如上所述，或许在谈到特定的环境伦理时必须提出的最基本的问题是，我们对自然环境有什么义务？如果答案仅仅是我们作为人类，如果我们不限制我们对自然的行为就会灭亡，那么这种伦理被认为是“人类中心主义”。人类中心主义的字面意思是“以人为中心”，在某种意义上说，所有道德必须被视为人类中心主义。毕竟，据我们所知，只有人类可以推理和反思道德问题，从而使所有道德辩论都明确地“以人为本”。然而，在环境伦理中，人类中心主义通常意味着更多的东西。它通常指的是一种仅为人类赋予“道德立场”的道德框架。因此，一种以人类为中心的伦理主张只有人类在道德上本身就具有相当大的意义，这意味着我们拥有的所有直接道德义务，包括我们对环境的所有义务，都归于我们的同胞。虽然西方哲学的历史由这种人类中心主义主导，但它受到了许多环境伦理学家的大量攻击。这些思想家声称道德必须超越人类，道德地位应该与非人类自然世界相提并论。有些人声称，这种延伸应该适用于有感知的动物，其他应该适用于个体生物，还有一些适用于河流，物种和生态系统等整体实体。在这些道德规范下，我们对环境有义务，因为我们实际上欠环境中的生物或实体本身。确定我们的环境义务是否建立在人类中心主义或非人类中心主义推理的基础上，将导致对这些义务的不同描述。本节探讨了环境伦理中道德立场的重要说明，以及各自的含义。
澳洲阿德莱德大学Assignment代写：扩大道德立场
As noted above, perhaps the most fundamental question that must be asked when regarding a particular environmental ethic is simply, what obligations do we have concerning the natural environment? If the answer is simply that we, as human beings, will perish if we do not constrain our actions towards nature, then that ethic is considered to be “anthropocentric.” Anthropocentrism literally means “human-centeredness,” and in one sense all ethics must be considered anthropocentric. After all, as far as we know, only human beings can reason about and reflect upon ethical matters, thus giving all moral debate a definite “human-centeredness.” However, within environmental ethics anthropocentrism usually means something more than this. It usually refers to an ethical framework that grants “moral standing” solely to human beings. Thus, an anthropocentric ethic claims that only human beings are morally considerable in their own right, meaning that all the direct moral obligations we possess, including those we have with regard to the environment, are owed to our fellow human beings. While the history of western philosophy is dominated by this kind anthropocentrism, it has come under considerable attack from many environmental ethicists. Such thinkers have claimed that ethics must be extended beyond humanity, and that moral standing should be accorded to the non-human natural world. Some have claimed that this extension should run to sentient animals, others to individual living organisms, and still others to holistic entities such as rivers, species and ecosystems. Under these ethics, we have obligations in respect of the environment because we actually owe things to the creatures or entities within the environment themselves. Determining whether our environmental obligations are founded on anthropocentric or non-anthropocentric reasoning will lead to different accounts of what those obligations are. This section examines the prominent accounts of moral standing within environmental ethics, together with the implications of each.