This paper investigates William Grey’s claim that a moderate conception of anthropocentrism is not only inevitable, but also conducive to the promotion of a thriving biosphere. It considers the underlying motivational externalist basis of Grey’s anthropocentrism and highlights a risked incoherence between Grey’s two premises: anthropocentric inevitability and prescribed benevolent action. Illuminating this tension, this paper questions the legitimacy of motivation as an appropriate yardstick for measuring the efficacy of a normative framework. It concludes that beyond mere arbitrary distinction, anthropocentrism fails as a compelling alternative to aspirational rationalist frameworks of environmental ethics.