Should human preference even matter? I’m not sure if it’s possible for it not to. We can prefer actions that benefit us and disregard the natural world, or we can prefer something else, like preserving biodiversity. I think the real issue is if humans can view the world from a non-athropocentric perspective. Undoubtedly, there are individuals and organizations that have biocentric and ecocentric agendas. The Greenpeace Organization holds up strong ecocentric ideals throughout the world; however, it is argued that if we are humans trying to develop policy that protects the environment, that humans’ interests are at work, making it inherently anthropocentric. Environmental Romanticism is a movement that seems to have reemerged often throughout the last few centuries. The basic ideals are that there is beauty in nature and that we need to be closer to nature to be harmonious in life, similar to Henry Thoreau’s reasons for isolating himself at Walden pond.
A middle ground between Norton’s weak anthropocentrism and environmental romanticism is possible if there is compromise and focus on policy that is beneficial to the survival of humanity as well as conserves nature and its beauty for the good of humans. However, a compromise needs to be found between intrinsic and instrumental value that would pose a fundamental issue .