Old School K Answers

8/3/2019 Old School K Answers

1/42

UTN1F2003

Kritik AnswersAnswer s t o An th ropocen tr is rn Crit ique

An th ropocentrism is G ood . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1 A n tr o. K r itik is A n th ro po ce ntr ic 2

E n v ir onme n ta l P r agma tism 3 - 8 Cr it ic ism Le ads to In a c tio n 9Pernudlltions J ux taposition Perm " 10 D ia logue Perm 11 C oa litio ns T um and Extens ion 12 - 13 S tate A ction G ood 14 -1 5Adv an ta ge S olv en cy B iod ivers ity Tum ' 16 R eso urce M a na gem en t Good 17 S cien ce G ood 18

A nsw ers to Soci a I Eco logy Bookch in Ind ic t , , . .. 19 R eform G ood , , 20 A lt lead s to exclusion I oppression 21

Answer s to Heidegger 22Answer s to Eco-Feminism Intersec t iona l i ty Tum : 23

L ea ds to Fascism 24 I rr at io n alit y ., 25 L ea ds to S te re otyp es 26 - 27 Reduc ti on ism Tum 28

A n sw er s to Radica l E co logy _ 29

Kr itik A n sw er s


2/42

UlNIF 2003MrtfltJ ~ AffKritiks---L/ _.:h_TOTAL RE JECT ION OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM IS SILLY- HUMAN-CENTEREDNESS IS lNEvrtABLE ANDCAN B E U SED TO S OLV E ENV IR ONMEN TA L C RISE S.Parker, Philosophy and L ibera l Studies Program s at G rand V alley State V., 1996 [Kelly A., "Pragmatisml and Env ironment al Thought," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, page 33]

f Iave Spoken of the experience of orga nism s-in~ nvironm ents ascattaUy important. Pragm atism is "anthropocentric" (or better.a ntb ro pome uic" )2 4 in o ne resp ect: th e h um ano rgmism is inevitablym e one t ha t d is awc s value. This is so bec au se human e xp er ie nc e, I hehum an pc:rspccrivc on value, is the only th ing we kmnu as humans. ...Many om er entities indeed have experience and do \IaIue t hi ng s, " "'. .. .. .~ .Again. this is no t to sa y that human whim is t h e : mcuure of a ll th ings, ~~. ~I ' )nJy tha[ humans are in F . a c r th e measurers . This must be a &etar in ~ < taU o ur deliberarions a bo ut en viro nm en ta l issu es. We can and should - ' 1 . . . .s p e a k on th e others' behalf w hen appropriate. but we cannot speak ~ ....& o m their experience. W e can in som e ICIlSC hM r their voices, but w e tcannot speak i" their voices. Iee no way o ut of ou r ow n d is ti na iv dy .... ...~human bodies. In this sense, the hum an yardstick. of expcrienr;:e ,. tIbc:contcs, by default, the m casu~ of al l things. A lthough the deb ate ('.,..._over environmental i ssues i s m u s limited to human participants, th is '\ '"is no t inapproptiate - a fter a ll, th e d eb ate een eers a lmost ex clu siv ely . (.~ .on human Ihrcats to th e w orld . W olv es, spotted owls. and old. ') ;-grow th forests are u na ble to enter th e e th ics deba te ac:ept through ~ (!.;.thelt human spokespersons. and that is perhaps regrettab le. Far r:b e t t e r th at th ey sh ou ld sp ea k fo r th em se lv es! L ac kin g this. they do at ......."..l e a s t httw sp ok esp erso ns - an d these spokespersons , their advocues.need to communicate their concerns only to other humans. To dothis in an thro~c : v :a luc CaEcgoriesis not shameful. It is. after all. the -only way (0goj ']."\


3/42

UTNIF 2 00 3 '::'fM If {l(lI _ AffKritiks_j_/.z.THE CRITIQUE IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: IT OVER-DETERM INES ANTHROPOCENTRISM SOTHAT IT M AKES POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE W ORLDVIEW S IMPOSSIBLE.

Westo n, P h ilo so ph y an d Interd iscip lin ary S tu dies at E lon C ollege. 1 996 [A nth on y. "B eforeEnvironmental Ethics," Environmental Pragmatism, ed, Light and Katz. page 143]

J ' [Som ething sim ilar occurs in philosophical contexts, M any of ourph ilosoph ical colleagu es h ave developed a carefu l, neutral, criticalsty le as a point of pride. But in actual practice th is sty le is only care-f ul , n eu tr al . critic;;a] in certain directions. It is not possible to su ggest "'' ' ',ranything tlijfirmt, fo r th e p ro ject o f g oin g b ey on d a nth ro po cen trism c s : ;still look s w ild, incau rious, intellectu ally overexcited. A nrh ropo- 0t - - rc en trism itse lf . h owe ve r, is a lmo st n ev er scrutinized in the sam e w a y . . " - . . . . .'?o.,.Apparently, it JUSt forms part of the "neutral" back ground: it seem s to '~be no more than what th e c arefu l, critica l thinker can pmuppost . "''''''~.n'Thus it is th e slow excavation and the logica l "refu ta tion" of anrhro- ~ ~ ".pocentrism tha t, perforce. occupy our time - rather than, for on e 1._...example. a much less encumbered, more im ag in ativ e ex plo ra tio n " ~ . " I : ~ . . . .o f o th er p os sib ilitie s, le ss f ea rfu l o f th e d is ap pro va l of the guardians of < !IReason. or. for anoth er exam ple. a psychological exploration -:: ..... s I!"of anthropocent rism itself. tak ing it to b e : more lik e a k ind of loveless- ( '."ness or blindness than a serious philosophical position. Anthropo. "-'.~ ""'c en trism still fills the screen , still domin ates o ur en erg ies. It delimits ,_ , ..... . . .~-,h:u ls "rea listic" b ecau se in m any w ay s it d eterm in es w h at "rt::dicy" ......iuelfisJ lL()

A NON-ANlliROPOCENTRIC ETHICS THAT IGNORES ITS OWN HUMAN-CENTEREDNESS W ILL NEVERWORK

We ston, P hiloso ph y an d Interdisciplina ry Stu dies a t E lon C olleg e, 1 99 6 [A nth ony . "B eforeEnv irorunen ta l E th ics, " Environmental Pragmatism, ed. L igh t a nd Katz, page 143]

[The co nclu sio n o f the argument $0 far m ight only sec~ [0be that weneed better non-:anthropocentrism s: theories that reth ink Taylor'sb asic q uestio n, th eo ries mat are not so easily seduced by intrinsic ~values. and so on. A lthough such theories w ould be useful changes. -0"\)0 ~th e argume~t just offered also ' h ~ t S to '7ards a m u~ mOr ~ ' ! : d " " ~ ~m ental con usion, one upon w very rge questions 0 m ............",depend. If the most rigorous and sustained artem pu to transcend "._"amhropocentrism still end up in its orbie, profoundly shaped by ~.....< : , " , " \the thought and practices of the amhropocentrized c ultu re w i~ in L'~ ~w hich th ey arise. men we may begin to wonder whether the proJect: ~ .......o f r ra ns ce nd in g c ultu re ineth ical thought is, in fact. workable tit t t l J . "Perhaps e th iC ! r cq uilC l a very diffe rent sc lf-cono:p t iorf; ) '''1)..


