摘要

西方環境倫理學有一個迷思，即：人類中心論（anthropocentrism）反對自然的內在價值（intrinsic value），與環境保護及保存不能相容。因此，無論是環境保護運動或環境倫理學，都必須仰賴非人類中心論（non-anthropocentrism）的觀點，才能成功地證成（justify）自然具有內在價值，也才能達到環境保護的效果。

然而，正如John O’Neill和Hargrove已經指出來的，將人類中心論與工具價值等同、並將非人類中心論與內在價值等同，然後兩者雙雙對立的策略，其實既草率又犯了概念含混的毛病。Hargrove主張，人類中心論並不會否定自然的內在價值，因此不可草率地把人類中心論與工具主義等同，人類中心論僅只是主張從人類的角度來看世界；這個立場同時被Korsgaard、Kagan、Callicott和Hayward等人支持。Korsgaard和Kagan都認為，內在價值可以和主觀價值相容；Callicott更提出「刪減後」（truncated）的內在價值，認為儘管人類是價值的來源，但不必然只是價值的唯一對象。Hayward也認為，我們應該將人類中心論與人類沙文主義（human chauvinism）、物種主義（speciesism）分開來看，人類中心論並不會支持濫用自然資源和破壞環境。

本論文即透過傳統倫理學對「內在價值」的概念分析，釐清上述的迷思與爭議，指出儘管價值依賴於人類的意識，但這並無損於自然的內在價值。期能藉此破除一般誤會「環境權」與「人權」相衝突的迷思，以使政府或國際組織在制訂環境政策與環境公約、或環保團體在推動環保運動時能更廣為被民眾接受並支持。

關鍵字： 人類中心論  非人類中心論  內在價值  自然的內在價值  Korsgaard        
       
         Hayward  Callicott  Hargrove

Abstract

There is a natural myth in Western’s environmental ethics, that is, the anthropocentrism must be against the intrinsic value of nature and incompatible with the tendence of our environmental protection. Such being the case, no matter what action of environmental protection and environmental ethics are, they both have to depend on the ground of non-anthropocentrism to successfully justify the intrinsic value of nature, to achieve the result of environmental protection.

Nevertheless, just like what has been pointed out by John O’Neill and Hargrove, the strategy of equating instrumental value to anthropocentrism, and intrinsic value to non-anthropocentrism then put both of them in opposing positions in fact superficially emerges and makes a fault of confused conception at the other hand. Hargrove argues that anthropocentrism doesn’t contradict the intrinsic value of nature. Thus, we should not thoughtlessly put it equal to instrumentalism since anthropocentrism simply means to see from the standpoint of human being. Such an argument is supported by Korsgaard, Kagan, Callicott and Hayward. Korsgaard and Kagan both assert that intrinsic value is compatible with subjective value; Callicott even claims the “truncated” intrinsic value that believes human are not the only object of value though they’re the source of value. Hayward also thinks that we ought to separate anthropocentrism from human chauvinism and speciesism because anthropocentrism wouldn’t encourage abuse of natural resource and destruction of environment.

By analyzing the conception of “intrinsic value” based on the traditional ethics, this essay clarifies the above-mentioned myth and controversy and furthermore indicates that even though the value is based on human consciousness, natural value is nor excluded.

Keyword:   anthropocentrism,  anti-anthropocentrism, intrinsic value, intrinsic value of nature,   

                  Korsgaard, Hayward, Callicott, Hargrove