Daoism’s Threefold Defense of Ecocentrism

Abstract

Ecocentrism has emerged as a significant theoretical paradigm for addressing ecological crises and promoting sustainable development. However, while influencing the evolution of ecological governance systems, it faces fundamental criticisms including accusations of being “eco-authoritarianism”, “anti-human”, and “utopian”. This study develops a theoretical defense of ecocentrism through Daoism’s three-dimensional framework encompassing ontology, value theory, and practice theory. First, the Daoist holistic concept of living together (bingsheng 並生)—grounded in the principle of “Dao as one”—deconstructs the ontological foundations of anthropocentrism while addressing ecocentrism’s alleged “dictatorial “tendencies. Second, the Daoist value paradigm of valuing life (guisheng 貴生) challenges anthropocentrism’s value hegemony while establishing ethical justification for ecocentrism. Third, Daoist practical philosophy—particularly the concept of nurturing life (yangsheng 養生)—demonstrates how the harmonious coexistence of heaven, earth, and humanity can be achieved through balanced integration of instrumental and value rationality in ecological governance, thereby resolving accusations of “utopianism”. The findings affirm that Daoist philosophy provides not only a robust theoretical defense for ecocentrism but also insightful practical wisdom for global environmental governance and the pursuit of sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The paradigm of modern industrial civilization, originating in the Enlightenment, has generated unprecedented material prosperity while simultaneously becoming a structural cause of the global ecological crisis. In response to the severe sustainability challenges posed by environmental degradation, Western scholars since the 1960s have systematically reexamined the anthropocentric foundations of industrial civilization.

This intellectual movement has produced several foundational schools of ecological philosophy, including The Land Ethic (Leopold 2017), Wilderness Philosophy (Rolston 1985), Deep Ecology (Naess 1973), Ecofeminism (Françoise 2022). Collectively termed Ecocentrism, these theories share a commitment to Ecological Holism, representing a fundamental transformation in environmental ethics. Ecocentrism transcends the epistemological constraints of traditional anthropocentrism, extending ethical consideration from human society to the entire web of life. Its theoretical core involves constructing a responsibility-based ethical system grounded in the intrinsic value of ecological integrity, thereby redefining the human–nature relationship (Washington et al. 2017).

Although ecocentrism is widely regarded as essential for achieving sustainable development (Washington et al. 2017) and resolving environmental crises (Rowe 1994), it has faced a number of criticisms—including charges of being “eco-authoritarianism”, “anti-humanistic”, and “utopian”—that appear to misrepresent its original intent. As a result, ecocentrism stands in need of further theoretical reinforcement.

Daoist philosophy constitutes one of the most profound metaphysical systems in Chinese thought. Its unique cosmology, values, and methodology offer invaluable intellectual resources for addressing the multiple crises of modern society. Existing research has revealed that the Daoist tradition, particularly the core teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi, contains a wealth of eco-ethical insights (Peerenboom 1991; Ames 2001; Nelson 2009; Gao 2017; Liu 2024), which continue to be applied to contemporary ecological discussions. Building on these studies, this paper further contends that Daoism can contribute to ecocentrism’s defense. Accordingly, this study’s framework comprises: (1) Ecocentrism and its ethical controversies (Section 2); (2) The dialogue between Daoism and Ecocentrism (Section 3); (3) Daoism as a defence of ecocentrism (Section 4); (4) Conclusions and future directions (Section 5).

2. Ecocentrism and Its Ethical Controversies

2.1. Ecocentrism

Ecocentrism is a worldview that prioritizes the well-being of the entire ecosystem (including all living and non-living things) over the interests of any single species, including humans. It asserts the inherent value of nature, valuing it not merely for its utility to humanity but for its own sake. The foundational principles of ecocentric ethics were first articulated by scholar Schweitzer (1998), further developed by environmentalist Aldo Leopold (1970), and systematically formalized by Rolston (1985).

The core tenet of ecocentric ethics is the expansion of ethical consideration—originally confined to human relations—to include non-human natural entities. This shift redefines humanity’s role from that of a “conqueror” to an equal member of the ecological community, as articulated in Leopold’s (1970) land ethic. This ethic demands respect not only for individual organisms but also for the ecological collective, thereby extending moral concern to nature’s intrinsic value and rights.

Subsequently, Arne Naess (1973) and George Sessions (2014) further shaped the principles of ecocentric ethics. Naess introduced deep ecology, emphasizing nature’s intrinsic worth: the flourishing of non-human life holds value independent of human utility. Scholars like Callicott (1989, p. 10) further argue that in ecosystems, the whole precedes its parts, as the properties of individual components derive from their relationship to the system. This holistic perspective has influenced thinkers such as Taylor (1984), who advocates for the equal moral consideration of all life forms, and Des Jardins (2013), who posits that biocentric ethics recognizes the intrinsic value of all living beings.

