1

INTRODUCTION
Movies have a long range of presenting stories to us. From a happy well lighted comedy
to a more dark and psychological mysteries. Movies are able send a message to its viewers.
Some even portray how the state of society operates during the time the movies are aired. Others
change the view of society and create a new status quo among the people. Movies provide a great
platform for one to show a message on the Big Screen. One Movie exemplifying a message is
Avatar. Avatar clearly shows a message concerning the environment.
Avatar is science fiction film. It takes place in a distant future, year 2154, where the
human race is experiencing an energy crisis due to the depletion of the natural resources of
planet Earth. The humans Resource Development Administration (RDA) search for other
sources and are able to find unobtanium on the planet of Pandora which will be able to
supplement their deficit in energy. They explore Pandora by the use of hybrids called avatar.
The movie follows the protagonist Jake along with two other scientists who were assigned to
study the biosphere as they explore and are confronted with the consequences of what their
action might entail. This places them in a situation where they have to decide which side they
should take and how will they be able to confront the changes which they face since their
superiors have no concern for any other consequences as long as they are able to mine the
unobtanium and be able to supply the deficient need of earth. The clash that happens is not only
in the physical form between the Navi and RDA but also that of ideas and dilemmas that it
presents to its viewers.
Avatar was originally planned to be aired 2 years after the showing of titanic. However,
circumstances have delayed it causing the film to be finished in 2009 and be aired in 3D. The

film follows similar themed movies like Tarzan and Princess Mononoke. It presents the common
problems of our relationship with the environment. Showing us the treatment of how people
from different sides conduct themselves with faced with an opposing action.
Aside from the movie, there is a book, Avatar and Philosophy by George A Dunn, that
talks about the Avatar. It discusses scenes and messages taken from the movie and delves into a
philosophical discussion. It heavily discusses concerns about the environment on chapters III and
VI which discusses relationships and responsibilities towards the environment. Showing us how
each person in the movie is guided by their action and how these actions affect not just only them
but also the others. What is interesting about the discussion is that the author uses different
people to try and completely explain how our relationship with the environment is taken. Avatar
and Philosophy takes you into a step by step process on how Jake starts of as not being able to
comprehend the view of the Navi until he is able to clearly see how the relationship with the
environment are not one sided.
Messages from both the movie and the book focuses on two opposing views; RDA and
the Navi. Similar to an Imperial view which seeks to expand its reach and able to exploit the
resources of the nature going against the Native view trying to protect their home and who are
willing to give up their life to do it. Two opposing views about our relationship with nature. One
on the side of nature being used as a tool and the other on the side viewing nature as their home
to be taken care and not to be used as means to an end. Different positions give different value to
the same thing. One not considering how the other may have different value for the same thing.
Value can be considered as regard being given to an object. Different people give different kinds
of value for the same object. They have their own reasons on how they consider an object to be
significant and significant for what purpose. They may value has different ways of attaching to

various object. Value can be considered to be instrumental, intrinsic, and inherent. Instrumental
value place value on the object based on its utility. Money is valuable because it can be used to
buy commodities. Intrinsic Value places value on the thing for sentiment. One can also value
money but not for its use but for its sentiment. A businessman may value a P100 peso not
because he can buy commodities with it but because it is his first P100 earned for his business.
He is then giving different value. Inherent value gives value on the thing because they are
teleogical-center-of-life. Value of the thing should not be dependent on humans. Although this is
difficult as giving value that has no human bias, we can still place value on them by giving them
awe. Our ethics toward them then should be biocentric. Putting life in the center of it. Living
with the environment with awe will enable us to have more understanding about our relationship.
Giving equal consideration to other things with humans may have problems. Not in all
situations are you able to give the same level of worth to an object. To solve this, we take into
account virtue ethics where there is no one guiding principle, rather we take our actions and
make sure that they make us a good character. Considering what is virtuous. Similar to our
approach in virtue ethics, we take our approach with the environment with good character. We
try to see that everything is connected and interdependent with one another. Every action that we
take affects others on a larger scale, avoiding any drastic pessimistic view like the butterfly effect
leading to chaos. We can see that there is no difference when it comes to biocentric view and
anthropocentric view if take into consideration that if one is able to see the larger picture then he
is also benefiting himself by talking a good character towards his relationship with nature. This is
not to point out that anthropocentricism is the same as biocentricism but there is version of
anthropocentrism similar to that of biocentrism.

