Teaching deep ecology and animal rights ethics can improve environmental education

Ecocentrism is the belief that animals and nature are inherently valuable outside of their value for human benefit and is important for developing an environmentally responsible society and a more sustainable relationship between humans and nonhumans. In contrast to ecocentrism, anthropocentrism is the belief that human life and interests should be valued above all else. The current environmental education and education for sustainable development norms allow for pluralism, or letting students hold a range of beliefs about the environment like anthropocentric views. The authors of this article analyzed the implications of pluralistic teaching in the context of neoliberalism, and how explicitly teaching ecocentric ethics of deep ecology and animal rights can improve environmental education/education for sustainable development as well as a student's respect for nonhuman life.

Although there are differences between animal rights and deep ecology ethics, both are built on the belief that animals and other nonhuman life has inherent value beyond the value perceived by humans. Animal rights ethics is largely focused on the rights of individual animals, and it aims to eliminate practices that create animal suffering including industrial farming, animal experimentation, and hunting. Deep ecology differs from animal rights in that it recognizes the value of ecosystems as a whole, acknowledging the equal importance of humans and non-human beings, ecosystems, and processes. In some cases, these two belief systems can be at odds with each other. For example, in the case of an invasive animal species threatening an ecosystem, deep ecology would likely prioritize the ecosystem as a whole whereas animal rights ethics may prioritize the wellbeing of the invasive species. Despite their differences and sometimes conflicting goals, deep ecology and animal rights usually reinforce and support each other.

The authors argued that pluralistic teaching, which allows for students to hold anthropocentric beliefs, should be reconsidered in environmental education/education for sustainable development. They highlighted that neoliberalism, which favors capitalism and anthropocentrism, is the current dominant ideology and that including pluralism would lead to a large number of students holding anthropocentric beliefs. To combat this trend, their analysis supported explicitly teaching ecocentrism through deep ecology and animal rights. The authors argued that pluralism is not tolerated in education when considering the rights of historically oppressed groups of humans (such as women, ethical minorities, and the LGBTQ community), and that nonhumans should have their rights and value protected in the same way.

This article has its limitations because there was not a formal research study. Rather, it is a written analysis from the perspective of the two authors with specific, and likely ecocentric, worldviews. The authors did not include the perspectives from those with anthropocentric beliefs or other ethical views, which may have biased the analysis and their conclusions.

Teaching deep ecology and animal rights in environmental education and education for sustainable development is necessary to replace anthropocentric views, and to promote a more sustainable relationship between humans and nonhumans. Practitioners should consider ecocentric views in their curriculum and use deep ecology and animal rights as examples of ecocentric ethics. The authors also recommended using human advocates to represent nonhuman perspectives.