Ecocentrism encompasses diverse theoretical frameworks, including The Land Ethic, Deep Ecology, and Ecofeminism. While these perspectives share key tenets—such as affirming nature’s intrinsic value and “anti-anthropocentric”1 theory—they diverge in focus. For instance, biocentrism (individual-focused) contrasts with ecocentrism (holistic). Debates persist over whether animal liberation ethics (Singer 2004) constitutes a legitimate branch of environmental ethics (Preece 2002). Notably, this paper’s discussion of ecocentrism excludes biocentrism.

2.2. The Ethical Controversies of Ecocentrism

The ecocentrism discussed in this study is characterized by three core tenets: holism, recognition of nature’s intrinsic value, and non-anthropocentrism. Ecocentrism posits that nature—encompassing organisms, ecosystems, and abiotic elements—warrants equal moral consideration. Consequently, human actions should prioritize ecological and non-human well-being, particularly when these interests conflict with anthropogenic development.

However, ecocentrism faces significant criticisms, including accusations of being “eco-authoritarianism”, “anti-human”, and “utopian”. These critiques center on three key dilemmas:

(1)

The metaphysical dilemma of ecological holism and the charge of being “eco-authoritarianism”. Ecocentrism prioritizes “the good of the ecosystem as a whole”, yet ecosystems are dynamic, boundary-less, and lack subjectivity. Des Jardins (2013) links the environmental crisis to unresolved philosophical questions about human nature, humanity’s relationship with nature, and the nature of truth—traditionally metaphysical inquiries. Callicott (1987) warns that this vagueness risks rendering moral obligations toward the “whole” abstract or unactionable. Critics further allege that ecological holism verges on “eco-fascism”2 (Keulartz 1998; Lawton 2019), as it subordinates individual rights (human and non-human) to systemic stability. For instance, Regan (1983) condemns ecocentrism for justifying individual sacrifice for collective ecological good, a stance Guha (2008) equates to totalitarianism. This constitutes the core reason why ecocentrism is criticized as being “eco-authoritarianism”.

(2)

The ethical dilemma of intrinsic value and the “anti-human” accusation. Ecocentrism ascribes intrinsic value to non-human entities (e.g., plants, rivers), independent of human valuation. Critics counter that value is inherently anthropocentric, arguing that projecting intrinsic worth onto nature constitutes “conceptual theft” (Rolston 1988). For example, the value of wilderness remains contingent on human perception, be it aesthetic or scientific. Foster (2002) contends that assigning intrinsic value to nature invites moral paralysis. More severe criticism targets radical ecocentric stances—such as population control to preserve wilderness—are decried as “anti-human” (Guha 2008), prioritizing abstract ecological ideals over tangible human needs for survival and development.

(3)

The historical miscalculation of techno-pessimism and the “utopian” charge. Ecocentrism critiques capitalist technoscience for exceeding environmental limits, destabilizing ecosystems, and triggering resource depletion. Its solutions emphasize nature’s autonomy and reject technological or economic growth, advocating low-tech alternatives. However, critics note that ecocentrism’s dismissal of technology overlooks its role in resolving ecological crises (e.g., renewable energy). By failing to propose scalable alternatives, ecocentrism has been labeled as “utopian” (Witoszek and Brennan 1999; Zizek 2008), and its practical feasibility is seriously questioned.

3. The Dialogue Between Daoism and Ecocentrism

In the English language, the term “Daoism” carries multiple meanings, and the academic community generally adopts two approaches to its classification (Tan and Bao 2024). First, the meaning of Daoism is neither confined to the philosophical realm nor limited to the religious domain (Bokenkamp 1997, p. 10). Henri Maspéro (1883–1945) interpreted early Daoist philosophy as a form of mysticism and emphasized that there is no clear boundary between philosophical Daoism and later religious Daoism (Maspéro 1981). Second, Daoism is distinguished into Daojia 道家 (early Daoism, which is purely philosophical and ethical) and Daojiao 道教 (Daoism from the Han dynasty onward, which emphasizes rituals and magic). Feng Youlan (1895–1990) pointed out that Daoism is divided into a philosophical school (Daojia) and a religious school (Daojiao) (Fung 1976, p. 3). Girardot et al. (1999) observed that this was precisely how Westerners understood the Daoist tradition for most of the 20th century. It is important to clarify that the core focus of this study lies explicitly within the realm of early Daoist philosophy, as represented by Laozi and Zhuangzi in the history of Chinese thought (i.e., Daojia), rather than the institutionalized religious Daoism (i.e., Daojiao) that emerged after the Han dynasty. Although Daojia and Daojiao are historically intertwined, the central propositions explored in this paper are firmly rooted in the philosophical texts of the Daodejing and the Zhuangzi, and do not involve the later Daoist practices of deity worship, alchemy, or religious rituals.

Whether Daoism can provide a defense for ecocentrism is the primary question this paper seeks to answer. We clarify our position by reviewing the scholarly dialogue between Daoist thought and ecocentrism. Academic responses to this question primarily fall into two categories.