Looking into the axiological and ethical discussion that can be harnessed from Avatars
message gives us an understanding on how our relationship with the environment should be
considered. Being on the side of Navi, it might be difficult from some to follow this form of
ethical practice. The Navi are able to commune with the environment and are reflective of
natives that most people no longer follow today. What we can harness from Avatar can still be
practice and understood by most people as we are able see a more relaxed ethic without losing
the good interaction with the environment. We can view how our environmental virtue ethics is
also biocentric at its core. It values all life as proponent views Avatar advocates.

CHAPTER 1
LEARNING TO SEE IN AVATAR
Avatar is one of the highest grossing films of its time. It is considered to be a pioneer
movie as it was the first that did a movie with the 3D animation effect in mind. The movie was
able to gross more than $2 Billion. Avatars development was started in1994 and was supposed
to be released on the year of 1999 after James Cameron had finished his other blockbuster
Titanic1. Circumstances made it that the movie was delayed and was only shown in the year
2009. Where it was presented in all Cinemas and was available in 3D. James Cameron affirms
that the movie draws its inspiration from different children films like Tarzan, The Emeral Forest,
Princess Mononoke and Dances with Wolves. We can see that some themes are presented by
these films in a similar manner like Avatar 2. Some see Avatar as a simple message of Imperialism
going up against a Deep Ecology ideology theme. The battle between this two is presented
straight forward and showing how deep ecology ideology of the natives triumphed over
Imperialism.
The Book edited by George Dunn explores these themes further. He points out that we
must Learn to See why the Navi performed the actions that they did in order to understand the
movie better. Often human relationship with the environment becomes lopsided because we fail
to see what is important and only use nature as tool to fuel our hunger. We put little consideration
towards the consequences we do with nature. As long as we can get what we need from nature,
the aftermath of our actions is often looked past beyond. George Dunn provides the discussion
on how we can learn from the Navi on how to guide our actions.
1 St. Petesburgs Times. August 12,1996, retrieved 7 May 2015
2 Los Angeles Times(Latimesblogs). August 12, 2009, retrieved 7 May 2015

Learning to see means that we learn to perceive the interconnectedness of the

environment with us, at a first glance we might see this as a Gaia Hypothesis as it also can be
viewed as the planet being one big organism with us being its organs. The idea that the planet is
one organism and that all life forms interact with one another to form a whole, this would mean
that everything that happens with one part of the planet will affect the whole system in general.
Interconnectedness is different from that of the Gaia Hypothesis in terms of consideration.
Considerations for the Gaia Hypothesis put too much emphasis on the organism then on the
organs. This is where it becomes different from the idea of interconnectedness where the
emphasis is focused on the components that constitute the larger whole.
In the book, Parts III and VI go into a deal of discussion regarding the ethical concern on
how our actions affect the environment. These parts show how the actions of the Navi will be
able to guide us in our actions towards the environment.
Part III of the book discusses how our relationship with nature should be as seen by while
Part VI helps to discuss our ethical Responsibility. George Dunn wants us to understand that
nature is not a tool. He uses the Navi as an example. He points out how the Navi Commune with
nature and how they are able to live with it in a fair and just manner. He points out how the sky
people fail to see and are unable to understand what it means to live with nature. The sky people
fail to comprehend that they are committing the same mistake that they did to their planet.
If we are to avoid the same faith as them, then we should start putting value towards the
environment. We need to change out way on how we view the environment. Changing ones
perspective is not an easy task. There are considerations that we have to take note to form our
own Ethics towards the environment. We get notes from the book. George Dunn presents to us
how one must be able to commune with nature. One must take it seriously and must also

consider that not everything is wild and savage. Like how Neytiri saves Jake from the Viper
wolves. She gets mad at him after the rescue and points out that they were no suppose to die
and later shows Jake a family of Viper Wolves who take care of their young. This changes Jakes
mind. He thought that viper wolves are only savages.3 Similar to this, the sky people only wanted
to mine the planet for their supply. To them this is the only thing they value. However, the Navi
value their planet because it is their home. This places which value should we consider. One
cannot be higher than the other as they are both giving their own perspective on how one may
value a thing.
Opposite sides have different perspective. One cannot be easily said to weigh more than
another. To do this we must first understand how value works. How does one gain value? Both
sides have different value for different things. George Dunn and James Cameron both show that
nature is valuable. We can explore this further for us to be able to expound on the messages that
both present.

