What is the key difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric environmental ethics?

The key difference between anthropocentric and ecocentric environmental ethics lies in their differing centers of value and moral consideration. Anthropocentric ethics, also known as human-centered ethics, places humans at the center of moral consideration. It views the environment and other species as valuable primarily because they provide benefits to humans. In this view, the environment should be protected and managed in a way that promotes human well-being and meets human needs. For example, an anthropocentric perspective might support forest conservation because forests provide timber, clean water, and recreational opportunities for humans. Ecocentric ethics, on the other hand, places the entire ecosystem, including all living organisms and non-living components, at the center of moral consideration. It views the environment as having intrinsic value, meaning that it is valuable in its own right, regardless of its usefulness to humans. In this view, all living things have a right to exist and thrive, and humans have a moral obligation to protect the environment for its own sake. An ecocentric perspective might support protecting a forest even if it has no direct economic value to humans, because the forest has intrinsic value as a complex and interconnected ecosystem. The different ethical perspectives lead to different approaches to environmental decision-making. An anthropocentric approach might prioritize economic growth and human development, even if it has some negative impacts on the environment, while an ecocentric approach would prioritize environmental protection, even if it means sacrificing some economic benefits.