One response is affirmative. Since the 20th century, scholars from both Eastern and Western traditions have reinterpreted Daoist classics—such as the Tao Te Ching3 (Daodejing) and Zhuangzi—through an ecological lens. These scholars are committed to exploring the theoretical connections between Eastern Daoist thought and Western natural philosophy and environmental philosophy from a comparative Sino-Western perspective, seeking to uncover what insights and solutions Daoism can offer for modern ecological and environmental issues. Roger T. Ames (1986) and Chung-ying Cheng (1986) can be considered pioneers in this field. Subsequently, scholars represented by David Hall (1987), Graham Parkes (2012) and Eric Nelson (2020) have also contributed relevant research from various angles. The common thread in these studies is their emphasis on the possibility of dialogue between Daoist philosophy and ecocentrism, and the theoretical insights that the wisdom inherent in Daoist philosophy can potentially bring to contemporary natural philosophy and environmental ethics. Daoism’s rich eco-ethical thought aligns with core principles of Western ecocentrism (Waley 2013; Chen 2018; Kim et al. 2024).

As Callicott (1987) notes, Daoism’s emphasis on “Dao” (道) and wuwei (無爲) offers a nearly ready-made environmental ethics, supporting an environmental holism foundational to sound ecological ethics. Shen (1997) highlights its “holistic, organic, and process-oriented” metaphysics of nature, which reframes humanity’s relationship with the environment. Furthermore, this intersection between Daoism and contemporary ecological discourse has garnered growing scholarly and activist interest (Miller 2017; Nelson 2020; Peng 2024; J. Chan 2013).

The other response is skeptical. David Chai (2016) reflects on potential problems in such research, arguing that the trend of comparing early Daoist concepts of ziran (自然nature) with natural philosophy is highly likely to lead to a misinterpretation or erroneous construction of the concept of ziran, thereby overlooking the richer and more profound philosophical content originally embedded in ziran. It is undeniable that Daoism has faced criticism in both historical and contemporary contexts due to theoretical dilemmas resembling those of ecocentrism. Specifically, these critiques have primarily focused on the following aspects: Confucian critics have historically pointed out that the Daoist emphasis on non-being (wu 無) implies a metaphysical dualism between human nature (being, you有) and the non-human Way of nature (non-being, wu 無), as exemplified in Pei Wei裴頠‘s Chongyoulun (崇有论) (Yan 1999). This opposition theoretically excludes human subjectivity, thereby undermining humanity’s role in moral and practical domains; Critics further argue that Daoism—particularly the “primitivist” tendency evident in the Laozi—carries a certain anti-humanist undertone and has historically been linked to authoritarian tendencies within Legalist thought, as discussed in Sarkissian’s (2010) paper The Dark Side of Daoist Primitivism; Additionally, Daoism has been accused of exhibiting a form of “techno-pessimism”, with its primitivist stance even being associated with anti-cultural historical events such as the “burning of books and burying of scholars” (Sarkissian 2010). At the same time, the discussions on human technology in the Zhuangzi have sparked ongoing academic debate, as explored in Coles’s (2019) Self-Cultivation in Guo Xiang and Daoist Naturalism. Related debates also revolve around the interpretation of the view of technology in the Zhuangzi, further revealing the complexity of Daoist ethics regarding science and technology (Coles 2025).

Synthesizing these perspectives reveals both the significant value of ecological reinterpretations of Daoist classics and profound resonances between Daoist thought and core ecocentric principles. This trans-temporal congruence demonstrates Daoism’s possession of ecological wisdom transcending its historical context. However, we must guard against ecologically romanticized interpretations of Daoism. The theoretical dilemmas identified by critics—including Daoism’s potential dissolution of human agency in environmental conservation, anti-civilization undertones in its primitivist tendencies, and ambiguities in its view of technology—genuinely reveal the risks of simplistically equating Daoist thought with modern ecological theory. These critiques compel more prudent reflection on Daoism’s ecological value.

If the relationship between Daoism and ecocentrism is not merely a theoretical patchwork, but rather a dynamic dialogue full of intellectual tension, we must ask: What inherent qualities, deeply rooted in Daoism’s lifeblood, enable it to traverse millennia and engage in mutual reflection and enrichment with Western ecological thought?

Simply comparing superficial resemblances between “the Dao models itself after nature” (dao fa ziran 道法自然) and ecological holism remains superficial. We must disperse the conceptual haze and delve into the core of Daoist philosophy to uncover the deeper logic sustaining this cross-cultural dialogue. Our subsequent inquiry should transcend questioning “whether it works” to exploring “how it becomes possible”—what unique ecological philosophical DNA lies embedded within the fabric of Daoist thought? Our task is not to mechanically apply ancient wisdom to contemporary issues, but to draw from Daoism, such as its holism, egalitarian perspective, and concept of wuwei (無為) always with reverence for textual and historical context. We seek to derive living wisdom that can nourish modern ecological thinking. This goes beyond simple theoretical grafting—it is about allowing these two traditions to illuminate each other through dialogue, giving birth to new understandings, rather than seeking direct one-to-one solutions.