3 Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn 2014
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107

CHAPTER 2
AVATAR: VALUE AND ETHICS
Instrumental Value, Intrinsic Value, Inherent Worth
Value constitutes the importance of a thing. Regard that something is held to deserve. Giving
value to a thing makes it significant. Some consider value of a thing to be relative. Different
people give different value for different things and for different reason. Some value a thing for
how it is beneficial to the user. Others place value on a thing for its aesthetics. There are different
basis for a thing to gain value. And this makes a thing to have worth in the world.
Instrumental Value of a thing is based on utilitarian view. Instrumental Value gives values
over a thing based on its usefulness or function. It only gains value if it can be use to attain
another goal or another objective. Most obvious example would be that of money. We give value
to money not because we are able to get something from money itself but rather that we can use
money in order to attain another object. We view objects as having value only if can be used for
something. If it is no longer useful than it will lose its value and will be easily replaced. In the
movie, the sky people see the home world of the Navi as being able to provide them with
resources. Early in the movie, Grace and Norm explore the jungle of Pandora and discovers that
the roots and its inner workings as something more complex and has an electrochemical
communication between the roots and the trees. However, Selfridge views them only as Just
Goddamn Tress. The RDA view nature as something that we could use to benefit ourselves and
not understanding the value of the thing in itself. 4 This would be another form of how we view
the value of a thing other than its use.
4 Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn 2014
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107

Some people value a thing for another reason, may it be for sentimental value, symbolic
meaning, cultural or historical worth. This are reasons which one places value other than the
usefulness of an object. This is giving value to thing for it itself. In this situation, the object has
Intrinsic Value for it is being valued for itself. One example would be going back to the money.
Although it would be mostly used for the sake of its instrumental value it may also contain other
forms of value. Let us say that you have P10.00 given to you by your grandfather and was told to
keep it and pass it down to your grandchild and so on. Money here is valued not for its
instrumental value but rather for the intrinsic value that you have with it. To make it clearer, take
monuments for example that provides symbolism for a community. Like the UP Oblation which
is valued for what is symbolizes for UP, it does not have any direct value for its usefulness as
much as it has for its intrinsic value. Lastly people would value to an intimate relationship or a
bond in the family not for the sake of its use but for the thing in itself.
These two approaches to giving value to the environment come on how we value the
environment around us. We could value the forest because it gives us fresh air or that it provides
us with parameters that benefit our health. For without these forests, our health will be in danger
and will deteriorate over time. We can also give it an intrinsic value, admiring it for the beauty
that it provides to us or how natives will not allow any construction around their forest for they
already have and attachment with it. They might consider it as their home where their ancestors
have already left May effigies and renewing it would destroy their heritage.
In the movie Avatar, the sky people view the forest only having just goddamn tress and
should be used for the needs. As much as they hated the Navi, A bad Quarterly report is dreaded
by most businessmen. For Businessmen, The monthly return of their money is of primary

10

concern. To see a good report by the end of the quarter, assures them of their profit. As what
Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize winning-economist, declared:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in
activities designed to increase its profits so long as it engages in open and free competition without
deception of fraud.5

So for them, they really were Just Goddamn Tress that only had value because the
forest had unobtanium, a priceless mineral. And they saw anyone who gets in their way as simply
a nuisance that would only get in their way. On the other side however, The Navi value the forest
for its Intrinsic Value. They see through the eyes of Eywa and commune with everyone in the
planet Pandora. Jake begins to see this that there is an intrinsic value for them and the destruction
of it would create detrimental consequences for them. They view the planet as one with them and
that everything in the planet has value. That is why they fought so hard in order to defend their
planet.
These two examples show us what it means to have value for one thing and how different
people give different people value to different objects. They also differ on what kind of value
they give to a certain object. From this a simple problem arises. All the value of an object is
solely dependent of the ones giving it. The thing only has value because human beings are the
one that give them value. They do not hold any worth for themselves but only hold value because
there are humans which provide value to them. This would mean that there are problems when it
comes to how value of an object works. So in the movie, no one had a real ethically misconduct
in their actions because they only acted upon their actions based on where they think the value
lies. In which case makes it problematic to really asses the value of an object. This is why some
5 Milton Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits,
The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970