4/42

ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIZ ING PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OFENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS: PRACTICAL POUCIES ARE NECESSARY .. And rew Li~ Pf. Philosophy @ Un iv er sity o f A lb erta , !ric ~ Pf. EnvironmentalP h ilo soP'fiY "@New J ers ey In stitu te o f T ec hnology . 1 9 96 (Env ironmen ta l Pragpyujsm, ed ,Katz and Light , p. ) -

/ -can philosopners contribute oythi"l to an invesciguiono f en viro nm en ta l p ro blem s? Do c h c : tRdirions. history and skiDsof philosophical t h o U G h t have any tdewance to th e devdopm cnt ofenvironmental policy? We b e l i e v e that th e answer is ya. Despite th e Iproblematic (and. heretofore. inelfectuaI) statUS of envi conmentz lethics as a practical d is cip lin e, t he field h a s much to o ffe r. B ut th ets of this h U O s a p b i c : a l en ~ tile: mUSt be _ d i r c c t c d c o w a n : I sd; _racu _ \I lro nme n iia l


5/42

UTN IF 2003t r - 7flAk 61H#S F ~ ~tJ[ , - /t?A C r = (7ft It. $ L ! ! _ AffKritiks__LI __ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS A N EW ENVIR .O NM EN TA L Ennes W ITHO UTANTHROPOCENTRlC DOMINATION OR CALCULATIVE THOUGHTParker, Philosophy and Liberal Studies Programs at Grand Valley State V., 1996 [Kelly A., "Pragmatismand Environmental Thought," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed, Light and Katz, pages 28.30]

-.,

(1 1) F or the prapnum. m e environment is ~ a l l Mt lO lJ lmungout m . : r . : . somehow sepa r uc n,m .... sandin!; ready 10 be U K d upe M ' praa-


6/42

UTNIF 20034ft f 5 , . . . . lft"7tro) .... AffKritiks_2_1_

BIOCENTRISM [S REDUcrIONIST AND lMPRACTICAL . .. WEMUST INSTEAD ADOPT A HOLISTICPRAGMAT IC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNSRosen tb al an d B uch ho lz, Professor of Ph ilosoph y at L oyola U niversity of N ew O rleans andProfessor of Business Ethics at Loyola, 1996 [David and Rogene, "How Pragmatism Is anEnvironmental Ethic," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, p~es 44~45]

. lIt may be objected that m e above evaluation of m e relative meritsof the AIDS virus and th e spotted owl ineermsof their promotion ofor hann to human W!:lfate5 a re ~mcrg cn ce o f m e anthropoccntdsm.denied above. Th is objection. however. comes from a fmurr: adequatelyto cue beneath the "either-or" of anthropocentrismlbiocen.uism. Ine fact, "both-a.nd" is eloser to the position intended, but even this~. "is inadequate. for it f:tils to capture the radical conceptual shift~ ....~ which, in making the conjunction, c ha nges t he original ex tr emes of~:~1'. the positions brought together. There is no -all or none" involved. It/. ,,_.....,.. is not the case that all value is such only in r ela ti on t o humans. Yet\ -;." C1neither is it the case that aUvalue has equal clairnirrespea:ive of iu:'" relation to the:welfare ofhumans. Value is an emergent contcxrual~ ,' s t; r property of situations as long as and whenever there arc sentient - , t J.. .10. o~nisms experiencing,. ~t the va1~e- level ~ergent ino~ism-

,11'- environment contexts I nc re ase s W i th the Increased cap acity o f" " '' ' ' : ,v . . the 0r.Pn~m to ~pe~ie~cc in c~nscio~ and self-conscious w a y s .~ , .. ,. ~,, ,.T h e biological c:galltananl5m of biocentrism can perhaps: be thought......' - , c on sis te nt ly , but it cannot be maintained in practice. Surely onc is~ not willing to move from the rhco~ egalitarianism of humansand me A IDS v iru s to a n imp lementa ti on o f such theory in practice.Y e t this does not mean that humans c;an ignore the value conteXtSotsentient organisms within nature..To do so is not to evaluate in termsof mnRicring claims but to exploit duough egocentric d i s r e g a r d forthe valuings of other organisms. We must make iudgmenu: whichprovide protection for the welfare of humans. yet such judgmentsmust consider die value laden conrexrs involving other sentiento~isms to the la~t ~~ co~istent wi~ ~is 'g o af1 .. ., ...


7/42

UTN IF 2003ljl?& =1HH ; AffKrit iks_!j_!JLENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM O FFERS A N ETHICAL RELATION SHIP W ITH THE WORLD THA T IS N OTBASED ON DOMINA n ON A ND FOSTERS A STRON G RELAT IO NSHIP OF RESPECT BETW EEN HUMAN SAND NATURERosen th al an d B uch ho lz, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola U niversity of N ew O rleans andP ro fe ss or o f Business E thics a t L oyola, 1 996 [D avid and R ogene, "H ow P ragm atism Is anEnvironmental Ethic," Environmental Pragmatism, e d. L ight an d Katz, page 43]

O u c h a n e xp erie nc e brings abou t not a change in th e inccllcct:alone. bu t a change in mow co nsc io usn ess. It allow s one to "risc:above" t he d iv 4iv en es s w e : : impose th rough arb iuary and illusoryin.group/out~up distinctions b y " de lv in g b en ea th " to the senseof th e possibilities of a deep-seated harmonizing of the self withth e rot:aliry of t he c on dit io ns to which it relarcs. And, fo r al l thepragmatists. t hi s i nvo lv es m e entire u niv erse. for their emphasis onconrinuity r e v e a l s m a t at no time can w e separate our developings el ve s f rom any pan of the universe an d daim that it is irrelevant.Indeed. wh i le env ironmenta l is ts may scdc to describe "objective"rela tionsh ips am ong interacring individuals - hum an. non-hum an,organic, and inorganic that make up the biosphere - yet theproperties attributed to t he i nd iv idu al s :arc ROt p o s s e s s e d by themindependendy of th e interactions in whichchey exh ib it t hemse lv es .Nanire cannot be:dehumanized, no r ca n h um ans be den:aruralized.Humans exist within and are pan of nature, and an y pan of natu(Cprovides a c on ce iv ab le re la tio na l contcs[ for th e em erge nce of va lu e.The understanding of "hum an interests," of what is valucabk forhuman enrichm ent, has to b e : expanded not J U S t in terms of longmt~ YS. short ran ge a nd conceivable YS. actual, but in terms ofa gtntIy extended notion of human interest or human wclfate.-Further, to in crease th e cxp crien ce o f v alu e is not to incrc:a .sc some-thing subjective o r w ith in lIS, bu t to increase th e value ladennessof rela tional contexts w ithin nature. Dewey's understanding ofapc:riencing the world religiously provides the u ltim a te : c on te xtw ithin w hich pragm atic ethics m ust be lo ca te d. W h ile every situa-tion or contat is in some sense unique, no situation or context isoutside the reaches of moral concem . Pragmatic ethics. properlyundemood., is an en!i r.~nmenta l ethics) '" J


