Britannica Sources used in this answer

How do biocentrism and ecocentrism differ when deciding whether invasive species should be removed?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Marble portrait bust of Hippocrates atop a tall rectangular base inscribed with an epigram in Greek, displayed against a black background. — Bioethics A Roman bust of Hippocrates, copied from a Greek original, c. 3rd century bce; in the collection of the Antichità di Ostia, Italy.

In the context of applied ethics, biocentrism and ecocentrism offer fundamentally different approaches to the removal of invasive species, primarily due to their differing views on what holds moral standing.1

Biocentrism
Biocentrism is an individualistic ethic that grants moral standing to all living beings simply because they are alive. Because every individual organism has a "good of its own," biocentrists face a significant dilemma regarding invasive species. The duty of non-maleficence requires that humans avoid harming living beings, which makes the intentional killing of invasive animals or plants ethically problematic. While some biocentrists might argue that basic interests (like survival) can override nonbasic ones, a strict biocentric approach often struggles to justify the destruction of individual lives for the sake of broader environmental goals.12

Ecocentrism
In contrast, ecocentrism is a holistic approach that prioritizes the integrity of ecosystems, habitats, and species over the lives of individual organisms. From this perspective, the health of the ecological whole is paramount. Consequently, ecocentrists generally support the removal of invasive species—even through lethal means—if such actions are necessary to preserve biodiversity and prevent the collapse of native ecosystems.13