4. Daoism as a Defence of Ecocentrism

While Daoism is not inherently ecocentric, its discourse on harmonious coexistence with nature addresses key critiques while refining ecocentric principles. Specifically, the Daoist concepts of living together (bingsheng 並生), valuing life (guisheng 貴生), and nurturing life (yangsheng 養生) provide ontological, axiological, and practical support for ecocentrism.

4.1. Ontological Defense: Dissolving the Whole-Individual Dichotomy with “All Things Living Together” (萬物並生)

Ecocentrism expands the scope of ethical consideration from individual organisms to entire ecosystems, ecological processes, and even the biosphere. Its core principle is that “the whole takes precedence over the individual “, meaning the integrity, stability, and beauty of the ecosystem constitute the highest good. This principle demands that humans restrain themselves to safeguard the interests of the ecological whole. In some radical interpretations, it could justify sacrificing the well-being of individual species, including humans. Consequently, ecocentrism faces the accusation of “eco-authoritarianism “(Criticism 1)—that is, it may suppress individual rights to survival for the sake of an abstract “whole”.

Daoism can provide a robust ontological defense for ecocentrism. Its core strategy lies in fundamentally deconstructing the either-or dichotomy between the “whole “and the “individual”. This defense does not simply deny the value of the individual; rather, it elucidates the interdependent and mutually integrating relationship between the whole and the individual at the ontological level.

(1)

Holistic Cosmology of “Dao as One” (daotongweiyi 道通为一)

Dao is the ultimate origin and basis of the existence of all things. The Daodejing (Chapter 42) states:

“Dao produced One; One produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things leave behind them the Obscurity (out of which they have come), and go forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while they are harmonized by the Breath of qi (氣)”.

(道生一，一生二，二生三，三生萬物，萬物負陰而抱陽，沖氣以為和。《道德經·四十二章》) (Lou 2016, p. 120)

This cosmology frames existence as a dynamic interplay of qi (氣), wherein humans and all beings emerge from cyclical transformations of energy. The world is thus an interconnected kinship system, with all life co-arising from the Dao.

W.-t. Chan (1963, p. 136) notes that Dao here signifies “the natural, eternal, and indescribable One”. Daoism’s resolution to the “whole-individual” dilemma begins with its cosmology, which views the universe as an organic living entity. Daoism’s metaphysics asserts a primordial unity between humans and nature, rooted in the Dao as the ontological ground of ecological values.

As the Liezi declares: “Heaven, Earth, and all things are inseparable” (天地萬物不相離也《列子·天瑞) (Yang 2012, p. 258). By situating humans within this organic whole, Daoism negates the whole-individual dichotomy, rendering accusations of “infringement” moot—harm to nature becomes self-harm (Yue 2005, p. 93).

(2)

Egalitarian Ontology: No Noble or Lowly (wuwu guijian 物無貴賤)

One of the core tenets of ecocentrism is “biospheric egalitarianism”, which acknowledges that all living beings, species, and even rivers and mountains possess intrinsic value, rather than merely serving as tools to fulfill human needs. This principle is often questioned for lacking a solid philosophical foundation. Daoist thought, particularly its concept of “equalizing all things” (qiwu 齐物), provides profound theoretical support precisely for this idea.

Daoism’s metaphysical equality dissolves hierarchies between humans and other beings. The Zhuangzi (Autumn Floods, qiushui秋水) asked: “From Dao’s perspective, what is noble or humble?” (以道觀之，物無貴賤) (Chen 2016, p. 487) Feng (2016, p. 170) clarifies that “all differences are relative” under Heaven’s impartiality. The Daodejing (Chapter 51) reinforces this:

“All things are produced by the Dao, and nourished by its outflowing operation. They receive their forms according to the nature of each, and are completed according to the circumstances of their condition. Therefore, all things without exception honour the Dao, and exalt its outflowing operation”.

(道生之，德畜之，物行之，勢成之，是以萬物莫不尊道而貴德。《道德經·五十一章》) (Lou 2016, p. 141)

From the perspective of Dao, all things are generated by Dao and nurtured by De (virtue德), each possessing its own nature and occupying its proper place. To elaborate further, the value of a tree does not lie in its potential to be turned into lumber, nor does the value of a frog lie in its utility for biological experiments. Rather, their value resides in the fact that they have realized the nature endowed by Dao, and in doing so, have perfectly fulfilled their own being.

This egalitarianism extends existential rights to all beings, as Laozi admonishes:

“He (the sage) is always skillful at saving things, and so he does not cast away anything”.

(常善救物，故無弃物。《道德經·二十七章》) (Lou 2016, p. 72)

Such principles align with ecocentrism’s “biospheric egalitarianism”, providing ethical grounding for biodiversity preservation.

(3)

Humanity’s Special Role as Nature’s “Assistant” (fu輔)

It is important to clarify that the ancient Daoist concept of “nature” (ziran自然) is not entirely equivalent to the modern ecological concept of ecosystem.

