Final answer:
The statement that anthropocentrism implies no consideration for animal welfare is false. Anthropocentrism can align with ethical concern for animals and nature, as human interests often relate to the well-being of the environment and its inhabitants.
Step-by-step explanation:
The view that the anthropocentric perspective necessarily implies that humans should not consider how non-human animals are treated is false. Anthropocentrism focuses on human interests and well-being, but this does not inherently exclude the possibility for ethical concern and moral obligations towards non-human animals. Recognition of human interests can extend to the recognition of animal welfare, as argued by some philosophers and ethicists.
Environmental ethics grounded in anthropocentrism can indeed justify moral obligations concerning animal welfare by appealing to broader human interests such as self-preservation, sustainability, and intergenerational equity, which are interlinked with the health of the environment and its non-human inhabitants.
The anthropological view, as a natural human characteristic, suggests that while humans tend to be particularly concerned with themselves, this doesn't necessarily preclude the consideration of non-human entities in moral reasoning. In the realm of environmental ethics, for example, William Baxter's anthropocentric approach does consider harm to the non-human world by acknowledging that humans have intrinsic ties to nature, thus these considerations can lead to establishing moral obligations to reduce pollution, create sustainable practices, and prevent harm to the environment.