Resolved Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over biocentrism

Thanks in advance to the person who accepts this debate. This was a recent UIL topic that I enjoyed debating and wanted to try it out as my first debate on this site. Ld Structure please (including CX) William Baxter, the Professor of Law at Stanford University, stated that Anthropocentrism "...does not portend any massive destruction of nonhuman flora and fauna, for people depend on them in many obvious ways, and they will be preserved because and to the degree that humans depend on them.". This shows that Anthropocentrism does not promote the senseless killing of animals and living things, it only promotes the preservation of Human life. Anthropocentrists only wish that a human's life should valued above the life of that of an animal. Because I agree with William Baxter, I stand firmly resolved that Anthropocentrism ought to be valued over Biocentrism because Biocentrism unreasonably infringes on human rights in ways that prevent humans from living a long, happy, and productive life. In order to set the parameters for today's debate, I would like to offer the following definition of term. Anthropocentrism- considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe (from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary), ought- being used to express obligation, value- worth Biocentrism being that 1.Humans are members of a community of life along with all other species, and on equal terms. 2.Every organism is a center of life, that is, each organism has a purpose and a reason for being, which is inherently "good" 3.Humans are not inherently superior to other species (according to Paul Taylor a leading biocentrist, and the professor emeritus in philosophy at Brooklyn College). The criterion for today's debate is preservation of human life, being: believing the human life ought to be valued above that of an animal's life. Nothing compares in importance to a human's life, because humans have the ability to feel and understand pain, death, and emotional sadness. Every human on this earth is someone's child, and every human is more valuable in someone's eye than that of a parasite, or bacterium. To better understand my position in the debater, I offer the following reasons: Anthropocentric views create contextually valid prescriptions for ethical conduct. For example, anthropocentric justifications for environmental action make intuitive sense. "Since this anthropocentric orientation arguably has had, and continues to have, widespread support as a background assumption of many... practices affecting nature." (--Roger King) The anthropocentrist does not have a problem reconciling the domesticated landscape with the wild the way biocentrists do. Also, Biocentrism creates contextually impossible prescriptions for ethical conduct. The "Respect for all life" moral is extremely self contradictory in the way that respecting some forms of life infringes on the respect for other organisms. Laura West, the Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor put it this way, "If I respect all organisms equally and their right to exist, then my own corresponding 'right' to life can not be respected, as I can neither feed my self, nor defend myself from attacks of any sort." Also, the "Respect for all life" moral creates impossible Human Obligations to all creatures. This means that we must not only refrain from harming them, but must actively promote their life interests. According to that logic Nicholas Agar reasoned that, "..beyond taking care not to step on ants, we must strive to make the world a place where ants are less likely to be tread on. Biocentrists also believe that fighting diseases that kill thousands of people is immoral. Gary Varner stated that, "One reason for doubt would be that... Paul Taylor... said... that we are guilty for merely keeping ourselves alive by eating and fighting disease." The problems with these morals are extremely obvious, as by respecting other life-form's right to live we practically throw away our right to live. This must be rejected as, this contradicts biocentrism's "respect for ALL life." Finally, biocentrists resort to anthropocentric views in practice. Biocentrists "necessarily make concessions to anthropocentric values simply virtue of having to make their palatable to Human audiences." No sensible person can accept a value where human lives can not be considered as valuable as the life of a deadly bacteria that could decimate the population of the Earth. In conclusion, anthropocentric views must be considered more valuable and more valid than biocentrism because it is more logically justified. Biocentrism's self-contradictory morals and unreasonable prescriptions for ethical conduct show that it should not be as highly valuable. Why should we accept a belief that infringes on our own right to live the way that biocentrism does? The answers we shouldn't and we won't.