8/42

UTN IF 2 00 3te .., , ( , o 1 f H M AffKritiks_LI __k_~?WIr - ' r ! AAnDt? 1-v//7/0EN VIR ONME NT A L PR AGMA TISM DOES NOT INS-kUMENTAUZE THE ENVIRONMENT - I T BREAKSDOWN DOGMATIC B INAR IE S AND APPLIES A MUL lTIUDE OF AL TERNA TIVES TO ANY SITUATIONRosenthal and Buchholz, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans andProfessor of Business Ethics at Loyola, 1996 [David and Rogene, "How Pragmatism Is anEnv ir onmen ta l E th ic ," Environmental Pragmatism, ed . Light and Katz. page 45]

fine problem is n or th at environm ents are u ltim ately valu ab le intheir actual or potential rela tional com exes or em ergent value, butthat vaJuings and the valuable environments which aUow for them .,f"'......are tak en far tOO narrow ly. A t no point can pragm atic eth ics draw Athe line betw een hum an w elfare and the w elfare of the environment ~of which it is a pan. Hen: it may be objected that to value non- ,_ \ o fsenriatt nature in terms of its potentiality for yielding valuing " " J - ~experiences is [0 sa y mat it has merely instrumental value. and if r . . . . ~nature: is merely an instrument. men no real environm enta l eth ic . .& ~ i s possib le . Yet. w i.th in the above fram ew ork . the eneire d e b a t e con- 9...c em ing i ns tr ument al YS. in tr in sic v alu e is wrong.headcd from the ....-"t~start. Everything that ca n conceivably e nte r in to experience h as th e . e . . . . . "potential for being a relational aspect of the context w ith in which " ~value: emerges, and any value. as wdl as ,any aspCCtof th e context "',"within which it emerges,l involves consequences an d is rherefore 'b-instrumental in bringing about something further. Thus Dewey ,holds that no m eans-end distinction can be made. b ut rath er th ere:t s an ongoing continuity in w hich th e character of th e m eans entersineo me quali()" of th e e nd . wh ich in tu m b ecomes a means [0some-thing further.1!) ..$


9/42

[-b/.,-(in AN liP 1 ~ L l - 1 [SENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN EcbLOGY OF VALUES THAT CAN GUIDE ACTIONWITHOUT ANTHROPOCENTRISM 1Weston, Philosophy and Interdisciplinary S ies at Elan College, 1996 (Anthony. "Beyon~Intrinsic Value: Pragmatism in environmental ethics," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Lightand Katz, pages 285286]

UTNIF 2003rArr7HflO

if'} (:Pragmarism" s ou nd s lilc e juscl~wha[environmenral ethics i s aga ins t:shortsighted. hum an-centered instrum entalism . In popular usagetim: connotation is certainly Icommon. Philtnsphual pragmatism,h ow ev er. o ffers a th eo ry o f v altb : which is by no mean commirred torhar crude anthropocem rism J or indeed to any anth ropocentrisma t a ll. T ru e, p ra gma tism r c ' ; c c d the m ean-ends distinction. and con-sequ ently rejects th e notion of fixed, final e nd s obj ec ti ve ly g ro und ingth e en tire fid d o fh urn an strivibg . T ru e, p ra gma tism t a k e s v alu in g to l. : ; . . . . .be a cer ta in kind of de si ring . a h d possib ly only human beings desire ..... : c . .in th is w ay. But neither o f t hc ls e Starti ng points ru les out a genuine r r~ eenvironmental ethic. J argue that the tru th is closer to the reverse: f!.Jo nly th ese sc utin g poina may ~ake a w ork able environm ental eth ic possible. I "-I,:..,_,

One charge of anthro~entrism should not detain us. 1 " " . < 0 : , .Pragmatism is aform of subj~ivism - it makes valu ing an activity of ~ ';;.subjects, possib ly only ofhurJan subjects - bur subjectivism is not ~~"'"n a:e ssa rily a nth ro po ce ntr ic . E Je n if only hum an beings value in th is !_ < >sense, it does nor follow chat o~ly hum an beings haw value: it doesnot follow that hum an beingsJ must be rhe sole or final objects of . ""';'''''r:~v al ua ti on . Subj ec tiV ism does do t im ply . so to say. subjecN'4! 'n t rism;our a ctua l valu es can be much ,hore com plex and world-direcrcd.

Pragmatism insists mo st c eh tr ally on the j"/n-rrlatMnm of au;values. The notion of fixed edds i s r ep laced by a picture of valuesdynam ically intcrdepcnding ~ith other values and w ith beliefs.choices, and e xemp la rs: p ngM4tism o ff ets. m eta ph or ic ally at lean, ak ind of"ecology R of valu es. v a l J u e s so conceived are resilient u nders tr ess , b ec au se . wh en PUt to qJesrion, a wue an draw upon thoseo th er v alu cs. b elie fS , etc. which hold it in place in me l arger syst em.A t the same time. though, ~ry value is open to critical ch allengean d change. because each valJe is also lit nUe p recisely w ith th oserelated values. beliefs, etc. w ~ich on other occasions reinforce: it.W e are thus left w ith a pluralihr of concrete values, in w hich manydifferent k inds of value, and ~ ~ny different SOUtce5 of valu e. can bere co gn iz ed a s s erio us a nd deep J v i th ou t requ iring fu nh er redu aion tosom e single all end in itsel A h d there is every reason to th ink thatrespea for other life form s arid concern for natural environm entsarc am ong th ose values. T he p rb blem is n ot to d ev ise uill more im ag -ina tive or exotic justifications for environm ental values. W e do notneed co PltnJ th ese va lu es, ~ragm atiS[s w ou ld say. but rather tosituate them in their supporting conrexts and to adjudica te theirconflic[5 with others - a subtle enough difference a t first g la nce.perhaps. but in fa a a radical shIft in phi losephica l perspcctive]"fS-5

-,.;..".1..,:.-:::: .."~

AffKritiks_LI__


10/42

UTNIF 2003(i9 3 f t tf"K.,J AffKritiks'2. . I 7._BAD ENVIRONM ENTAL POLICIES ARISE AS A RESULT OF THE KRITIK ' S FALSE AND ONE-SIDEDALTERNAT[VE

Norton, Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech, 1996 [Bryan G., "Integration or Reduction: Twoapproaches to environmental values," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light & Katz, page I06)(What is curious is char thil ariological approach re5ts on ana&iumption that is common to bO[h sides in whu lu.s become apolarim!. debate; both neodu..icalwelfarc Wlnomilu _ who b el ie ve}, thaI all val ue is p.t'SIi b1 e in un i ts ofindiy id"ai, h uma n wei fare _and adYOQces of att ributing inherem ~Iuc tonon-humans _ who

10.'" a r s u e thar e l l I : moral force of e''IVironmen u.I princi pleJ derivefr"m the moral ~ll&idenbili'Y of natural objeCl5 - are unyilrldingly

,I" ,~ monistic in their approaches. The adoption of th e monilth: view-p oin t a nd 1 M : usociated goal o f d ev el op in g a universal monlthmryappliuble ill all ~ is ineviub!y m1l1f.'tionisti~ - Be.::aUR al l values..-', ., -:. which ate erperienced in multiple mod .... and conCQU, mllil\. ,_, on [he monioric approach b e acco. .nred for under a l ingle theary.,,_" _ the basic Knltcgy must be to red . .ce all monl ~na:tn, toa unifi~,'. analytic vernacular in Which solu t ions to s pe ci fi c; mo~ qua nd ar ie s,"... are generared, by unavoidable inri:rences, from a lingle th eo ry . -., This.hared wumplion of monism h a s . I b el ie ve , l oc ked C'IIviron-mental ahidsa into:l paralyaing dilemma, a dilemma lhat lie! at th e10 - hean of mO&tdiscuaiono of environmental v a I . . eo. Me... : par tic ipants

in then di5C1.Wions have wbscrilm;j to a crucial ailern.:uion inthe dteory of environmental va l "'Ilion: either the value of l W :u rc - is~. entirely ilUtrUmentai ro human objec:ti~ or I!!lementi of naturehave a "good of their own" - lIlue not dependent on humanvaluation!.] Could it b e thallhe polarized thinking r~( par.alyz~environmental policy today results f ro~TK- aI~~atiyet forcedupon u .s by m e aaumption. unquestioned b Y iieodassiC41 economimal'ld by most of their npponents among environmental ethicim a1ib.IMt what~ the lUI;ts of enorironmental value tum ouc to be, therew i ! ! . b e only one kind of themD Io r,

