Heideggerian Environmental Virtue Ethics

Environmental ethics is apparently caught in a dilemma. We believe in human species partiality as a way of making sense of many of our practices. However as part of our commitment to impartialism in ethics, we arguably should extend the principle of impartiality to other species, in a version of biocentric egalitarianism of the kind advocated by Paul Taylor. According to this view, not only do all entities that possess a good have inherent worth, but they have equal inherent worth, and in particular no species is superior to any other. In this paper, I elaborate a Heideggerian environmental virtue ethics that slips between the horns of the dilemma. Central to this ethics is the relation of “dwelling” and the many virtues of dwelling, according to which the world is seen as “holy” in a variety of ways. This ethics is importantly local in respect of time and place, but also has universalistic aspects. To understand such an ethics, it is necessary to grasp Heidegger’s notion of truth as “aleithia” or opening, which enables us to escape the metaphysical dilemmas besetting ethics in the analytic tradition, including standard virtue ethics. Elaborating this notion occupies a large part of the paper.     

建设有中国特色的环境伦理学

环境伦理学，是20世纪后半叶随着全球性环境运动的高涨而出现的一门新兴学科。由于国际环境保护运动是一个规模非常庞大，参与者十分广泛的群众性运动，其成分十分复杂，参与环境保护运动的动机和出发点也各不相同，因此，环境保护运动从一开始就出现了许多不同的派别和组织，他们虽然都打着“绿色”的大旗，以保护环境为宗旨，但又有着各自不同的主张、行动准则和纲领。这种情况也反映到新兴起的环境伦理学之中，依照对环境问题产生的原因、保护环境的根本目的、及其解决办法等问题的认识不同，有人把环境伦理思想分为“浅绿派”和“深绿派…     

Patriotism as an Environmental Virtue

Define “patriotism” as love for one’s country and devotion to its well-being. This essay contends that patriotism thus defined is a virtue and that environmentalism is one of its most important manifestations. Patriotism, as devotion to particular places and people, can occur at various levels, from the local to the national. Knowing and caring about particular places and people and working to protect them is good for us and good for them and hence a good thing overall. Knowing and caring and working less on behalf of more remote places and people is also good, since it allows us to focus our efforts, act effectively, and do more good in the world. Philosophical analyses of patriotism by Alasdair MacIntyre and Martha Nussbaum are complemented by the more “down to earth” understanding of the virtue presented here. While patriotism’s dangers are undeniable, so are the dangers stemming from lack of patriotism. The proper answer to bad patriotism is not cosmopolitanism, but good patriotism: the kind illustrated by environmental activists.     

Biophilia as an Environmental Virtue

Beginning with E. O. Wilson’s notion of biophilia, our “innate tendency to focus on life and life-like processes,” I construct an environmental virtue with the same name that meets certain criteria an environmental virtue should meet. I argue that this virtue can have its status as a virtue by its contribution to human flourishing, while having care for live nature as its target, and care about live nature as its affective content. I explore its characteristics as both an individual and a collective virtue, and finally show how cultivation of it might serve to unite various communities in the cause of preserving biodiversity.     

The Epistemic Demands of Environmental Virtue

To lead an environmentally virtuous life requires information—about morality, environmental issues, the impacts of our actions and commitments, our options for alternatives, and so on. On the other hand, we are finite beings with limited time and resources. We cannot feasibly investigate all of our options, and all environmental issues (let alone moral issues, more broadly). In this paper I attempt to provide initial steps towards addressing the epistemic demands of environmental virtue. In the first half of the paper I provide rules of thumb with respect to (1) how to prioritize our investigations into various issues, and (2) what kinds of information we should seek with respect to these issues, and the levels of epistemic justification we ought to attain. In the second half of the paper, I turn to a modified virtue ethics, appealing to the attitudes of virtuous ideal observers to provide characterizations of morally justified and morally non-culpable actions. I then apply these latter concepts in assessing agents, their actions and projects (with respect to environmental virtue), in light of their investigative efforts, and given their particular circumstances.     

Environmental Ethics and Biomimetic Ethics: Nature as Object of Ethics and Nature as Source of Ethics

While the contemporary biomimicry movement is associated primarily with the idea of taking Nature as model for technological innovation, it also contains a normative or ethical principle—Nature as measure—that may be treated in relative isolation from the better known principle of Nature as model. Drawing on discussions of the principle of Nature as measure put forward by Benyus (Biomimicry: innovation inspired by nature, Harper Perennial, New York, 1997) and Jackson (Consulting the genius of place: an ecological approach to a new agriculture, Counterpoint, Berkeley, 2010, Nature as measure: the selected essays of Wes Jackson, Counterpoint, Berkeley, 2011), while at the same time situating these discussions in relation to contemporary debates in the philosophy of biomimicry (Mathews in Organ Environ 24(4): 364–387, 2011; Dicks in Philos Technol, doi: 10.1007/s13347-015-0210-2, 2015; Blok and Gremmen in J Agric Environ Ethics 29(2):203–217, 2016), the aim of this paper is to explore the relation between the principle of Nature as measure and environmental ethics. This leads to the argument that mainstream formulations of environmental ethics share the common trait of seeing our ethical relation to Nature as primarily involving duties to protect, preserve, or conserve various values in Nature, and that, in doing so, they problematically either overlook or dismiss as anthropocentric the possibility that Nature may provide measures, understood in terms of ecological standards, against which our own practices, or at least some of them, may be judged—a way of thinking I call “biomimetic ethics”. The practical consequences of this argument are significant. Whereas mainstream environmental ethics has been applied above all to such issues as wilderness preservation, natural resource management, and animal rights and welfare, biomimetic ethics is applicable rather to the question of how we produce, use, and consume things, and, as such, may potentially provide the basic ethical framework required to underpin the transition to a circular, bio-based, solar economy.     

