Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism

[Again, like before, I will begin this debate using the LD debate format, all I ask is that whoever accepts my challenge does the same. ] People… have invested a tremendous amount of effort and time to get to where they are. They really don't want to hear that we're on the wrong path, [or] that we've got to shift gears and start thinking differently. It is because I agree with Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki that I must negate the resolution: Resolved: Anthropocentrism ought to be valued above biocentrism •Anthropocentrism – considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe •Ought – used to express obligation or advisability •Value – to rate or scale in usefulness or importance •Biocentrism – considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value •Intrinsic Value – ethical or philosophical value that an object has "in itself". My value for today's round will be that of Intrinsic Teleology. This philosophy, introduced by Plato and carried into today by philosophers such as Alisdair MacIntyre, insists that as all things have purpose, all things have intrinsic value. As biocentrism is defined as considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value, intrinsic teleology proves biocentrism while rejecting anthropocentrism. My standard to uphold my value will be that of Utility, defined as "fitness for some purpose or worth to some end. " With a value that holds that if all things have purpose, they have intrinsic value, then the goal of my criterion should be to prove that things have purpose. In teleological theories, such as my value, all things also have utility in what is called an organism's final goal. As humans, our final goal is indeterminate due to the complexity of our society; however, for other species, this final goal is more simplified: eat, sleep, produce carbon dioxide, reproduce, and interact within the ecosystem. The final goal of plants is much the same, except even more simplified. Because all things do have this teleological final goal, or utility, then they have purpose by my value. Observation: Definition Clash The definitions of anthropocentrism and biocentrism are listed as antonyms in nearly every source, including the Merriam Webster Dictionary; however, the wording of both definitions does not insinuate that they are antonyms. This presents an issue for both sides of the debate, as the definitions suggest that the two may coincide with one another, which leaves no room for debate. For this reason, to preserve clash, the definition of anthropocentrism may be interpreted as humanity being the most significant entity because it is the only being with intrinsic value. Contention: Anthropocentrism Ought NOT be Valued Above Biocentrism Subpoint A: Anthropocentrism Contradicts Itself "The true measure of evolutionary success, in contrast to temporary empowerment and intensity of resource exploitation, is related to the length of time that a species remains powerful—the sustainability of its enterprise. There are clear signals that the intense exploitation of the environment by humans is causing widespread ecological degradation and a diminished carrying capacity to sustain people, numerous other species, and many types of natural ecosystems. If this environmental deterioration proves to truly be important, and there are many indications that it will, then the recent centuries of unparalleled success of the human species will turn out to be a short-term phenomenon, and will not represent evolutionary success. " [Jrank] We can see the biggest problem of anthropocentric thought: it ultimately harms humankind. We see this in two ways: loss of nonrenewable resources and decrease in carrying capacity of the land. The anthropocentric viewpoint, while seeming to exalt humankind, leads to the degradation of humanity. When this happens, the so-called superiority of humanity diminishes, leaving it at equal status with all other living things, where it always was. Subpoint B: Biocentrism is More Encompassing and Inclusive In Respect for Nature by Peter Taylor, Mr. Taylor, the man who is considered the Father of Biocentrist Thought, introduces the foundation of biocentrism. "First…Taylor says that humans and other animal species are interdependent. This rejects the view that humans need animals, or that animals depend upon humans. Second, every living creature is unique, and lives in its own way for its own good. This implies that one species cannot know more about what is good for another species than that species itself. Finally, Taylor rejects the argument that human beings are inherently superior to animals. " This card is the most reliable source possible for understanding biocentrism because it comes from the founder of biocentrism. Also, this creed of sorts simply proves the superiority of biocentrism over anthropocentrism. Where anthropocentrism fails due to its inability to provide steady, continuous support for humanity, biocentrism succeeds with flying colors by not only providing this much-needed support for humans, but also for all other forms of life as well. Finally, where anthropocentrism seeks to take away intrinsic value from all living things in a biased, selfish superior view, biocentrism instead acknowledges the intrinsic value of all things through their utility and final goal. So, in conclusion, anthropocentrism ought not be valued above biocentrism, because anthropocentrism contradicts itself and leads to human degradation and destroys the veil it casts, and because biocentrism is more encompassing and inclusive, and preserves intrinsic value for all things.