The term ziran (自然) first appeared in the Daodejing and occurs five times in the text.

The Daodejing (Chapter 17) states: “Their work was done and their undertakings were successful, while the people all said, ‘We are as we are, of ourselves!’”

(功成事遂，百姓皆謂我自然。《道德經·十七章》) (Lou 2016, p. 43)

The Daodejing (Chapter 23) states: “Abstaining from speech marks him who is obeying the spontaneity of his nature”.

(希言，自然。《道德經·二十三章》) (Lou 2016, p. 60)

The Daodejing (Chapter 25) states: “Man takes his law from the Earth; the Earth takes its law from Heaven; Heaven takes its law from the Dao. The law of the Dao is its being what it is”.

(人法地，地法天，天法道，道法自然。(《道德經·二十五章》) (Lou 2016, p. 66)

The Daodejing (Chapter 51) states: “This honoring of the Dao and exalting of its operation is not the result of any ordination, but always a spontaneous tribute”.

(道之尊，德之貴，夫莫之命常自然。《道德經·五十一章》) (Lou 2016, p. 141)

The Daodejing (Chapter 64) states: “Therefore, the sage desires what (other men) do not desire, and does not prize things difficult to get; he learns what (other men) do not learn, and turns back to what the multitude of men have passed by. Thus, he helps the natural development of all things, and does not dare to act (with an ulterior purpose of his own)”.

(是以聖人欲不欲，不貴難得之貨；學不學，復衆人之所過，以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為。《道德經·六十四章》) (Lou 2016, p. 171)

The academic discussion on the concept of ziran (自然) in Daoism can be summarized through three main interpretations:

(1)

Ziran (自然) is equated with the Dao (道), understood from an ontological perspective. Dao is regarded as the origin and foundation of all things, encompassing both the natural world and human society. The notion that all beings follow their own inherent laws constitutes ziran (自然) reflecting a mode of existence that is spontaneous and self-so (Ye 2017).

(2)

The term ziran (自然) is analyzed by breaking it down into its components: zi (自) meaning self, and ran (然) meaning manner or state. According to this interpretation, ziran (自然) primarily refers to the intrinsic attributes or existential state of things or humans, emphasizing their inherent and unaltered nature (Wang 2018).

(3)

Ziran (自然) is understood as encompassing both an “absolute” and a “relative” dimension. With respect to the Dao (道), its existence depends on no external conditions and is grounded solely in itself, representing a state of “absolute naturalness”. As for all things, their ziran (自然) stems partly from their own characteristics, manifesting as a state of being “so-of-itself”, and partly from emulating and imitating the “absolute naturalness “of the Dao (道) (Song 2015).

Based on the above three interpretations, we can see that no matter which understanding of ziran (自然) is adopted, none can be separated from the discussion of the relationship between humans (ren 人) and all things (wangwu 万物). Ecocentrism often faces a dilemma when addressing the issue of human uniqueness: either it completely denies human distinctiveness, risking anti-intellectualism, or when affirming such distinctiveness, it subtly falls back into anthropocentric paradigms. Daoism, through its concepts of fu (輔)and wuwei (無為), skillfully transcends this predicament.

While affirming equality, Daoism acknowledges humanity’s unique capacity to consciously align with Dao. The Daodejing (Chapter 25) elevates humans alongside Dao, Heaven, and Earth, but this “greatness” entails responsibility:

“Dao is great; Heaven is great; Earth is great; and the (sage) king is also great. “

(道大，天大，地大，王亦大。(《道德經·二十五章》) (Lou 2016, p. 66)

The debate regarding whether Chapter 25 of the Daodejing originally read “人亦大” (humanity is also great) or “王亦大” (the king is also great) has persisted for centuries. Nevertheless, within the scope of this study, this textual discrepancy does not impact the core philosophical argument. As Wang Bi (王弼)comments: Although human beings are the most valuable in the nature of heaven and earth, the king is the master of human beings (Lou, p. 66). Consequently, even if the original character were “王” (king), its meaning here can be interpreted as representing humanity in its most exemplary form.

“He (the sage) helps the natural development of all things, and does not dare to act (with an ulterior purpose of his own)”.

(以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為。《道德經·六十四章》) (Lou 2016, p. 171)

The doctrine of wuwei (無為)—non-coercive action mirroring Dao’s spontaneity—guides humans to nurture nature without distortion. As the Daodejing (Chapter 37) states:

“The Dao in its regular course does nothing (for the sake of doing it), and so there is nothing which it does not do. If princes and kings were able to maintain it, all things would of themselves be transformed by them. If this transformation became to me an object of desire, I would express the desire by the nameless simplicity.”

