Minding Nature: A Defense of a Sentiocentric Approach to Environmental Ethics

摘要: In this chapter, I begin by tracing the origins of alleged inconsistency between animal ethics and environmental in late 20th century philosophical discourse. then clarify debate two ways. First, discuss structure consistency arguments argumentative strategies for responding to allegations inconsistency. This is important that it defines task: what, exactly, does mean say are incompatible or inconsistent? How might one go about such an allegation? Second, unclear what fields “animal ethics” “environmental ethics.” argue we must avoid a pair errors: all-encompassingness narrowness. We not define these too broadly, lest every ethic become ethic, them narrowly, because conceptions assume controversial theses, begging live questions. Instead, should be understood reference (i) certain core pragmatic implications supported intra-field consensus, (ii) thinly normative commitment each: accounts value which transcends environment’s use-value humans, direct moral standing (some) animals. end defining few key terms distinctions used throughout work. 10 1.1 INTRODUCTION give some background material frame research problem addressed subsequent chapters. giving historical context how schism emerged philosophy animals environment. Next, nature consistency, from inconsistency, best addressed, as aspects framing argument just meant ethics”, finally, introduce terms. 1.2 THE SPECIATION OF ANIMAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS Over course 20 century, concern our treatment nonhuman world has transitioned fringe into social, political, legal, mainstream. As applied ethics, arose response different, historically situated problems concerning world. Animal discourse out with domesticated directly under human control, particularly use agriculture, research, entertainment. Before Congress signed U.S. Welfare Act law 1966, exhibition, transportation, dealers was federally unregulated United States. Also, before publication popular books Ruth Harrison’s Machines: The New Factory Farming Industry (1966) Peter Singer’s Liberation (1975), question” marginal interest academic philosophy. 11 discussion largely unintended consequences action on natural environment, loss biodiversity, compromise systems processes, appropriation wild areas development. Clean Air (1963) Water (1972) were first significant regulations They public galvanized over pollution, series fires Cuyahoga River 1950’s 1960’s, leading national media attention Time Magazine June 22, 1969. There little consideration issues Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), Paul Ehlrich’s Population Bomb (1968), seminal articles Science, Lynn White's “The Historical Roots Ecologic Crisis” (1967) Garrett Hardin's Tragedy Commons” (1968). Another piece puzzle latched different cultural currents professional their early years. point nicely articulated Dale Jamieson: Part explanation comparative conceptual conservatism liberationist philosophers that, most part, they have been educated mainstream traditions Anglo-American philosophy, while ethicists often outside influenced continental philosophers, ‘process’ theologians. split liberation much sociological philosophical. (Jamieson 1998, 44) 1 precedents, creation National Forest Service 1905, Park 1916, Federal Pollution Control Amendments 1948, but less systematic. 2 It also worth noting Aldo Leopold’s A Sand County Almanac, contains his defense land posthumously published 1949 fanfare. until movement 1970’s book became best-seller.