11

philosophers argue that there should be a basis on giving value which is not dependent on
humans. This defense is what they call Inherent Worth. An object has inherent worth if it is good
in itself, independently of humans. To put it in a human example, one value and belief on how
valuable one really is should not depend on how other people see him but how one sees himself.
Being judged by other people only distorts the reputation that on has but this should not affect
how one believes in himself. The worth that one gives to his self is different based on how one
really belies the worth of one really has.
There is of course has problems surrounding on this idea as well. Mainly on how one
speaks of worth independent of humans. Criticisms about this say that value only happens from
the judgment of human. This makes inherent no different from that of intrinsic value. But let us
take the example given which views it on the level of humans. There is still some kind of
inherent worth that each individual posses like ones dignity. This is not value of the intrinsic
kind but something that is inherent to the individual, so as much as humans have it then others in
the environment also must have this kind of inherent worth. This still raises a question if worth
can really be given without human judgment. Can we learn to see how other kind see the worth
of others, without being affected by bias? There is of course difficulty on how to go about it. One
answer is that we should have respect or reverence for the life of others. This shows that there
should be a reverence for life may it is human or not.
Ethics as Biocentric in Avatar
Ehrfurcht vor dem Leben6, translating to Reverence for Life in English, was presented by
Schweitzer.Ehrfurcht implies that we should have and attitude of awe and wonder. We should
6 Joseph R. Desjardins, Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental
Philosophy, Wadsworth Publishing Company; Belmont Califronia, A Division of
Wadswort, Inc.

12

approach the environment with awe and reverence. Since there is a difficulty in having a view
that lets us see the inherent worth of all beings independent from that of human. This could
provide an alternative that will enable us to see. Schweitzer held that the most fundamental fact
of human consciousness is the realization that I am life which wills to live, in the midst of life
which wills to live.7 For him we should respect the life. Although Schweitzer points out that we
should have reverence for life, he is not blind of what evil nature can possess. Living in the
wilderness of Africe while doing his work, He also experienced the hardships that are found in
nature. This of course does not stop him from believing that we should have awe and reverence
for humans. For him, we begin to have ethics when we are fully aware of the fact:

The man who has become a thinking being feels a compulsion to give to every will-to-live the
same reverence for life he gives to his own. He experiences that other life in his own. He accepts
as being good: to preserve life, to promote life, to raise to its highest value life which is capable
of development; and as being evil: to destroy life, to injure life, to repress life which is capable of
development. This is the absolute, fundamental principle of moral.8
He is well aware that there is a evil that is caused by the environment but this does not mean that
the environment is value-free and that it is up to us to give it value. We should understand that
others also have inherent worth in themselves and that we should go about them with awe and
reverence. This is of course very difficult of course to apply in our own lives. Schweitzer made
this while he was living in the deep forest of Africa. Although, he may serve a good point, this
still makes it difficult to be practiced by people who live in other areas. Note also that Schweitzer

7 Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 130

8 Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 131

13

does not put this off as something that we could take lightly. He points out that this should be a
form of a rule to follow.
Other problems arise when we talk about parasites or viruses because this makes it
difficult to on how to deal with them. If we follow the rule in the reverence for life then it will be
problematic when we have to deal with viruses like Dengue or Parasites like tapeworm. This
makes us unable to easily kill them off because we must treat them awe and respect. Not tackled
by Schweitzer directly, it still has this type of implication.
Would this mean that learning to see in this idea would implies us to throw our lives for
the sake of another or that we should respect other beings that harm our bodies because we treat
them in awe? This caricature is not detrimental to what we can we can harness from the movie
and is not directly correlated to what we can Learn to See but it could have some inputs later on.
Since Schweitzer reverence for life is still difficult to practice. Let us take another
biocentric view from Paul Taylors respect for Nature.
Biocentric Ethics from Paul Taylor gives us a less demanding stance for the environment.
He gives us the idea of what he calls a Bioentric Outlook. It first starts off by him differentiating
a thing that has having good for their own and things that do not. Take for example a bird and
sand. The Bird has the will to live and has something that is goal oriented. The sand on the other
hand has no good on its own and has no goal to benefit itself or prove the worth of it. It may just
be considered as simply a by-product from the erosion of the soil from the wind. Taking Taylors
example:
Concerning a butterfly, for example, we may hesitate to speak of its interest or preferences, and
we would probably deny outright that it value anything in the sense of considering it good or desirable.
But once we come to understand its life cycle and know the environmental conditions it needs to survive
in a healthy state, we have no difficulty in speaking about what is beneficial to it and what might be
harmful to it Even when we consider such simple animal organisms as one celled protozoa, it makes
perfectly good sense to a biologically informed person to speak of what benefits and harm them, what
environmental changes are to their advantage or disadvantage, and what physical circumstances are

14
favorable or unfavorable to them. The more knowledge we gain concerning these organisms, the better
are we able to make sound judgments about what is in their interest or contrary to their interest. 9

Taylor believed that beings as teleological-centers-of-a-life. telos meaning goal or end.