;-~~,

THE CRITIQUE CANNOT OFFER PRACTICAL ADVICE AND ASKS US TO ALIENATE OURSELVES FROMACTION

Norton, Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech, 1996 [Bryan G."Integration or Reduction: Twoapproaches to environmental values." Environmental Pragmatism, ed, Light & Katz, pages 106-1071fJhe .thC$is ef rh is p a . p : e r is that the. goal oC J e C k i ng a .un j~cd,

. monistiC mrory of envtronm...,tal ethtcs repcesenll .a m"ul~ed.jft miQion. a miPion \hlt..-.s formulated under a Jetof cpismnolOS'.;;al.l' an d moral a51umptions dw harka badr. to Descana and Newt on . An,?' . aIlIaSmI!nt of thc mntTibution of mvironm...,u/ ethia to environ-;_. - . ': m cnr.al po l icy in iu f i L ' 3 1 : twO d C I : < l d ~ is aa;ordingly bleak. TIle searchtJ~.,.. for a -Holy Grail- of unified theory inmvifonmc:rnal v a J u c : I hH ~t.. .\, progressed tow:u~ my am~nllS ~jng what inherent value In, ;.~ . . ,-na ron : is, whal objects lu.ve II. or what II means to have JUch ~uc.r'- 'V Nor ~ environmemal cth~ been ~k: I? ofb ~ P r : - ' c t i c : a l.... ~ advice by providing dear management dim:moa n:prchag djfficqltt ~ and controvers ia l probleau in tIInronmerual planning and. maIIF"

ment. ~One very pngi


11/42

UTN fF 2003";)/n"""l)tdt _ , 0 "

AffKritiks_ 1 _ ' _J_CONFLICT BETW EEN OUR AFF AND THE CRITIQUE M ULTIPLiES THE PLURALITY OF VIEW POINTS,INCREASES UNDERSTAND ING AND IM PRO VES A LTER NA TIVES ... EV ERY TIME TH EY SA Y "LIN K,"THAT M AKES OUR POLICY EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVEParker, Philosophy and Liberal Studies P ro grams a t G ran d V alley State U., 1996 [Kelly A., "Pragmatisma nd E nv iro nm en ta l T ho ug ht," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and K atz, pages 32~33]

~... -

[[b) The deb at e ove r m th ropoce ntr ism is especially tendentious.The question concerns the primary IOCU$of value. Anthropocentrismmaintains t h A t value is of or f o r human beings. Biocenrrism maintainsthat al l fo rm s o f life, as such, a re va luab le . Ecocen tr ism emphasi ze st he va lue o f eco log ic al systems a s a who le , inc lud ing na tu ra l p roces se s,relationships an d non~living partS of th e environm ent. A n aspect ofthis debate c once rn s wheth er v alu e a tt ac he s to i nd iv idu al e nt it ie s o rwhether value: must b e : seen holistically.The p ra gma tis t wou ld ask why we should. be expected topledgeallegiance to an y of t h e s e flags (I priDri, a nd ex clu de the: othcn.Genu in e v al ue emerges at al l of these focaIlcvcb. Indeed ehere wiD beconHic t s because of this, but th e o ccu rrence o f su ch m ora l co nftict isnot pecu lia r to th is a pp ro ach . A ntigo ne fo un d th at -fam ily values"can c r a g i c a l l y conllia with th e wlucs of th e stac:e; today's CEOIjkew~finds that business : values mnB..ia w ith m e value of an endanger edowl 's habi ta t . Dmying that one or the other sphere is worthy ofo on sid tta tio n m ay a pp ea r [0prevc:rupotential moral conRice f romarising. but only at the risk of serious moral b lindnes s. B l ind anrh ro-poccnuism ha s deplorable : consequences for m e n on -h um an w orld ,bu t a blindly misanthropic O"Rnism i a : 1 !2 IS!! d!f!lorable ... A pin , pluralism is a fw: e:ncountered in exper ience . Value : a ri se sina variety of r el at ionsh ips among d if fe ring parts of t he expe ri enced .world. Each situation must b e : appraised on irs own distinct terms.Ju before. th e: tw in v alu es of s usr ain ab il it y a nd d iv er sit y provide:reference point s. Sometimes we tightly focw on th e su sw na bility o fth e w hole sy stem; sometimes on'ehe unique: value of an individual.Sometimes th e individual or th e system i.s human and sometimesit U : not. From this perspective. environmental ethics can be seen asoontinuous with oth er areas o f eth ics, a distin ct b ut in teg ra l p art of~~ inquiry in gmeral) ~.- Jl

,~= v,' , f :...~~L.

" 1 . ~ , ~ ,'__~I'.:..

"1 .'~ . . :~ ' " 1 "i. r.- !' ~ r ~ ~2 ; 1 . ,~ :!

/0 -


12/42

UTNIF 2 00 3)111.&",[ 62 AffKritiks.L:+ - - -CRIT IC S AND POL ICY-MAKE RS SHOULD ENGAGE TN DIALOGUE OVER THE FUTURE OF RESOURCEMANAGEMENT

Castle, Professor in th e University Graduate Faculty of Econom ics at O regon State, 1996[Emery N., "A Pluralistic, Pragmatic and Evolut iona ry Approach to Natural ResourceMana geme nt," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. L ight and Katz, p ag e 2 31 ]

~. , G have become increasingly distressed in recent years by the lack ofinterdisciplinary communication on problems of natural resource ,;;policy. A s an economist I have been concerned by the tendency of ,,'some non-economists to reject, seemingly OUt of hand, the possible .;-...us c of economics on this subject. At the same time I have been " ....disturbed. by the unwillingness of many economistS to consider the '~.philosophical underpinnings of out discipline. The consequence h a s ,',"Ioften been either the rejection of economics or inrigid application. ..;Either approach results in a tOO narrow a view of policy-making. '."R..:presc:ntativcs of other disciplines probably have similar concerns. c . > . : . ~ . . . .. . .Ihave concluded [hat the situation described above will not be :-~: ~improved unless dialogue occurs on the necc.siary characteristics of _ .......l"a p ub lic policy fo r natural resources. Only in m e light of such a ..~... d ia log ue ca n we understand the: norms an d values inherent in particular ';.scientific: disciplines. If these norms and values ate brought incothe open we can better evaluate their contribution as scientificc on stru cts, a s c o ntra ste d w irh [ he ir ro le a s policy norms) '"

~~,- .

. ~,, ...~~

- .