(道常無為而無不為。侯王若能守之，萬物將自化。化而欲作，吾將鎮之以無名之樸。《道德經·三十七章》) (Lou 2016, p. 95)

Wuwei (無為)by no means implies inaction. Rather, it embodies the principle of “Dao always takes wuwei, yet everything is done by it” (道常無為而無不為) (Ren 2009, p. 219) This entails rejecting all interventions that are imposed, deliberate, and contrary to the inherent nature of things—what is termed “forced action” (wangwei妄為). In doing so, the inherent power and laws of all beings can be fully manifested and realized. This establishes a clear boundary for the application of technology in ecological governance: technology should not serve as an instrument for dominating nature, but rather as an” assistant” that assists nature in restoring its vitality and balance. For instance, in ecological restoration, humanity’s responsibility lies not in replacing natural succession with human designs, but in creating the conditions for the ecosystem’s self-renewal through acts of Wuwei (無為), such as removing invasive species or reestablishing hydrological conditions. Here, humanity’s role shifts from dominator to symbiotic steward, cultivating “the beauty of Heaven and Earth” (天地有大美) (Chen 2016, p. 650) through restrained, adaptive engagement.

4.2. Valuation Theory Defense: Providing Value Concepts for Ecocentrism by “Valuing Life and Valuing Things” (guishengzhongwu貴生重物)

The core assertion of ecocentrism—that natural entities possess intrinsic value independent of human valuation—serves as an ethical cornerstone for addressing the ecological crisis, yet it also constitutes the theory’s most vulnerable point of critique. Critics argue that the very concept of “value” cannot be divorced from a valuing subject; to project what inherently belongs to the human domain onto nature is a form of philosophical “conceptual theft” (Rolston 1988). Foster’s (2002) warning cuts even deeper: conferring moral status indiscriminately upon all things may lead to the paralysis of ethical judgment due to the proliferation and conflict of obligations, ultimately sliding into moral nihilism. Furthermore, ecocentrism is often criticized in practice for exhibiting “anti-humanism “(Criticism 2) tendencies—a charge that appears substantiated when radical movements (e.g., “Earth First!”) advocate restricting human development to preserve wilderness, seemingly confirming the accusation that ecocentrism prioritizes ecological integrity over basic human rights (Guha 2008).

Faced with these acute philosophical and practical dilemmas, Daoism offers no simplistic solutions. Instead, it engages in a profound “theoretical detoxification” of ecocentrism by reconstructing the ontological foundation of value. Its contribution lies not in direct defense, but in facilitating a fundamental shift in perspective. Daoism addresses criticism 2 through two counterarguments:

(1)

Humanity’s Dual Role: Ethical Agents within Nature

Daoism transcends the binary opposition between anthropocentrism and ecocentrism through its fundamental reorientation of the human position.

In the Daoist worldview, humans are primordially designated as “one of the Four Greats” (域中四大Daodejing, Chapter 25) (Lou 2016, p. 66)—an existence inherently within and continuous with nature. This constitutes their identity as “members of nature”. Simultaneously, by virtue of their spiritual capacity, humans possess the ability to observe and embody Dao, thereby becoming self-aware ethical agents. Daoism affirms humans as both “ethical subjects” and “members of nature”, reconciling ecocentrism’s intrinsic value claims with human welfare. The Daodejing (Chapter 13) states:

“Therefore, he who would administer the kingdom, honouring it as he honours his own person, may be employed to govern it, and he who would administer it with the love which he bears to his own person may be entrusted with it”.

(故貴以身為天下，若可寄天下； 愛以身為天下，若可托天下。《道德經·十三章》) (Lou 2016, p. 32)

This valuing life (guisheng貴生) principle extends moral concern beyond humans to all beings (valuing things, zhongwu重物), precluding ecocentrism’s alleged disregard for human survival. This is because all beings share in the nature of the Dao and are endowed with the same vitality. The cherishing of one’s own life, upon realizing the unity of all things, naturally elevates into a universal care for all life. This resonates profoundly with the “Self-realization” thesis of deep ecology (Naess 1973), which posits that as the circle of self-identification expands, care for all beings becomes spontaneous. Grounded in this understanding, Daoism transforms ecocentrism’s claim of “intrinsic value” from an ethical proposition requiring justification into a discovery of value based on ontological fact: the value of all things lies not in their utility for me, but in the fact that they, like me, are manifestations of Dao and miracles of life.

(2)

Transcending Normative Ethics: Returning to “Natural” (ziran自然) Harmony

Another significant contribution of Daoism to ecocentrism lies in its revelation of the possibility to transcend rigid normative ethics. Daoism posits that codified morality emerges only when the primordial Dao is lost:

“When the Great Dao (Way or Method) ceased to be observed, benevolence and righteousness came into vogue”.

(大道廢，有仁義。《道德經·十八章》) (Lou 2016, p. 46)

“It was that when the Dao was lost, its attributes appeared; when its attributes were lost, benevolence appeared; when benevolence was lost, righteousness appeared; and when righteousness was lost, the proprieties appeared.”