Similar to that of Aristotle but Taylor gives a different consideration compared to Aristotle.
Taylor includes other beings as well. Also, where as Aristotle puts Human being on a different
category, Taylors Biocentric Outlook shows humans are also teleological-centers-of-a-life
constituted with parts that are goal oriented but we are still similar to other beings that we are
part of a community and are interdependent with one another. He shows that humans are not
superior to others and are simply on same terms with them.
Avatar presents to us that a similar way on how these views are played out. The Navi
commune with the environment and are able to interact with each other and keep a relationship
with them without pushing forward dominance with other beings. When Neytiri kills off the
Viper wolves, she regrets her action and scolds Jake for what happened. For her those Viper
Wolves were not supposed to die. Although the situation forces her to kill those viper wolves in
order to protect Jake. These is one extreme situation that there has been viewed or can be a
primary outlook that provides us with the ideas presented. The Navi are able to live with others
with awe and respect and do not view themselves as superior. Unlike the sky people who only
think that Pandora is something below them. Can the sky people then be able to see like Jake
who transform. There is still much more to see that even the sky people will be able to go behind
its wheel.

9 Paul Taylor, Respect for Nature, 1986. P. 66-67

15

CHAPTER 3
HARNESSING A BIOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is one of the common ethics people subscribe too. It puts emphasis on the
role that is played by character. First presented by Aristotle, he discusses how a person is
considered to be virtuous. This person possesses ideal traits that he nurtures and develops
throughout his lifetime. An example is a person considered to be kind because throughout his life
he has possessed good character. He was not considered to be ethical because he prioritized
utility or he did things because it was his duty. Virtue Ethics is placed in contrast with
deontological or consequentialist theories. Virtue ethics dies not seek any universal maxim on
how to go about life. It questions rather on what is considered to be the good life or how to do
I live. Different situations will require a different moral approach. There can be no one way to
approach given situation.
Virtue Ethics can be applied to different situation and can be used on other ethical
discussions. Using it enable us to shed new ideas into the past discussions which have not
considered certain points disabling it from forming a holistic view.
Environment Ethics discusses moral boundaries beyond the traditional limits which only
concerns humans. It extends further and talks about environment with moral light that it
conventionally uses on human beings. Finding a universal principle for the relationship of human
beings to the environment is difficult as there is still no one way to go amid our interactions with
the environment. Virtue ethics helps out in this conversation as it by passes the problem of

16

finding a universal principle and approaches the environment depending on the situation that is
being presented. This gives way to new approach towards the environment. This approach is
commonly known as an Environmental Ethics from the view of Virtue Ethics.
Environmental Virtue Ethics
Environmental Virtue Ethics approaches environmental ethics through the lens of virtue
ethics. It sees the moral character of nature and does not base it on any other ethical rules or
consequences. This is in a way both old and new at the same time. As what Louke Van Wensveen
points out that all environmental ethics deal with virtue ethics. 10 Similar to what we discussed in
the early on. Both Reverence for life and the Biocentric Outlook presented contain the idea of
Virtue Ethics. This becomes new because it has only been recently that it was discussed in the
full light of virtue Ethics. One ethicist that presents a idea of virtue ethics is Philip Cafaro.
Cafaro presents an idea for virtue ethics from the works of Thoreau, Leopold and Carson.
Cafaro gives presents common grounds on how environmental virtue ethics is
approached. He specifies 5 common themes for the three works that he discussed. (1) As desire
to put economic life in its proper placethat is, as a support for comfortable and decent human
lives, rather than as an engine powering endlessly more acquisition and consumption. (2) A
commitment to science, combined with an appreciation of its limits. (3) Non-anthropocentrism.
(4) An appreciation of the wild and support for wilderness protection. (5) A bedrock belief that
life is good: both human and nonhuman.11 These themes provide us with an idea in what action
we should take towards the environment in different situations. Although we still consider every
10 Louke van Wensveen, Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue
Ethics (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000).
11 Philip Cafaro, Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: Toward an Environmental Virtue
Ethics.