/11


13/42

V 1/11' , ILCJO Y(",.,t~I""fO..-s 0

_ THEIR ALTO KILLS COALmON BUILDING:A . O EN OUN CIN G O F MO DER ATE EN VIR ON MEN TA USM PR EVEN TS C RIT IC A LCOMPROMIS ING NEC ESSARY FOR B UiL D IN G A L L IA N C e s

Ma rtin L ew is . Pf. Geography @ George Washington, 1992 (Green Delusions: AnE nv iro nm en ta list C ritiq ue o f Radical Environm enta lism . p. )

~Y of the more sophisticated eco-radicals would agree with thisn otio n. B ut e ven th e political ~0ftS advocated. by the more s av vy amo ngthem r~ committed to a radicalism that th e great rnajorityof the .Ame ric an publ ic f t i l d S unpalatable. Radical gn:cn strategists may call fo r; m a n c s s With new socW movements or "With Iadica1 political parties,b u t even a concerted coalition o f the disUfecwdwould be unable to~roach the critiC&l mass Deeded to g a i n efiecdve R c n v s . And sevualradical th in ke rs h av e proposed that much n ar rower c on st it u. en ci. es f ormpotentially eco-revolutionary groups that might lead society as a w holeto ita n ec es sa ry t ra ns fo rma tio n. Ac co rd in g toon e tbeoyy. only th e u ncmp la y ed . c an s ee k real cbmgc, rather t han just a re dis trib utio n o f a po il s,because only they.do not participate in the wicked system iDobsoD1990: 1631.Although this r ep re se nt s a f ri ng e view, th e e . n e r a 1 . 2 r o c e s s ofReek i ng evet m ore radical fou ndations for & O O i a l reinveption l e a d s e e o - -. extremists to n : d u . c e t l le i l own potential b a se s f or politi ,cal J I O W ! ! to everJDDn! minuscule, and powerless, g r o u p s . At the same time, .ost pec!!.,e.x:tremiSts overtly d en ou nce [D are m od era te en viro nm cn ta liits w h o lirei@ iD i to B eek com prom ises w ith individuals or t n . o f e J i O i i D ipolitical philosophies. Since compromise, in one or ano~ isD e c c s s a r y for any kind O f ottective political action, th e uesl o r .wjU in e end only undercut the prospects fo r change.

B. C O AL IT IO N BUIL D IN G IS CRITICAL TO THE SUC C ESS .OFENVIRONMENTA L C HA NGE:W E NEED TO A PPEA L TO PUBL IC SUPPORT FOR SOC IA L REFORM TO BE POSSIBLE

Martin Lewis, Pf. Geography @George Washington, 1992 (Green Delusions: A nEnv iro nmenta list C ritig ue o fR a dic a.l Enyironmentalism., p. )~ we are to preserve the earth, euvironmentalistll must forge tn e Ulua.... est possib le coalition. Major n e c a to be m a a e m pub fic : p o l i C Y ,c ges t require massive public IUppon. ThAt SUpPOn ca n O D l Ibe obtained by appealing to a centtist coalition. Yet at present, the largecenter g r o U i i d O f Ai I ie i iC i I i i v oters, th ose w h o an d ment in appeals botht o economic e&iC1mcy and to social justice and enviroumc:o.tal protec-tion, is Lugeiy without an articulated platform. Party stalwarts, let aloneradicals, often regard moderates with_contempt, viewing them as ideo-logical weaklings unwilling to ta ke a sta nd . I would argue th e opposite. Ifwe are to take seriously the task of devising IISU9~ble fu e i"'1'5essc:D w m b e found onthis :awn tical divide. M E. J . Dionne 11991:l71 s o . " yurnes, Whihs necessary is the creation of IInew ~ticaI cmter thata~ids "bland9"a n a instead s e e k s tobuild ;VAniAe H~tiOQfo r l iocw retOrm.". .


14/42

UTNIF 2 00 3l < l ' A I . 41N '$ AffKritiks_ _ _ ! _ I _LTHE NEGATIVE'S REFUSAL TO INCLUDE OUR WELL~MEANiNG POLICY iN THEIR CRITICISM IS THESORTOF iNTELLECTUAL INTOLERANCE THAT DOOMS ECO-GRmCISM TO IRRELEvANCE ANDSUSTAINS IN~FIGHTfNG AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS

Light, Research Fellow at Environmental Health Program, 1996 [Andrew, "EnvironmentalPragmatism as Philosophy or Metaphilosophy? On the Weston - Katz debate," in EnvironmentalPragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, page 327]1 2 do not wish to defend [he legacy Offanthropoce0thtriC 'philO5Oph~ ;.for Itwas certainly an imponam pan 0 getting us in e sorry seaeeof environmental conditions in which we nnd ourselves today. I ammaking a plea instead fo r m ore to lera nce in the environmental,philosophy community. We must tolerate those who are sincerelyattempting [0work within the anthropoc;mric m.dition to provide a ..framework which can seriously address the important changes inthought and action needed 10 address environmental problems ..Wehave not yet "found all th e answers." - sowhy would anyone refusetoacknowledge valuable work from those who do not eounr th~nudves

as non-antheopocentric holistsU"his is panicularly diseurbing gNen pa moment of reflection on what "finding me answers" entails.Environmental philosophy arose as a response by intellectualswho thought that philosophers a re ob liged to try to do some th ing [0avcn ovcrwhd5 contemporary environmental problems. Finding .the answers is ~success in solving some interesting puzzles orwinning some intellectual gam~ - it is. ramer. success in developing - . padeq uate environmen~(:!~. Environmental pragmatists takevery seriously me predicate ~lIl1irD"mmtltlin their self~d~ription.and in their sub-discipline: we are devoted to our subject not simplyas the object of our work, but because of our duty ro the subject.Intellectual inroleranee is something that nands in the way of any ~possible contribution philosophers might make [0me solution ofthese problems. Intol~~E;II~s contributes to th~ p_rq~l~mi:J'lZ7


15/42

Daniel A. Coleman, F ou nd er o f the N orth C arolina G reen M ovem ent and Founder of the Prism, 192!.E co po ilric s: B uild in g A Green Society, p. ~-'-\ \

T C > f co~rsc, the cummon counterargument to Ihis is that theAmt:ric:tn people elected tilde government and ccrtajnly It isdulng their will. Consider, however, that in the mid 19805 theReaRm admlnistrafion lowered the -automobile fuel-cfficiencygoal adopted during the 1970s energy crisis. This action wasnot [he result of citizens writing to the government calling forIess-eHldent em; it was the aUlOmobile manufacturers and theoil companies th:a.t lobbied, as they llIW3YSdo. for the lower

standard, Even In the wake of the Persian Gulf war, they wouldnot moderate thelr posltion. IThe extent of radloacttvc: contamination in nuclear WCl(JURS i