(故失道而後德，失德而後仁，失仁而後義，失義而後禮。《道德經·三十八章》) (Lou 2016, p. 98)

The passage reveals a process of progressive descent: only after the loss of the highest harmony (Dao) does it become necessary to advocate for specific moral norms such as benevolence, righteousness, and propriety. Daoism believes that morality is not the best path, and that the best path to ecological governance is to dissolve morality and return to the “natural” (ziran自然) state of existence of all things. Here, “natural” (ziran自然), as emphasized by Chen Guying (Chen 2016), denotes a dynamic and open-ended process—the vibrant vitality of all things generating, growing, and transforming according to their own intrinsic principles.

What needs to be emphasized here is that dissolving morality does not mean opposing morality or exalting immorality, but rather suspending and dissolving the need for morality by finding in it a better path to universal happiness. Daoism advocates a “natural” way of being, it is open and dynamic, it is not some kind of given state, but the true existence of all things “naturally”. It is not a given state, but the true existence of all things “naturally”. The purpose of Daoism’s “valuing life and valuing things” (guisheng zhongwu貴生重物) is to realize the harmonious state of “all things are one with me”萬物與我為一. The nature of all things is the value of Daoism, which is the return to the original harmony of the symbiosis of all things. As the Daodejing (Chapter 16) notes:

“When things (in the vegetable world) have displayed their luxuriant growth, we see each of them return to its root”.

(萬物並作，吾以觀複，夫物芸芸，各複歸其根。《道德經·十六章》) (Lou 2016, p. 39)

The ideal is not moral abolition but transcending its necessity through “natural” (ziran自然) existence—a dynamic state where all things flourish autonomously. Zhuangzi’s dictum— “The universe and I exist together, and all things and I are one”. (天地與我並生，萬物與我為一。《莊子·齐物论》) (Chen 2016, p. 88)—epitomizes this vision. Here, value derives not from imposed ethics but from the spontaneous harmony of interconnected existence, resolving ecocentrism’s nihilism dilemma by locating normativity in cosmic unity rather than human constructs.

4.3. Practical Theory Defense: Establishing Ecocentrism’s Principles Through “WuWei-Nourishing Life” (Wuwei-Yangsheng無為-養生)

A central critique of ecocentrism (Criticism 3) is its alleged techno-pessimism—the view that capitalist technoscience exceeds environmental limits, destabilizing ecosystems through resource exploitation. While ecocentrism advocates low-tech solutions and opposes unchecked growth, critics contend it lacks viable alternatives and disregards technology’s role in solving ecological crises.

Daoism, particularly its doctrine of “wuwei-nourishing life” (無為-養生), provides profound philosophical resources for responding to this critique. It does not simplistically endorse or oppose technology, but rather redefines the proper role of technology in the human–nature relationship through a refined ethical framework. Thereby, it infuses ecocentrism with much-needed practical wisdom, transforming it from a critical theory into a more constructive philosophy of governance.

(1)

WuWei (無為) as Restrained Intervention

It is a common misconception to interpret wuwei (無為)simply as “inaction” or “non-action”, Within an ecological context, it should be more precisely understood as “non-interference”— the restraint from imposing interventions that violate the inherent nature and internal order of the natural world. As the Daodejing (Chapter 3) states:

“When there is this abstinence from action, good order is universal”.

(為無為，則無不治《道德经·三章》) (Lou 2016, p. 9)

This is not passivity but principled limitation, as the Daodejing (Chapter 64) states:

“He (the sage) helps the natural development of all things, and does not dare to act (with an ulterior purpose of his own)”.

(以輔萬物之自然，而不敢為《道德經·六十四章》) (Lou 2016, p. 171)

The concept of “assistant” (fu 輔) defines technology’s proper role—supporting, not overriding, nature’s autonomy. For example: The knotted rope (a simple technology) is praised for record-keeping (Daodejing 80) but condemned when used to halter horses or pierce oxen (Zhuangzi, “Autumn Floods” qiushui秋水) (Chen 2016, p. 496). As Daodejing stated: “I would make the people return to the use of knotted cords (instead of the written characters). “(使民複結繩而用之。《道德經·八十章》) (Lou 2016, p. 198)

Zhuangzi critiqued such acts as haltering a horse’s head or piercing an ox’s nose, calling them the “doing of man” (weiren為人). This crucial distinction rejects the kind of technological domination that “uses the human to destroy the heavenly” (yirenmietian以人滅天), while permitting tools and techniques that operate in alignment with nature’s own principles (tianli天理).

“Nature” refers to the natural state and laws of all things. It means that human beings should assist all things to grow and develop according to their nature, rather than forcibly intervene or control them. This idea denies that human beings are above nature, and advocates that human beings should respect the inherent order of nature, intervene in nature as a “helper” rather than a “master”, respect the self-healing and regulating ability of the ecosystem, and maintain reverence for nature to avoid destroying the ecological balance due to greed and arrogance. We should respect the self-healing and regulating capacity of the ecosystem, maintain reverence for nature and avoid destroying the ecological balance through greed and arrogance. As the Daodejing (Chapter 10) states:

“(Dao) produces (all things) and nourishes them; it produces them and does not claim them as its own; it does all, and yet does not boast of it; it presides over all, and yet does not control them. This is what is called ‘The mysterious Quality’ (of the Dao)”.

