In this paper, I explain how anthropocentrism expresses itself in the work of Emmanuel Levinas and show how it also leaves openings for ecological concerns to seep in. This is done by analyzing Levinas's concept of the Other and its relation to the third to show that the Other is understood as not only the one to whom I am responsible but also a responsible being in their own right who can question me. This establishes the Other as one who must have the capacity for responsibility, a capacity gi…
Read moreIn this paper, I explain how anthropocentrism expresses itself in the work of Emmanuel Levinas and show how it also leaves openings for ecological concerns to seep in. This is done by analyzing Levinas's concept of the Other and its relation to the third to show that the Other is understood as not only the one to whom I am responsible but also a responsible being in their own right who can question me. This establishes the Other as one who must have the capacity for responsibility, a capacity given only to humans by Levinas. This constriction is problematized, however, by the fact that the “human,” for Levinas, is not necessarily coextensive with biological humans thus opening the door for applying the term “human” to other beings that could display a capacity for responsibility thereby expanding the realm of ethics beyond biological humans.
