Plädoyer für eine positiv anthropozentrische Ausweitung der “indirekten” Rechte der Natur

Abstract

That man may also physically grant animals an indirect right to well-being is to be re-emphasized. Unrealistic descriptions of an inherent but unassertable right of non-human life (animals and plants) and inanimate nature complicate the discussion of the extension of the protection of animals and other entities of nature. There is a distinction between negative and positive anthropocentrism. Negative anthropocentric “protection of nature” is egocentrically oriented toward the unscrupulous exploitation of nature by contemporary humanity. Positive anthropocentric “protection of nature” includes not only the responsibility for all fellow creatures, but also the securing of nature full of variety, and compatible to man for generations to come. German legislation has already set this course with its animal protection and nature protection laws, but it should become clearer and more concrete. The stagnating harmonization within the European Community is not an alibi for passivity because this is a matter of public morality. Nature would continue to exist, even if man were to make earth a place incompatible to man and the species Homo sapiens sapiens were to die out from a lack of sapience.