Biocentrism denies intrinsic value to nonliving landscapes

Evidence

Drawing the moral boundary at living things has the problematic consequence that the wild river, the forbidding mountain and the venerable glaciated landscape on which the story of the earth’s history and power is inscribed, have value only for and in virtue of the living things they contain or entertain. — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 776

Categorization

• XREF: Dooms ecocentric biocentrism from within: the wild landscape tradition Plumwood treasures has no standing under living-things-only ethics; builds the earth-as-sustaining-other case. — connects to: Moral respect applies wherever autonomous teleology exists — Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature, 774; The philosophical-scientific worldview blocks environmental ethics from valuing insentient nature; Atheism and nature’s intrinsic value are logically incompatible positions — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism: A Critique of…, 497
• ADDENDUM: Could supply the philosophical warrant for why landscapes, rivers and places — not only organisms — deserve moral standing, gist to the trees-as-infrastructure essay.

Broader Connections

• The philosophical-scientific worldview blocks environmental ethics from valuing insentient nature #corroborates (0.85)
• Atheism and nature’s intrinsic value are logically incompatible positions #corroborates (0.80) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 497