17

act differently and base it on the situation. This ground gives us commonality as not to be over
subjective in approaching the environment. Without any similarity or common ground on how to
take actions towards the environment, we are open to too much subjectivity and would lose any
sense on how a path should be taken.
In the Movie, the Navi are able to approach the environment in a sense of a virtue ethics.
Giving importance to both human and nonhuman, where they are able to commune with the
environment and only kill for food. They also have an appreciation of the wild and support for
wilderness protection. They fight off the sky people in order to protect their home world and
defend the forest and lives that it sheltered. Unlike the sky people who fail to see in an
environmental virtue ethics. They fail to see that they should have a commitment to science but
should be combined with an appreciation to its limits. They went too far as to even kill their
own mother. Also failing to see that they should a bedrock of belief that all life is good: both
human and non human. When they alive at Pandora, Sigfried said that everything that is found
here, everything crawling creature is out get you and they dismissed everything already as
mindless and violent creatures. They do not give them a chance that although they may have evil
in them, they also contain good in them. Just like what Schwietzer presents, nature is still good
even with the acknowledgement of evil. Failing to see this gives them a poor understanding
about the environment. And fail to see in how they approach the environment.
These ideas give us a better understanding on how we should go about the environment
but leaves a room of subjectivity. Also it may have different results depending on what situation
a person is in. One action could be considered good another would be considered bad. The
character of an object based on the situation. But there should be a better way to see it with
without reliance on an end of subjectivity. Although with themes, the subjectivity is mitigated.

18

There is still an opening for it that might result into friction of the discussion. There should be an
idea that would also take this into consideration while having a different result or understanding
of how action towards the environment should be. An idea that show and interconnection
between humans and nonhumans. Seeing this idea would help out in harnessing a biocentric
environmental ethics.
Interdependency and Interconnectedness
Interdependency has the idea that everything that is being done has consequences and that
everything cannot thrive without the help of the other. Interconnectedness is the idea that all
action is connected. Every action done will result into others being affected as well and the chain
of events will cause even more events to occur. Similar to the butterfly effect, it extends all
action having ripples and may result into the chaos more or less. But putting grim assumptions
aside, this is a one way to see that humans and nonhumans are more connected to each other than
they let out. Jeremy David Bendik-Keyner discusses this by first sighting moral standing.
A being has moral standing if, morally, it makes a difference how we
treat that being. A standard question raised in environmental ethics: Who counts?
Who has moral standing? If you think only human beings count, youre and
anthropocentrist, someone who puts human beings antropoi in ancient Greek
at the center. If you think that all living things count somewhat, youre a
biocentrist, someone who puts life bios in ancient Greek at the center. And if
you think that the ecosystem count, believing, for example, that to destroy a
wetland is morally objectionable above and beyond the loss of the individual and
livelihood, then youre an ecocentrist, someone who puts oikos house, home,
dwelling place in ancient Greek at the center.12

Moral Standing given to all living beings makes all life important. And with every life having
importance, makes the idea of interconnectedness and interdependency easy to grasp. Since all
living in the world have significant, understanding the repercussion of every action that we take
12 Bendik-Keymer, Jeremy David. Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational
Reason. In Avatar and Philosphy: Learning to See by George A Dunn, 2014 John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., p. 116

19

would have more impact. The level of concern would be put on a higher scale rather being
pushed aside. This is not to entail all living beings on the same level of importance as human
being on every occasion but giving weight to other living being as well. Considering them as
mere tools will put us in failure harnessing a biocentric ethics.
Environmental Virtue Ethics as Biocentric Environmental Ethics
Living things have significance, when one is going about them, one needs character. This
is where we Environmental Virtue Ethics become homogenous with a Biocentrics Environmental
Ethics. Sure we can place value on every living thing but to go about them in one universal
principle can prove to be difficult. Having a virtuous character towards them may prove to be a
better solution. Take for example the complete extinction of bees. The extinction will prove to be
destructive for everybody as it will halt most pollination. Now a person must take into
consideration and be able to understand how to care for the bees without causing detrimental
damages to others but having a swarm of bees attack you because you accidentally disrupted
their nest may require another form of consideration. Environmental Virtue Ethics functions as a
Biocentric Environmental Ethics. We put significance in every human life but we also consider
the character that we possess to be able to go about them with kindness.
Enlightened Anthropocentric Distinction
Anthropocentric Environmental Ethics places human being in the center. Giving them the
most importance in their relationship with nature, Nature is only a tool that serves the needs of
humans. This presents a problem as it is in contradiction with the idea of Biocentric
Environmental Ethics. This assumes that an environmental ethics that can be harnessed from
avatar is non-anthropocentric. The movie shows that anthropocentrism is wrong and will not

