Anthropocentrism

I think the author misses an important alternative when they effectively concede to the idea of “no moral values “outside of humanity,”” (15). To actually concede that would be a fallacy ad ignorantium (the author doesn’t do this, but the author doesn’t not). I think an important  consideration for ethics is that we have evolved with, and are so interconnected to, our environment that the ethical consideration would be not of what is good for just humans  but for the earth. The author says “What we may be after is not some set of moral truths that are true everywhere in the universe, but rather an understanding of the kinds of ethical principles are most appropriate for guiding human conduct, given the kinds of creatures we are.”  We are just one of the creatures on this earth; we are creatures on this earth that have evolved here.  Focusing ethics with anthropocentric values, or with the beliefs that human beings are the most important species on earth, ignores vital consideration of our connection to the natural world.  Thinking and acting like humans are the most important species on the plant, seems inextricably tied to the environmental disasters we see today. For example, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, this came about because money and oil were more important than the health of the ocean. Or climate change, humans think that they are important enough to be altering the climate of our earth. If ethics is concerned with how we ought to live, there is no reason for merely focusing on humans as the center of everything, as we are just a part of everything.