Biocentrism, Ecocentrism, and African Modal Relationalism: Etieyibo, Metz, and Galgut on Animals and African Ethics

In this brief reply to the essays by Edwin Etieyibo (2017), Thad Metz (2017), and Elisa Galgut (2017), I argue (a) that African morality is neither biocentric nor ecocentric in the sense of accepting that “there is no significant moral difference between animal and human slaughter and rituals,” and (b) that African modal relationalism is problematic in both its empirical assumptions and its normative counsel. I concede that anthropocentrism, whether this involves the view that only human beings merit moral treatment or the view that any human is necessarily superior to or more significant morally than any other animal, is not essential to African morality. There exist several resources in African philosophical thinking for deriving a nonanthropocentric and nonspeciesist ethical orientation. The task, however, is a formidable one that requires imagination as well as intellectual consistency and honesty.