,\ .YIfadlitiC"s is already notoriuus, even though the f in al f i)l:u rc ::sa re . ~ ...~" "noI yet in. It may be argued that citizens supported cite nuclear ~ ~,.'t Iweapons program throughout the eold war period and thereby ~ Iaccepted responsibility for the ecological consequences. How- 0"ever, citi7.en5 did not have the opportunity to knowingly aequi- vresce to the contamination, since for years informatiun lIhuut it ~was kept secret. Had it been known, it would have added a \...:'strong argument against weapons programs.There is a Rip si~ to the consumer choice/were:l.1I respon-

sible fallacy. This is Ihe notion that anonymous, perhaps tnevt-table, forca lead to environmental 1115,hat perhaps no one Isresponsible. Time, again in the "Pla.net of the Year" issue, pro-vides us with an example of this viewpoint: Starting at thedawn of the Industrial Revolution. smokestacks have di~go~dnoxiou.o;gases in10 the atmosphere, faerories h;II\'('dumped toxicwastes into rivers and streams, automobiles 1I:l"!!gU7.1lcllIrre-placeable fossiJ fuels and fouled the air ... forests have beendenuded, lakes poisoned with pesticides, lIndc'lttuund aquiferspumped dry."IO Note thai: there ar e no actors or declslon m ak -ers In this. description. In fact, there are not even an~' people.However, each of [he destructive situatiuns dt'M:rihcd hy Timewas caused by Industries whose managers made dL'CIsIUlI.'I abuutwhat to produce and how to produce il. Thes e deci5i(lR makersare educated and well paid. perhaps pillars of their communi-ties, seeking to teereese the prosperity uf their rirm and hyimplication the prosperity of society. Such decisiull making.often the result of careful cost-bcneflt analysc!!, is an indlctmentnot of consumers but of our system of econormc decision mak.ing. and accountability.The notion that we're 2 1 1 ccsponsible places the grandmother

driving to church on an equal footing wilh Exxon. An effecriveresponse to the environmental cri5i.o;must a."ikwhere the deci'~.s io n m ak in g occurs that l ead . "Jto the pollution. Mo.o;tuf Ih(lsej_decisions arc made by industry and government. The choice ~left 1 0 ,he consumer is often little more than a selection fromamong environmentally destructive alternatives ... . "'o-~ l

~"'trN~"'~"""''''\ I Ic : . . . - \ + n " ' C >


16/42

~ 7.1-7 [ f< 70

I/'.If l ~ r z t V . 1 - 710~;f L .r u o . ' . .1/ IZC)

of N'lIlfl 0"';/7;t.l7/fL1M ?Li t1 i tJ1A '710r /M-,(7 (..(IOr/At..((207[( "'0/

1 1 r/I) ~-4 ??o fl1FREIDHEIM, School of International Relations, University of Southem California, 2000(Robert. Ocean Development & International Law, Jan-Jun, Academic Search Elite)It als o s e e ms th at a lo cus o f actio n is n ee d e d , o ne th at is vls lb le , o ne th at h as n v. p eo p le in te ractin g, p eo p le tak in g actio nsaccord ing to a k no wn , fam il iar, am I trus te d p ro ce dure , actio ns th at can b e s ho wn o n te le vis io n . In s ho rt, it n ee ds a p re se nce .B ut m o re th an C Q s m e t la ! a re OMd e d: m ac hjn e ry to 'cIuJ!!lly m an ag e an d imp l emen t dec iBicns is n ee de d. D ecis io ns d o n otmake t hemse lve s, an d p ro blem so lvin g Mulre s fo Ho wth ro ug h . R e o jme s w P r l s b e s t i f t h e re is a fo rum fo r decision 'nd acadre of RIggle ruppnsJbte for bnDlement ing what h as been cktsided, Resou rce s to O A A @ t e the machinery and to manageth e s up e rvis io n o f im ple me n tatio n a re als p needed. Fin an y, to a vo id th e p ro b le m o f p ayin g heavy transaction c os ts in a rra ng in ga c ol le ctiv e c ho ic e o n ly to find t ha i the p rob l em h as Chan g e d , it would b e p r e fe ra b le if the dec is i on system eaBBS th e way 10a dju stin g commitm e nts . I n s h o rt, we n e ed re g im es th ll l: ca n a cco m mo d ate le arn in g .If I "ave assessed the elements of e f fec t iveness correctly, the s t r on ge r regimes wi n h ave a de q ua te m actl in e ry for t t1epe r f on nam :e of th e ir m an date d. ta sk s. W h i le O ra n Y o un g 's p re lim in ary ju dg me n t o f a " mixe d picture" is c arr e ct, a n d we n ee d tog e t to th e s eco nd le ve l of anal ) ' s is in l oOk i n g for the factors th at p ro vid e m o re re fin e d e xp lan atio n s o f o utco m e, we s ho uld n otovetlook the broad observat ion that effedive OIginu need an organiZation. What d e g r e e of success the In temat iona lConven t i on for th e Regulation of Whaling "CAW) has achieved can be attr ibuted to th e ma9lJ in erv o f th e Inteml!tionalWhaling Commiss i on '!We) wUh Its o b lig ato ry p cg ce dure s an d the " b o o k s " itb as in to the domeltlc pOlitics of the OnitedS ta te s v ia th e work of preseryationist NGas . W h ile o ne c a n i L t d g e that t h e l n t e r -AmeI iC3. r fTrcD ica l Tuna C omm!Ss io n h as ' .s ug :e e dtd b e ca us e pf as tut e e n t r e p r e neu r ja l le ade r sh i p , the director, D r, J ame s Jo se ph , mus t b aye a n qrgan izat ion to l e ad .T his is alS o true ~flhe C o n ve n tio n o n In te rn atio n al T ra de In En dan ge re d Sp ecie s (C ITES), wh ich Is n ew in th e se co nd D base Ofits wark a n d a d ju s ti n g iI! trade b a n l is ts to re w ard g o o d aam as we ll as p un js h b ad a c t o r s . S ucce ss fo r th e L o ng -R an g eT re aty o n A ir Po Nutio n can p artly b e claim ed b ecaus e o f the ro l e of th e E uro p ea n U nio n in m o bil izin g lis membe rs to f i gh tre g io n al p o llu tio n . T h is is true o f the No rth Am e ri ca n Free T rad e A g re e me n t (N A FT A ) th ro ug h itS Commiss i on for Env i ronm.n ta lC o o p e ra tio n h e ad qu arte re d in M o n tre al, C a na da ,[g J a nd m an y o th e r e n virO n me n ta l a n d n o n e nv iro n m en ta lln te m atlo n alregimeS.Th e cre atio n o f an o rg an iZatio n with s tructure , p eo p le . o ecis io n -m ak in g p ro ce dure s, an d re so urce s Is a n ece ss ary b ut n o tsu f fIC i e n t c ond i t ion fo r s ucce ss in SOlving a t rans -boundary p ro b le m. e stab lis h me n t o f a fo rm al o rg an iz atio n is n o g u ara n te e thatills u ff ic ie n t a uth o r ity a n d e n fo r cem a nt pcwelS wil l be conveyed; a > e ve n ifcan vaye d, auth orly an d en fo rcement powe rs willbe u se d p ro p erly; an d Q) t n a o rg an iZ atio n w il l s ucce e d in s o lv in g th e p rg b le m fo r w hlr;h itwas e stab liSh ed . B ut e ve n if Ih eac t ions o f a formal t ra n s n a ti o n a l o r g a n iza ti o n fail to m e et s trin g e nt tests o f e ffe ctive n es s, th e se actio n s us ually h ave a dvan ce dth e s tru gg le . T h e q ue s tio n is h o w w e ll it s u cc e e tl e d c omp a re d to th e a he m ativ es . T h is is IIm uch m o re d iffic ult q ue s tio n toan swe r. Th ose fo cus ed o n fin din g a cyre fp r lb' p ro b le m alm os t always co mp la in th at e Kis iin g g rP lD izatjo n !l n atig n " an dtra ns n atio n al, a ch !e ye o n ly p a rtia l o r in s uffic ie n t s ucc es s . W i tn e s s the re sp o ns e o f R og er E . M cM an us ; "'fes we h ave law srelating to fiSheries, minerals, nav jga t io l 1 , p r o t e c ted 'eed.s. etc. but the a uth Q riti e s a re u s u. Uy j na d e qu ate to the manag eme n tch ,J lle ng e, an d th ey are @ re ly in gJ em en te d o r enforced to th e ir fu lle s t Cipacity.1331 It is djff jcul t to be yery mnRithatic with MrMcManus, wIIo has mostly bean cp n ce me d. w itt! d o me stic e n viro n me n tal p ro b le ms , w he n we co n sid er h o w m uch m ore d ifficu ltit is to a ch ie ve s us ta in ab le Q utco m es a t tn e M ig n a! o r j n tamat iona l l eve l

r S '


