In it the only survivors of some catastrophe that has killed all other humans and rendered the re mainder infertile, set about in a bitter rage to destroy every living thing. If we build in too much the ethic is no longer anthropocentric. We can think only like a person thinks. This ideal, in turn, can be justified either on religious grounds refering to human spiritual development or as be ing a fitting etuics of a rationally defensible world view 22].
What makes for a distinctively environmental ethic is not whether or not it has an anthropocentric value theory but that it be a non individualistic theory. But in his development of the weak anthropocentric position he does not indicate clearly just what can from such a position be judged to be of intrinsic value. A considered preference is any desire that a human individual would express after careful deliberation, including a judgment that the desire or need is consistent with a rationally adopted worldview.
Collins — — Science and Engineering Ethics 14 4: William Grey — — Ethics and the Environment 3 1: Other entities are judged to be of some kind of extrinsic value insofar as they are instrumental in or con tribute toward the achieving of that human state or experience held to be of intrinsic value. An adequate environmental ethic 1 may be anthropocentric and 2 must be nonindividualistic.
Find it on Scholar. Callous treatment of natu ral objects such as the act of vandalizing a place of natural beauty was wrong for Kant because it not only ruined it as a means for the human experience of beauty but also such actions engendered a more callous treatment of other humans. Environmental ethics is, however, distinctive ewak standard British and American ethical systems because, in order to be adequate, it must be nonindividualistic. Norton tries to adopt a more defensible worldview of weak anthropocentrism, which is more appealing to environmentalists because it is not as radical, not difficult to justify claims of the intrinsic value of nonhuman objects, and it provides a framework for stating obligations that do beyond just human concerns, or felt preferences.
When he looks at the difference between non-anthropocentrism and anthropocentrism, he remains convinced that not nearly enough has actually been concluded about what human interests are. He looks particularly at two interests: felt preferences , which are any desires or needs of a human individual that can be temporarily sated by some specifiable experience of the individual, and considered preferences or any desire or need that a human individual would express after careful deliberation. Buying a new electronic may be an example of a felt preference because it will satisfy you quickly but only temporarily.
He also looks at strong anthropocentrism , or the view that all value is explained by reference to satisfactions of felt preferences to human beings , and weak anthropocentrism , or the view that all value is explained by reference to satisfaction of some felt preference of a human being or by reference to its bearing upon the ideals which exist as elements essential to determinations of considered preference.
If humans have strong consumptive opinions then they will feel that their interests dictate that nature should be used in an exploitive manner and weak anthropocentrism determines that humans can have strong relationships with other living species. Weak anthropocentrism is what Norton thinks can be a framework for protecting nature. In a post-Darwinian world, one can understand that logic and science support living in harmony with nature but the idea that there is intrinsic value in nature could be more popular.
Nature, to those that hold a weak anthropocentic view has intrinsic value besides the services and goods it provides. Norton also argues that in order for a value system to work it must not adhere to utilitarian thought because that is too individualistic. An adequate view will uphold the ideal that even the potential life of future generations is important, not just the lives of those today.
It is assumed that a whole new set of people will be living on Earth in a certain number of centuries, so for us to ignore their existence is mere folly. His overall proposal is for an environmental ethic is a weak anthropocentric environmental ethic. The ethic would focus on finding all value in human loci, and also being nonindividualistic. Ethical questions about the environment are then divided into those concerning distributional fairness within generations and those considering long-term, cross-generational issues.
Onora O'Neill has argued that an obligations-based anthropocentric ethics can support strong environmentalism. However,the value that non-human nature has in such ethics is still ultimately … Expand.
View 1 excerpt. Anthropocentrism as environmental ethic. To appreciate what an African perspective can contribute to environmental ethics, we should be careful, all things considered, not to get entangled in the dualisms that have characterized the central … Expand. A Post-environmental Ethics? This essay offers a critique of environmental ethics and argues that a post-environmental ethics may be unavoidable. It does so by exposing and questioning the ontological assumptions common to … Expand.
View 1 excerpt, cites background. Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection. The latter, called allocational decisions, are not reducible to the former and govern the use of resources across extended time. Science Logic and Mathematics. This position allows for a criticism of various attitudes that deal with the environment. Accordingly, the manager must antyropocentrism the contents of the trust properly to the current generation, maintaining an obligation to the integrity of the trust.
Norton assumes that a life amidst plastic trees would be less enriching for hu mans than one lived among live trees, that we would be less human in a moral sense if we rejected moral consideration for nonhumans. Fill in your details below or click an icon to log deak Since the prohibitions against actions that have negative effects only in the future necessary for a truly environmental ethic cannot, Norton holds, be derived from indi vidualistic ethical systems, his weak anthropocentric position is appeal ing to environmentally sensitive individuals in that such prohibitions can be derived from his position.
Toward a Practical Ethics for Ecologists and Conservationists. Norton is aware of the need to reject this reduct ion. According to Norton, anthropocentrism is the idea that only humans have intrinsic value, and they are the only organisms at the center of this value.
Norton thinks that an injunction to maintain stability of the resource base follows from 2. It is not inconceivable wthics human values may change in time, and that natural objects may not be valued over artificial objects that resemble the original, or that human preferences, felt or considered, may be for extensive artificial envi ro nme nt s.
A weak anth ropocentrist may claim that some natural entities have only instrumental value, some only an ascribed intrinsic value, and some a mixture of both kinds of value. Remember me on this computer. Holders of this view also could praise the preservation of certain natu Suppose also that this ideal is taken seriously and that wweak who impairs that harmony by destroying another species, by polluting air and water, etc.
How do these people create an objective value system that builds on global nevironmental preferences, while encouraging humans to uphold obligations to the natural world? Karim Jebari — — Philosophy and Technology 29 3: An adequate environmental ethic 1 may be anthropocentric and 2 must be nonindividualistic.
0コメント