(生之、畜之，生而不有，為而不恃，長而不宰，是謂玄德。《道德經·十章》) (Lou 2016, p. 26)

Ecocentrism emphasizes the integrity and stability of ecosystems, opposing excessive intervention. Wuwei (無為) provides a philosophical foundation and operational principles for this stance. It refines ecocentrism’s vague “anti-intervention” position into one of “principle of minimal intervention”4. Technology itself is not inherently problematic; its ethical value depends on whether it serves the purpose of “assisting nature”. As revealed in the textual debate between using knotted cords for record-keeping and piercing ox noses: the same technology, when used to assist human memory (knotted cords), is acceptable; when used to distort an animal’s innate nature (piercing), becomes a “human artifice” that warrants caution. This provides a profound criterion for evaluating the ecological legitimacy of specific technologies.

(2)

“Nourishing Life”(yangsheng養生) as Ecological Practice

“Nourishing life” (yang sheng養生) represents Daoist practice in harmonizing life cultivation with nature. Its core lies in unifying individual well-being with the principles of natural ecology, forming a cognitive paradigm of “life as ecology”. This is exemplified in Zhuangzi’s fable “Cook Ding Butchering an Ox” (paoding jieniu 庖丁解牛)5, where the butcher follows the natural grain (yihu tianli 依乎天理) (Chen 2016, p. 116). Such Daoist wisdom finds practical application in permaculture, which implements similar ecological principles through feasible agricultural methods.

As the Daodejing (Chapter 67) states:

“I have three precious things which I prize and hold fast. The first is gentleness; the second is economy; and the third is shrinking from taking precedence of others”.

(我有三寶，持而保之。 一曰慈，二曰儉，三曰不敢為天下先。《道德經·六十七章》) (Lou 2016, p. 176)

Daoism advocates frugality and simplicity, cherishing and loving things and other concepts are still of great practical significance in today’s world, which insists on the harmonious coexistence of human beings and nature and the construction of an ecological civilization on earth. Human development and utilization of nature should uphold the principle of “the sage puts away excessive effort, extravagance, and easy indulgence” (去甚、去奢、去泰《道德經·二十九章》) (Lou 2016, p. 78), and respect the laws of nature in dealing with the relationship between human survival and development needs and ecological environmental protection. In respecting the laws of nature, the relationship between the needs of human survival and development and the protection of the ecological environment should be properly dealt with.

The ecological practice of Daoism’s wuwei (無為) is useful because it transcends anthropocentrism and gives nature intrinsic value and subjectivity, and it advocates the wisdom of “auxiliary interventions” that balances the contradiction between conservation and development. In the shadow of technological hegemony and ecological collapse, Daoism’s positive attitude toward science and technology is more in tune with the needs of modern society. Daoism resolves ecocentrism’s techno-pessimism by: Granting nature intrinsic subjectivity while endorsing “auxiliary” technologies that respect ecological limits; Advocating “use Dao to unify technology”—mastering techniques without violating natural laws; Balancing conservation and development through restrained, context-sensitive interventions. Thus, Daoism neither rejects technology nor capitulates to industrial hegemony, instead offering a middle path for ecological governance in technological societies.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

The ethical controversy of ecocentrism is essentially a value pain in the transition from “human exceptionalism” to “ecological holism”. Daoism provides philosophical depth, ethical boundaries and practical flexibility for ecocentrism through the triple dimensions of ontology, value theory and practice theory. Daoism believes that true ecology should not be a zero-sum game of “anthropocentric” or “eco-centric”, but rather the wisdom of symbiosis, which, as Zhuangzi put it, is “in harmony with heaven and earth”. This wisdom requires us to reject the dichotomy of “human vs. nature” and turn to the ethic of symbiosis. That is to say, we should recognize the priority of the ecosystem and respect the special status of human beings among all things. In Daoism’s view, the special nature of human beings lies the uniqueness of humanity lies precisely in its ability to recognize the Dao’s way of operation and to assist all things in following their inherent course. This requires humans to care for nature in the capacity of an auxiliary, not a master. In short, true ecological wisdom should perhaps learn to find the subtle path between humility and action, “Dao always takes wuwei, yet everything is done by it” (道常無為而無不為) (Ren 2009, p. 219), and realize the co-prosperity of heaven, earth and man in dynamic balance.

Furthermore, we have to acknowledge the inherent limitations of this philosophical defense. Rather than presenting a preconfigured alternative to ecocentrism, Daoism offers an indispensable mirror that reflects latent theoretical blind spots within the Western tradition—specifically its predominant reliance on substantialized ontology, normalized ethics, and technocratic solutions. This critical dialogue illuminates the contemporary relevance of Daoist philosophy: as foundational ecological wisdom, it compels us to engage in sustained philosophical reflection, axiological re-examination, and practical restraint on our path toward reconciliation with nature, thereby guiding humanity toward a more profound and prudent ecological civilization.