17/42

O.J 7esx T-r-c \x="T~"?>nl c ; . , . . . _ _ , - , ~l~-"-~: : :M-Y~ lS-\\'LV- \"-t\+.Jj ,tf. A s - " \ " .Daniel A. Coleman, Founder of the North Carolina Green Movement and Founder of the Prism, 1921 ;Ecopolitics: Building A Green Society, p. le~\o",

""lhe importmce of diversity in Dature is demonstnted in thethriving coevolution of millions of sprdes around the planet.Maru~ ecasystems such 35 the coral reef and the climax foresr:ar e characterized by a rich diversity of life forms. Respect fordiversity thus entails a lesson in environmental and social valUC5drawn from the natural world. The thl'U5l: of contemporary SOd.ety Is [0 have people around th e planet eating at McDonald'sand watclting the same sitcoms on telc:vl5ion, fanning a uni-form global economy of commodity-bascd consumptiun. Such aSOCietyis fundamentaUy alienated from the Earth and inevitablymisunderstands, devalues, and, finally, des t roys the environment.Respect for diversity asserts that differing narural condilionsand [he diff~nt life experiences of divel'$C locale; lead to dif.ferent cultural experiences, to unique an d varying ways of lifearound tile wortd.Respecting this d1versity goes hand in hand with honoring

the unique natural dmtacteristics of a particular ecosystem. Hu -man cUltur_eshave historically tended to be weD adapted to andsupportive of the 5tability and vitality of their narural environs.Traditional cultures depend Utterly upon and therefure respect:and value the neighboring biota. They would not M imptic:ucdin the whotesate destruction of species that Chatacte:rl~ the:contemporary en. It is no wonder that as the modern economyattempts to get everyone living the nme way, using the sameresources and technOlogy lind externalizing environmental andsocial costs, this SCnsitivity to the natural world Is lost, leadingto the destruction of any habitat suited (0 species other thanhumans and cockroachc!s. Respct:t for diversity will lead to di-verse SOCialfonus, celc:bra1lng md StIpponiag the divcr.Jity oflife and community in COuntless ways around rhe planet.The :llue C2llcd ~t for diversity- is sometimes alsocalled ~tnclusiVCRe$S.This g O C ' S une step farther dwt merely

honorinft the differences among people and places. It c : : l D s on atransfonn:ulnnal movement to at."tivclyseek out and include thediverse element. 'I of a community, particularly thu.


18/42

UTN IF 20 03" ~ l .n~,.. , 7 Aff Kritiks_1_1.....1_ECO-CRITIQUE SHOULD FOCUS ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND SUST AINABIUTY IN ORDER TOMAKE ITSELF A CC ESSfBLE TO PO LICY -M AK lNG

N orton, Professor of Philosoph y at G eorgia T ech, 1 996 [B ryan G ., "Integration or R edu ction: T woapp ro ac he s to e nv i ronment al v alu es ," Environmental Pragmatism, e d. L ig ht &Katz, pages 121- 122]

L Ifwe focus for a moment on the problem of warranted assereibiliryof environmentalists ' goals, it seems likely that environmentalists willachieve more by appealing to the relatively non-controversial andintuitive idea that the use of natural resources implies an oblig:arionto prorect them for future usersJ6 - a sustainabiliry theory based inintergenerarional equity - rather than exotic appeals to hitherrounnoticed inherent values in nature. Callicott argues it is an advan-tage of intrinsic: value in nature that, ifit can be shown [0exist. thenit would shift the burden of proof in environmental argumentsfrom environmental protectOrs to th e despoilers.!7 But ftom the fact, f i J that such value might b e : suJJirimt [0shift the burden of proof, if

t rl'\~)does not follow that it is the only, nor tile best. means available to. 'r environmentalists to shift the burden.'J' ;l,~ The epistemological problem is that environmentalists need to be1.':\' able co enter the public arena armed with genuine and defensibleD . . . I\Ir .' mora principles so that they can assert the priority of their goals

1 ': ' " \ . ( " over the mere preferences of the consumer society. As long as we canjt assert ()thn morally binding obligations - such as an obligation to1, sustain the integrity and health of the ecological systems we are now\ ~c' , dam~ng so ,hat future generations can enjoy th e bounties of intact~"" ,~ ecologica l communities - we have a basis warrantedly to asse:rt

'I" .I.:~'obligations to protect biodiversity over many generations. But these~ ' ~ . ; o f obligations are anthropocentriC and cannot.apparendy, b e comptt-'... ,' vhended in a monistic non-anrhropocentrism, even though abiding...l' t by rhese less controversial obligations would lead to most of the

environmental protections favored by inherent value theoris ts] f~.j';


19/42

SC IENC E IS NOT A LL BA D : IT IS THE OVER -PR IVLEOG ING OF SC IENC E W H IC H ISTHE PROBLEM . SC IENce C A N BE USED TO D ISPL A CE THE A RROGA NC E OFHUMANISM

John Barry, Pf. Environmen ta l Po lit ic s @ Queens Un ive rs it y t 1999(Rethinking Gree n Politic s: N a tu re . V ir tu e, P ro gr es s, p. )/'1 green politics is to base itself upon some metaphysical footing, then-8dence ratnei riih an eart1H:i!fiited Spb:1tual1ty may De a mudi betterw_ay til goiiig about 1 A S G rey notes, A p ure ly s ean ar, saenti6c ~n atmi dB iD c an p tb 'V ll 1e a thoroughly satisfying way of realizing our Ufutywt"ll'rttte fiUJ\-hUtnaii w o r m (1 98 6: 2 12 ). T hU 5 d ia dem SCien ce, a p tO au ct ~

t J f iriUdermty n i iN!d:s m 1 5 e noted, can offer an account of th e place of C_humans in the nama! order. That is, modem forms of s c i e n t i f i C know[- ct~t~e a s e can help displace the a ce 0 h . withoii ~~~ocentnsm. ence for holding that the earth _J..a n d . a l l it contains was created for th e human specieS ! ! ! [ o n e . T h U S ~sciertce can dispel any poferifuil arrogance O f antnroporen o n e w a y ~i r(W hic l i B O e r : ' U l C 1 ! : J r : u m::nscence,can do thi$ is D r .deiiiOii5trating t t i e p 'human' and 'non-h.uman'~ b Y bOthd,tt'iZ @ dzff't!Fwn. ' t 1 1 a t js, sci~ can~ote a world view inwhi e uman c ition is marked by~ QB id Olht allp 4 J N U t tjpm t h e Mtural o r a e ; l B i i T Y , 1995C), undem:tirlinS an ynotion of a radical or ualified aration of humans andnature. Thisaoen Ca l l inf vi uman-na

