Hill’s argument of human excellence – (1)

Hill postulates humility, proper humility, as the attribute that shifts our consciousness from concerns of moral extension to gratitude as a virtue of human excellence.   This is an intriguing argument.  While he does state that indifference to others (“nonsentient nature”) is not itself a moral vice, Hill suggests we need to overcome such behavior to have proper humility – but he does not seem to condemn this type of human character; rather he sees indifference as a flaw of sorts – we are somehow not fully human without virtue, without gratitude.   Is this argument anthropocentric due to our concern (active occupation) with living a life of excellence, or is it duty based, or something else?   Does our intent matter here, i.e., what are some reasons why we might want to live a virtuous life?  Is it in our interest to develop into a full and enriched human being?  Is it a utilitarian idea that we “cherish what enriches our lives”?   Are anthropocentric views of the environment as having spiritual instrumental value similar to this idea of taking pleasure in what enriches our lives?