In biocentrism, all living things are given direct moral consideration. An important representative of this environmental-ethical position is Albert Schweitzer. He wrote the famous sentence: "I am life that wants to live, in the midst of life that wants to live." In this video you can find out how biocentrism is justified and what the consequences of this ecologically ethical position are. In biocentrism (biocentric) (from Greek bios = life) everything living deserves consideration for its own sake. Nature conservation is protection of all living things. Biocentrism assigns all living beings an inherent value, an intrinsic value, and not just an instrumental value. No living being may be used exclusively as a means to a specific end. Biocentrism thus goes beyond both anthropocentrism and pathocentrism. Not only humans and sentient animals, but also plants, fungi, algae and even bacteria are worth protecting for their own sake. Man has direct moral obligations to these living beings. Biocentric environmental ethics is justified by the fact that all living beings have an interest in preserving their lives, even if this is partly unconscious. The ethical standard is therefore the will to live. In principle, every living being has an equal right to have its basic needs, which are necessary for survival and development, respected. Within the biocentrism, a distinction can be made between an egalitarian and a hierarchical biocentrism. In egalitarian biocentrism, all living things have the same intrinsic value. The hierarchical biocentre also assigns an intrinsic value to all living beings , but this is graded according to the "level of organization" of the various living beings. Bacteria are at the lowest level, followed by fungi and algae, plants and animals, and finally humans at the highest level. Famous representatives of biocentrism are Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965), Hans Jonas (1903-1993), Paul Taylor (1923-2015), Robin Attfield (*1941) and Nicholas Agar (*1965). The German-French doctor, philosopher and theologian Albert Schweitzer is one of the best-known and earliest representatives of biocentrism with his "Ethics of reverence for life". An ethic of reverence for life must " proceed from the most immediate and comprehensive fact of consciousness": "I am life that wants to live, in the midst of life that wants to live". Man must treat all life with the same reverence as his own life. It is good to preserve and promote life, it is evil to destroy life and inhibit life. Schweitzer's ethics include both the ban on harming living beings and the positive obligation to provide assistance. Not only should insects not be killed or tortured, but they should also be helped in emergency situations. Schweitzer represents an egalitarian biocentrism. For him there is no hierarchy of values of living beings, all living beings have the same worth of protection. However, human beings are in constant conflict with other living beings in a variety of ways. In his normal everyday life and to ensure his survival, he constantly harms and destroys other living beings and is always guilty of doing so. Schweitzer writes: "I become the (...) mass murderer of the bacteria that can endanger my life." Although all living beings have the same intrinsic value, in conflict situations we must prefer one to the other. In each individual case, it must be weighed up which damage to living beings is legitimate and which is not. For example, a farmer may not pick a flower just for fun, even if he has previously mowed a thousand flowers to feed his animals. An animal experiment can never be justified with a "good cause" for humans, but it must be weighed up in each individual case as to whether this sacrifice is really necessary. In Schweitzer's view, there are also no criteria for weighing up conflict situations. Thus, we always proceed "subjectively and arbitrarily" in our decisions and therefore have "to bear the responsibility for the sacrificed life". Man is in a perpetual dilemma. Because we are constantly harming other living beings, we have an obligation to do as much good as possible for all living beings. Only in this way can we reduce man's guilt towards other living beings and undo some of the damage done. Applied to the example of animal experiments, this means that even if an animal experiment is ethically justifiable and in compliance with the law, the researcher is still guilty and is responsible for the damage he has caused. He must - at least partially - make amends for his guilt, for example by protecting nature in other ways. Here are the 3 most important criticisms of biocentrism. First of all, the term "life" is not a moral one, but a scientific term, which, moreover, cannot be clearly defined in terms of content. According to the critics, no ethics can be derived from such a concept. That living beings fulfill biological functions or needs is a biological , not a moral, fact. Such a fact has no meaning in ethics. If I derive a moral requirement from a biological fact, I commit a naturalistic fallacy. I conclude from a being to a ought. So life itself is not a morally relevant category. It must first be justified why a life should have an intrinsic value. Only then does this life become morally relevant. A human life, a self-aware life, a sentient life has moral relevance. Value is not attached to life itself, but - with different justifications - to being human, to consciousness or to sentience. Biocentrism must therefore clarify why every life should be morally valuable, including life without being human, without consciousness and without any ability to feel. Why shouldn't we just treat this life as a thing among things? Why should bacteria, fungi, algae and plants have intrinsic moral value? So a value that demands attention and respect from us? The second point of criticism is primarily directed against egalitarian biocentrism, which attributes the same intrinsic value to all living beings. If all living things are morally relevant, then there must be constant conflicts of interest between different organisms. An ethic that takes every single living being into direct moral consideration is very difficult to implement and contradicts our moral intuition. It is counterintuitive to give a human or sentient animal the same moral consideration as an alga, parasite, pathogen, or vermin. The moral equality of all living beings cannot be maintained in practice. If every life counts equally, how should conflicts of interest between individual living beings be regulated? A solution to this is offered by hierarchical biocentrism, which proposes a ranking of the moral importance of different interests and different ways of life. But even here it is impossible to adequately consider the interests of every single living being on our planet. In addition, it would then have to be justified why one living being is higher in the hierarchy than another. Biocentrism is therefore an ethical theory whose instructions for action are neither reasonable nor practicable. The third point of criticism is directed against the moral consideration of non-conscious organisms. Their well-being - according to the criticism - is on the same level as the well-being of artefacts in terms of its moral relevance. One would have to either consider both groups morally or exclude both. According to the critics, only the latter option makes sense. Does biocentrism convince you? In your opinion, is everything alive morally relevant and worthy of protection? Feel free to write your opinion below in the comments. With the Biocentrism Quizlet learning set, you can now test your knowledge and deepen Have fun learning and see you soon!