Governance of Biodiversity Conservation in China And Taiwan

Confucianism and Legalism is explained by the authoritarian state system of
imperial China, in which rulers determined orthodoxy. Taoism, always
heterodox, nonetheless complemented both Confucianism and Legalism.
Our main question is how each philosophy imagines relationships of
humans toward nature and conservation of other species and ecosystems.
Writers on environmental ethics suggest three types of orientations:
anthropocentric, sentientist, and ecocentric. An anthropocentric, or human-
centered orientation, conceives of humans as holding the center of the
universe; only humans have intrinsic worth, and the value of other species and
entire ecosystems is instrumental to human purposes. Asentientistview
endows value on non-humans able to feel, to experience pleasure and pain.
Typically this means higher-order vertebrates (other mammals such as dogs,
horses, rats, etc.) but sometimes is extended to reptiles, amphibians, birds, and
fish. While these species may be used instrumentally by humans, they must be
accorded moral relevance. Finally, an ecocentricview pictures humans as
interconnected with other species, as well as inorganic matter, in a complex
web of life. Rights are trumped by duties to preserve the ecosystem as a
whole.^2 It should come as no surprise that until the mid-to-late twentieth
century, most philosophical and ethical systems saw nature through an
anthropocentric lens.
Confucianism is both a philosophical system and a social ethic. It envisions
humans at the center of a universal system of values, and it most prizes
relationships humans have with other humans and institutions created by them.
The good Confucian is someone who strives for perfection of self and
benevolence toward others. Two passages from the Analectsreveal attitudes
toward non-human species:

‘The Master used a fishing line but not a cable (attached to a net); he used a corded

arrow but not to shoot at roosting birds.’ (Book VII, p. 27)^3

‘The stables caught fire. The Master, on returning from court, asked, “Was anyone

hurt?” He did not ask about the horses.’ (Book X, p. 17)^4

The first statement implies that people should not take unfair advantage of
other creatures, yet can use them for sustenance. It is consistent with the
western proscription of cruelty to animals. The second statement implies a
clear ordering of the animal kingdom, with humans at the top of the hierarchy.
Both fit within the anthropocentric world view.
China’s most eminent political philosopher, Mencius, also discussed the
necessity of nature preservation in the context of political security and
stability:

‘If you do not interfere with the busy seasons in the fields, then there will be more

grain than the people can eat; if you do not allow nets with too fine a mesh to be

Historical patterns 19