20

benefit people in the long run. This view however is misguided. 13 It can still embrace
anthropocentrism and be able to harness a Biocentric Environmental Ethics. In his discussion,
Keyner points out that there are two types of Anthropocentricism; short sighted and enlightened
version. The former only provides an answer to instant gratification. Making benefits that would
be gained in the shortest time. Enlightened version provides more understanding of what could
be beneficial in the long run. Being able to benefit humans more rather than settling for instant
rewards. The movie suggests that superficial sense of our humanity is shortsighted
anthropocentrism. But also suggests that acting from what is most deeply human involves
something more than superficial anthropocentrism One reason that Avatar provides and
interest is that it pushes us to acknowledge a distinction thats still not in Environmental Ethics,
the distinction thats still not common in Environmental Ethics, the distinction between
superficial and deep humanity.14
Anthropocentrism can still be distinct from Biocentric Environmental Ethics but only is the
former sense. Superficial humanity is clearly different. Superficial humanity mostly bases on
what the individuals preference on how to go about nature. Placing a determining value found
on the inclination of the individual. If one were to have interest for consumption then nature will
be exploited. Deep humanity on the other hand recognizes the connections of nature and that not
All preferences are rational. The benefits that humanity can gain are better when they consider
the idea of deep humanity. It is still Anthropocentrism as it still places human life on the center.
Deep humanity becomes cohesive with Biocentric Environmental Ethics. In this sense,
13 Norton, Bryan G. Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism, P 131
14 Bendik-Keyner, Jeremy David. Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational
Reason. In Avatar and Philosophy; Learning to See by George Dunn, 2014 John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. , p116

21

Anthropocentricism or as we can call it Enlightened Anthropocentrism coincides with a

Biocentric Environmental Ethics. Having Biocentric Environmental Ethics means it is also
containing a deep sense of humanity. There is a sense that everything is connected and
interdependent. More than having a deep enlightenment toward the understanding of the
environment, we must also see that anthropocentric view is not so different with the
environment. In terms of the extremes there is a clear distinction on how anthropocentric
differentiates from biocentric view. When one must choose between the lives of a human and a
bear attacking him, killing the bear to save his friend is easy to justify. But most of the times the
environment does not do the extremes but rather in grey areas. This is where Biocentric
Environmental Ethics is applicable. Applying it to this makes it easy for us to have a good
understanding how to work well with nature.

22

CHAPTER 4
IMPLICATIONS OF BIOCENTRIC ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS
Implications of having Biocentric Environmental Ethics harnessed from the movie will
enable us to have a holistic relationship with the environment, be able to practice a relationship
with less strict boundaries and still maintain a life-centered ethics. Those are considered to be
implications drawn out from this discussion. Not clearly acknowledged but indirectly stated.
From what we get, we can infer them or get a glimpse of these three implications.
Having a Biocentric Environmental Ethics allows us to value all living beings. Having
value that may not entail having equal amounts of significance in every situation but with
consideration on how everything is interdependent and interconnected. On this note, it does not
lose its foundation or its core. The idea that every life is important is still present. There are
reinforcements on the idea that we can get from the movie that enables us to further build on the
idea. The Anthropocentric View on the other hand does not totally absorb it. It takes the
enlightened version of Anthropocentrism which considers the good of the environment with the
good of human beings. Having a Biocentric Environmental Ethic allows the person to consider
the consequences on a much larger scale.
This also implies that the absence of a universal principle leaves this avenue open. Given
the parameters that we presented, this will not totally lead into subjectivity as it has themes.
Having a less demanding practice will help people get first out the door and be able to have

23

beneficial relationship with the environment. The movie shows us this idea to a more extreme.
As the Navi are able to commune with Eywa.
The movie shows us how one still values one life despite of protecting another. The Navi
considered giving up their life to protect the world tree but that does not mean that they were
removing value from their own life.
Implications of Biocentric Environmental Ethics will lead us to have better interactions
with the environment. Commonly we would follow the principles of non-malificence and
restitutive justice. The former pointing out that we should do no harm to the environment
directly. This is of course later discussed that letting die has near moral implication as killing
someone. Although in Avatar, looking at the picture would mean that something only has to die
or we let something die only if it needs to and nothing more. Actions taken that cause harm
directly to the environment without any good cause that may help out in the entirely of the whole
should not be taken. Actions should be viewed from actions as a whole but not only from a
human perspective. We might easily take it that we decide based from our perspective. We must
also take into account the value of others and how they would go about the action we are going
to take.
The movie provides a good example on how to misstep. The RDA Company is able to
make it so that they think that the environment is something that is only used as means to an end
in the whole. It shows a straight forward on how the two forces clash. The Navi are able to see
the world of Pandora as something

interconnected. This is even shown in the idea the about

trees. Trees are seen as interconnected with one another forming a large pattern of chemicals that
provide communication all throughout the system. Like a brain functioning for the betterment of

