Anthropocentrism means 'human-centered." Most ethical theories have a system of value such that all that is of value is, in the end, value for humans. Anthropocentric theories of environmental ethics claim that we ought to preserve the environment because it is in the interest of humans to do so. That we ought not to destroy the Amazon Rainforest because the rare plants there might have cures for cancer or we ought not destroy the Rainforest because it will pollute the air we breath, are anthropocentric reasons.
Anthropocentrism seems to be the ultimate expression of human vanity. It sets us above all the other animals, plants, rocks, oceans, and sky. It says that they are all worth nothing in and of themselves; their value is limited to their usefulness to humans.
It seems that ethics is purely a human invention. In nature there is no recognition of ethics and it seems an error to evaluate non-human actions in ethical terms. A spider spins its web, catches an innocent fly, only to suck it dry. Young trees grow taller and shade their parents from the sun's rays. The seed deprives from life that which gave it life; much like greedy heirs who murder their benefactor because they can't wait for the money. On further thought, it seems that there is no good and evil in nature. Eat or be eaten! Dog eat dog! Survival of the fittest! This is the rule. It's a jungle out there. Our disgust and outrage of the violence, dirt, sex, and rot in nature is probably confused. The broader point of view that sees the beauty of the natural system with its cycle of life and death seems more enlightened.
In ethics, a holistic theory is one that places value primarily on an entire system while an atomistic theory places value primarily on individuals. Most ethical theories are atomistic. This is especially true in Western European and North American philosophical traditions. Atomism seems to make sense because only individuals can have their rights protected and only they may pursue happiness. A human society can be happy only in the sense that many of the people within it are happy. Tribal people have a concept of their group as having an existence over and above its members. Holistic theories demand sacrifices of individuals within a system for the good of the whole. In a holistic theory, the value of an individual is determined by its participation in and contribution to the well-being of the whole.
The Land Ethic is the environmental ethics theory in Aldo Leopold's A Sand County Almanac. It is anti-anthropocentric and holistic. The main ethical principle is an action is right or wrong to the degree that it benefits or harms the well-being of the ecosystem. Value, ultimately, is placed in the ecosystem, so it is anti-anthropocentric. An ecosystem is a whole, so it is holistic. Leopold wants us to view ourselves as "plain citizens" in the natural world. He sees the soil, water, plants, and air, and air as a unified system, which environmental science shows to be true. We should cease to think of ourselves as conquerors and masters of the world; instead we must learn to appreciate and work with nature.
Look at your life. You probably are a cause of air pollution with your car or the bus you ride. You pollute the rivers with your dishwater and deplete the aquifer every time you flush the toilet. You add to the garbage dump every day. Plows and herbicide applicators are destroying the soil to feed you. Let's fact it, this world would be a lot better off without you. By the Land Ethic, it would be better if you die. There are very few people who have a positive impact on the environment, a few natives in the wild and organic carrot farmers who volunteer for cleanup after nuclear accidents perhaps.
The Land Ethic has little to say about lying and cheating, sexual abuse, and other human crimes that have little impact on the environment. My solution is that the Land Ethic is not a complete ethical theory. (I'm not sure Leopold ever intended it to be.) Still, preserving a healthy planet is our foremost ethical concern because all other goods and rights are worthless if our world is destroyed. Once we reach a reasonable level of pollution and resource extraction that could be sustained, then we could return to our human concerns. That is why property rights, reproductive rights, etc. are indefensible if they lead to environmental destruction.
Deep Ecology is another anti-anthropocentric theory. Deep Ecologists are either ambiguous or confused on the holism/atomism issue. Deep Ecology begins with the study of ecology, not just through textbooks and laboratory experiments, but through first-hand experience in nature. I say this because native people who never took an environmental science class in college could be deep ecologists. They study of nature leads to seeing we are part of the system. What sometimes follows is a spiritual experience of the oneness of nature and the negation of egocentricity.
Deep Ecology is based on two principles, self realization and biological equality. The second is simply anti-anthropomorphism. The first is a theory of human nature, how you are to find your true self. I agree with the ecological principle that an animal is not whole and complete outside its home ecosystem. A lion in a cage is not really a lion. It has been reduced to a biological specimen. To be a lion it must do lion stuff--chase zebra, fight over a bunch of meat, lay in the Savanna sun, etc.
Likewise, we are not whole because we too are in a cage alienated from our home ecosystem. To find ourselves we must re-enter and again become one with the wild. Deep Ecologists speak of a "sense of place." To be grounded in your valley or hilltop and to know all the trails in and out, the rivers and lakes, to feel at home in your ecosystem is the goal. Then you will find the real you.
There is an element of non-aggression in Deep Ecology. With the mystical experience of oneness of nature and the negation of egocentricity, the theory resembles Buddhism. Deep Ecologists are reluctant to take action to save the ecosystem because they hold it is so complicated that we never can know what the results of our actions will be. It is best to "Not Do!" Of course, we have to do something since doing nothing is not possible. They mean to have as little impact on the system as possible.
Richard Watson finds Deep Ecology to be inconsistent. Unlike the other species, Deep Ecologists hold that we are morally obligated to curtail our natural inclination to alter the ecosystem we live in. Yet, they claim we are equal to the other species. This leads to the conclusion that we are one with nature and we are not one with nature--a contradiction. Watson also finds fault with the call for us to become more natural. It seems the distinction between what is natural and non-natural is not valid for, he notes, nuclear weapons and gas chambers (I might add oleo margarine, plastic Christmas trees, and Kool-Aid) are as natural as bird's nests and beaver dams. Kool-Aid, after all, is made of artificial colors, flavors, and sweetness that must come from the natural world at some point in their production. It doesn't magically appear from thin air! In the final analysis, Kool-Aid is as natural as rainwater. Likewise, the Love Canal is still part of nature, a yukky part, but all the laws of nature still prevail. It's all perfectly natural scum, chemical residues, and bacteria--its own unique little ecosystem!