reasoning is "No sensible person can accept a value where human lives can not be considered as valuable as the life of a deadly bacteria that could decimate the population of the Earth". This itself isn't even correct. He once again misunderstands biocentrism. Biocentrism give intrinsic value to that bacteria, and values it on the same level as humans. So if it is insensible to do that, so be it. (I will now explain in my case why it is sensible).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I negate, Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over biocentrism. I agree on definitions, just add in my earlier one on Biocentrism since my opponent fails to provide one.

The value to measure today's round will be Morality defined as "concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong". The is the best value to theorize the effects of valuing biocentrism above anthropocentrism. Also, being the only value offered, it stands no matter what. The best standard to achieve this value is Respecting the Biosphere. In the biocentric view, all life has value. Life is all part of a community, all giving and taking. We cannot exist without one another. An animal dies for a human as food, thus upholding natural laws of the biosphere and respecting that biosphere. This is the way of nature. The thesis of my case is that one cannot value one above the other because there is no bright line between them. Without a bright line to provide superiority to one kind of life forms, it would be absolutely immoral to value one above the other. The lack of evidence is a non-issue. As the Affirmative it is my opponent's job to provide evidence. Unless he can provide evidence to support the idea of a bright line between humans and other life forms, my case stands and the only moral option will be to negate.

In conclusion, I sufficiently refuted my opponents arguments and have set up my case. As customary in LD, please allow no new arguments to arise past this point. We must stick to the arguments presented in our case. My opponent has requested CX. I'm not sure how we will d this, but we can use the comment box or the next round. I personally though waive my right to CX. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Manastacious

Pro

I choose to forfeit this debate, as I do not plan on using DEBATE.ORG. I have found a better online debate community.
Hurstman

Con

Did I do that well? ;). What other site?????

Oh, btw. Vote Con. Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
Manastacious

Pro

Manastacious forfeited this round.
Hurstman

Con

Please extend all arguments. By now, you have no other choice but to negate. Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
Manastacious

Pro

Manastacious forfeited this round.
Hurstman

Con

My opponent has forfeited all but one of his rounds. Please take note of this, and vote Con. Extend my arguments, and vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theGreatone 7 years ago
theGreatone
I cannot vote, seeing as I do not have a cell phone in which to confirm my identity :(
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
Good point, I agree. You should vote. ;)
Posted by theGreatone 7 years ago
theGreatone
It seems as if the instigator simply copied and pasted an original case and found it to much to debate the rest. :/ Then again, I could be wrong.
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
Oh, well just wondering why OreEle tied that one. I agree with the sources though
Posted by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
You did, but that's not as important as the other voting factors.
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
Did I not have good S&G?
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
Thanks. =)
Posted by theGreatone 7 years ago
theGreatone
Nice response and organization!
Posted by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
Ehh...I dislike circle arguments
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Anthropocentrism reduces down to Biocentrism in most regards.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
Brandonmaciel333
ManastaciousHurstmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RaeTulo 7 years ago
RaeTulo
ManastaciousHurstmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
ManastaciousHurstmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Hurstman 7 years ago
Hurstman
ManastaciousHurstmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07