24

Its parts. The residents of Pandora also are able to commune with the environment so that they
are able to take action. This makes every action they take in tune with the environment and also
for themselves. It makes their action put all interest into the table and not their own selfish way.
Doing this provides that they are trying to do with Pandora. This is what we should see as well.
That this planet is so far the planet that we are able to live in its environment and we should take
action based on what will benefit everybody the most. Killing this planet would leave us with
nothing more than the death of ourselves. This is why our actions should be guided like with the
idea that everything is connected. Like the trees that are all connected in the roots. We should
function like one big giant brain.

25

CONCLUSION

The Planet has existed for almost 4.6 million years. If we translate that into 46 years,
humans only existed for about 2 months and our industrial revolution only started 1 minute ago
and in that time, we have managed to destroy 50% of the overall forest. This shows that we
should need a new perspective on how to go with our interaction with the environment and be
able to make sure we do not lose the next 50% in the next minute. Extinction of species has been
happening in a very alarming rate and that they are no longer considered to be natural. Also the
circumstances that we are setting up for the Earth are setting up necessary conditions for the next
great extinction. So far there have been 5 major extinctions throughout the existence of the
planet.15
This is a view what is our planet experiencing right now. Both James Cameron and George Dunn
show how valuable the environment and how we can commune with it to be able further
understand its value.
Value can Instrumental, Intrinsic or Inherent. One must understand the value of nothing
not just from it being instrumental but also its intrinsic and inherent value. One must have moral
consideration for all living being. Avatar shows us that one must have a Biocentric Ethics
relationship with the environment.

15 http://asapscience.com/book. Accessed 26 April 2015

26

This is not enough as one also needs to understand that Environmental Virtue Ethics as
having some Reverence for Life and Biocentric Outlook contained within. Being able to have
virtue and a good character with the environment is being able to harness a Biocentrica
Environmental Ethics. Valuing all life also means that one must have a good character towards
them.
It is also shown that Anthropocentricism is not that distoinct from Biocentric
Environmental Ethics. Keyner points out the 2 versions of Anthropocentricism; superficial and
enlightened humanity. One must understand that there are independent and interconnected
betwwin everything and putting this into consideration gives you a deep humanity which is able
to see how humans benefit from actions.
These ideas imply three things. The enable us to have a more holistic relationship with
the environment, are able to practice a relationship with less strict boundaries and still maintain a
life-centered ethics.
We can then see that theses change in perspective in not something that is heavy for us to
practice. Avatar presents to us does not go to the extremes of deep ecology or anthropocentrism
which removing the other proponent from consideration.
One can easily practice these principles as they do not have strict boundaries and
demanding tasks. With the state of the planet right now, it could not be far before we kill our
mother or our mother kills us. Learning to see in a Biocentric Environmental Ethics will help us
have better relationship with the Environment. Being able to go about progress without causing
detrimental damage or consequences is what Avatar advocates. We should try to act upon it and
practice a Biocentric Environmental Ethic.

27

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Online Source
http://asapscience.com/book. Accessed 26 April 2015
Journal Articles
Norton, Bryan G. Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism
Philip Cafaro, Thoreau, Leopold, and Carson: Toward an Environmental Virtue Ethics.
Louke van Wensveen, Dirty Virtues: The Emergence of Ecological Virtue Ethics (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books,
2000).
Milton Friedman, The Social Responsibility of Business is to increase its Profits, The New York Times Magazine,
September 13, 1970
St. Petesburgs Times. August 12,1996, retrieved 7 May 2015
Los Angeles Times(Latimesblogs). August 12, 2009, retrieved 7 May 2015
Books
Bendik-Keyner, Jeremy David. Avatar, Anthropocentrism, and Relational Reason. In Avatar and Philosophy;
Learning to See by George Dunn, 2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Paul Taylor, Respect for Nature, 1986. P. 66-67
Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought, P. 130
Avatar and Philosophy: Learning to See, First Edition, Edited by George A. Dunn
2014 John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc., P 107