环境伦理学刍议

本文研究了环境伦理学产生的背景，环境伦理学所具有的特点，环境伦理学研究的内容以及对环境伦理学应用等问题。     

Environmental Ethics in Poland

In the 1960s, western societies discovered that unlimited technological progress has a very high price that the environment pays. This was also the beginning of the discussions on the role of ethics in the protection of the environment and the moral aspects of nature exploitation. Even though the state of nature was not better in Poland, it took Polish philosophers a few decades to recognize the moral problem and to address it. The prevailing communistic propaganda of progress had blurred the perception of Polish people and they are unable to notice the environmental problem. Thus, only in the 1990s, after the fall of communism, Polish philosophers noticed that our approach to nature can have a moral aspect and we are exhausting the resources of the Earth. Since then, Environmental Ethics in Poland has been developed. Polish Environmental Ethics (PEE) is an interesting blend of inspiration from internationally recognized thinkers as well as original approaches to the ecological problem. The first wave of PEE addresses problems discussed abroad, namely the range of ethics (whom do we include into ethical consideration?) and the problem of values, analyzing them in the context of Polish culture and philosophical traditions. It also proposed original approaches developed by Henryk Skolimowski as well as approaches inspired by the problems considered from the perspective of Catholic theology. The article will give an insight into PEE and will present how these applied ethics have been received and cultivated in Poland in the so called first wave. It will also highlight the problems of the second wave of PEE.     

环境伦理学与可持续发展

本文综述了近几十年来环境伦理学的研究成果，包括环境伦理学的学科性质、研究对象、研究内容等。文章同时还从环境伦理学角度探讨了可持续发展的思想和理念，并对实现可持续发展提出了一些指导性原则和建议。     

论公众参与的环境伦理观

公众参与(Public Participation)是环境影响评价(EIA)和战略影响评价(SEA)的重要内容,也是环境保护事业发展的基础.影响公众参与的因素有环境法律、环境经济、环境文化和环境伦理四个方面,其中环境伦理在公众参与和环境行为方面发挥巨大的作用.本文从伦理学角度论述了人类环境伦理观的形成,环境伦理对公众参与环境保护的影响以及可持续发展的环境道德原则.     

和谐社会视野下的环境伦理学

20世纪是人类科学取得巨大成就的时期,也是地球环境急剧恶化、环境危机全球化和日益严重的时期.本文通过环境整体主义道德哲学的核心意识结构阐释人类追求的最高价值即是生态系统的整体利益,它既涵盖了整体主义的和谐发展论,又包括完整的环境正义观.     

Environmental Ethics and Science: Resilience as a Moral Boundary

Science has always been tightly associated with environmental ethics in a way traditional ethics has not. However, despite this proximity, science has had a merely informational role, where it must inform ethics but not intervene in ethical judgment. Science is seen as an amoral enterprise, requiring an ethics rather than recommending one. In this paper I try to go against this common view. First, I give a critique of the naturalistic fallacy following the lines of Frankena. Then I go on to describe the two possible roles science can have in ethical though, and in environmental ethics in particular. As it turns out, science does not only inform ethics, but can actually have moral import and intervene in moral judgment. Finally, from an ecocentric point of view, I try to illustrate this last point by construing the ecological notion of resilience as a moral boundary—a scientifically determined boundary between right and wrong.     

可持续发展与环境伦理的思考

面对环境问题与资源危机,人类社会正面临发展的文明转型.为此我国提出科学发展观,力求全面的可持续发展.我们要转变认识自然的价值观,走出“人类中心论“,构建环境伦理体系.发挥环境伦理的作用和功能,正确处理人与自然的关系,尊重与善待自然,坚持公正补偿、节约、平等和慎行等原则.社会各群体都要负担起环境责任,共同努力,实现可持续发展.     

Environmental Ethics: Driving Factors Beneath Behavior,Discourse and Decision-Making

This paper tries to characterize the factors determining human relations with its environment and to identify the drives of those behavioral patterns and “praxis”. One scrutinizes the physiological and psychological factors that influence those drives, and tries to determine ways of overriding instinctive drives in favor of rational, sustainable ones. It focuses its attention on the way the different ecosystemic, economic and socio-cultural systems work, and pin-points the critical issues in view of the development of sustainable behavioral patterns. Also the values that must build the new behavioral paradigm, as well as the ways to ensure the evolutionary quantum-leap necessary to ensure this sustainable condition, and the fulfilment, at every level, the different needs of humans and human societies, are analyzed. In conclusion, it stresses the fact that any reliable and long lasting change towards a sustainable behavior must start at the individual and the close social groups levels, and of the development of new factors of self-fulfillment and gratification, able to support and foster that change. The proposed epistemological approach is particularly innovative, precisely because of this emphasis on the individual drives and the way they determine the global patterns of environmental use, as well as the way they can evolve into a more rational (human) character. In short, the paper focuses itself in the way man can evolve from its natural animal instincts and drives toward more rational ones, humanizing its behavior and turning, therefore, into an able actor of the process of sustainability building.