If 2003A/1 5tAiN..i 8

~ on the idea that the world is our home, but one which weWiIf i~ of other living and non-li\'ing entities, and with wlUcli weIate ~~ortant ways. can, Iuggest, fUi\ction as a 5ti!ft'Cl\mtu~phYSiCat basiS or s r e e n politics.orton in his plea fo r unity among envi ronmen ta li st s demonstratesthe significance of sc ience within green politics. According to him.:'Envirorunentalists' emerging consensus, it will tum out, is based moreon scientific principles than on shared metaphysical and moral axioms(1 9 91 : 9 2) . H e then g o e s an to point ou t that

T h E attack on human arrogance, which was moW\ted as a response to~trism. was well motivated bu t badly di.reded. On e ne ed notSt interests contrary to h \l D 'la n o n e s Ul o r a e r to recogn ize o u r in i tu d e :1 _ target Iiarrogance, a scientifiaUy infunned c o n t e x t u a l i s t n !hat s e e s USas o ne iiIiirii1 6 p e ae s ii Xi St ii ig aertvatiVdy. cyen pm :ri% i!l Iy as put of aJ a rg i t, awesome ly wonaertUl whOle should cut us down to size. (1991: 237)

Withln COntemporary Western society it is more likely that a non-,!2iritualized scientific understwdina of the world Bnd our spicii?'place in it can provide bask metaphysical a~t Scient iBc know!-e a g e can refOnn an t lu :~ tr is rn r by ~ts tendenoes m h~a J @ pryde. [ n a t 18, 1t c a n h e lp avoid ~ vices of the lajiter.It can also demonstrate our ~ upon the envil'Onment, whichai ~ Be argued. liter is~_i t h e VirtUes O f i C o - .~ !!tJ:w Ird;jh ip. It is also obvious, as O'Neill points out, that . Iific theory and evidence are a necessary condition fo r a rational

(~


20/42

~O)c . . \ A : s : . ~::t..~ ~~+ - - - -

I~~c...tn:~5~~,:A ....~,fI)...~\

Ar?~~C1'l\ G:::N\~-A:~C.~N S~~ c._\.;Pq_r.... S. ~r---~O \'~ ::;~~~~

Koval, Prof. of Soc. 8L at Bard COl., '18(Joel. g2gl ;coJ2g'J:M!!JlggS;.I)iD. ed, An d r ew Ught)~ut these are just abstract considerations, whereas the effects of ameranarrative have to be decided concretely. Depending upon how it isappropriated. the mythos of the Fall and Redemption can tum into thevision of Blake's [erusalem or the nightmare of Mein Kampf . It is aquestion of "spirit," that is, the manner in which being expands intonew and more comprehensive syntheses.13 This can be rephrased: s.great deal depends on what kind of a messiah Murray Bookchin prom-;.

i ses to be. There is in any case a latent contradiction between the demo-.!cratic ideal of Bl and the messianic promise of H2, which will be real-]iud or not according to Bookchin's treatment of his theme. Bl, tht1ostensible narrative of social ecology, renders humaniry, or "the PeoApie" (Bookchin's phrase chosen to avoid using class as a leading term),;as th e protagonist o f history; B2, on the other hand, tends to focus on 1th e Anarchist as redeemer. To the extent that this figure hogs the s t a g e ' - ;with his personal vendettas, so will democratic promise become fraudU-:llent. Humanity is no longer the agent of its own transformation; it ~jcomes, rather, a 'sign flashed by the redeemer to demonstrate h is ~demptive bona fides. -,;tY A this context, the running battles Bookchin wages with his P f e ' " jsumed adversaries are more than irritating distractions. As it ~evident that Bookchin is not merely dealing with the ontology of hope!or the emergence of ethical being from nature, but is consumed, ra~with venom and rage against those he sees in the way of "freedom, ' ! . :the entire edifice of social ecology shows the strain; Intolerance anddogmatism are, to say the least, common human tendencies. But it is 'remarkable to find them in a thinker who announces his project as fo [ :lows: ..My definition of the term, 'libertarian,' is guided by my descrip-tion of the ecosystem: the image of unity in diversity. spontaneity, andcomplementary relationships, free of all hierarchy and domination.,,14In a case of this son, the contradiction between libertarian preaching:and rancorous practice becomes stifling. Categories with at least latent'explanatory or emancipatory potenrial-the very notions of hierarehy;'domination, freedom itSelf-become drained of intellectual vitality a n dtum into rhetorical devices by means of which the Anarchist establishe$'redemptive authority. , _ ~ lThere is indeed a kind of betrayal in Bookchin's texts. It is th e l J e : , . 1trayal of a professed Enlightenment rationality by vindictiveness of Ohi'lTestament proportion, and it severely distcrts the possibilities Of~b o t h Hl and B2 by splitting them into mutually repellent fragmentS. As II sult, Bookchin's dialectic of reason withers and loses its claim onvenalitY through a radical demythologization; the redemptive mvth 'fen Jpiritual disaster b y being denied immanent rationa~ 1., .~ f e r


21/42

Bookchin. founder of Social Ecology movement. 1990(Murray, Remaking Society, page number at end of card)~dm iltedly . I have sim plified the alternatives. B ut I have done so

only 10 revea l th eir lo gic a nd im plica tio ns. F or one anini, 1 do no t wishto deny that even l ibe ra l envi ronmen ta li sm an d the value or an instinc-

Ju ve sen sib ility h av e their r o l e s in res is t ing a power fu l t echno IOS:l .t h~~has been placed in th e serv icc o f mindleJS~o~!l)_ .accumu la t ion , an dconsumpt i on . A stand aga i n s t th e const ruc t ion o r a n u cl e ar reactor, anew h ighway, -an effort to clear-cut a mou n t ai n s id e . or a newcondO-development that threatmli..tO dc~ce a n urban landscape - all r e p r e ~ SCnt important acts. however limited, to p re ve nt fu nh er en vironmenti1delerioration. Land. wildlife, scenic narural beauty, and ecologicalvariety (hOlt i s p re se rv ed rrom th e b ulld oz er a nd p ro fit-o rien tedp re da to rs . a re important enclaves o r n atu re a nd a esth etic s th at mu st bepreserved w herever w e can do so. It requ i res no great theore t ica l orideo log ic a l wi sdom to r ec ogni ze t ha t aI mos t ev ery th ing o f w on der a ndbeauty. f rom a s ta tu es qu e tree to a b urrow ing m ammal, h as its place inth e w orld a nd its fu nction in th e b io sp here.) I t : .

Bookchin, founder of Social Ecology movement. 1990(Murray, Remaking Society, page number at end of card)

LOne m ig h t have h o p e d that these pla neta ry ch an ges w ou ld havec ata pu lt ed t he ecology mov em en t in to :h e Ioreground of sociallhoughtand added new ins ig h ts to th e i dea l s o r freedom . T his h as not b een th ecase. The ecology movement bas divided i nt o s ev er al q u es ti on ab letendencies that oft en d irec tl y contrad ict each other. M any people aresimply pragmat ic environmentalists. The i r erfons ar c ro c used o nsingle-issue !CrOnDS sucb a'l the c on tr ol o f tnxic wastes oppositionto -=:::"_==:::.&..:;: u;.:.::::th e c on st ru ct io n o f n u cl ea r r ea ct or s. r es tr ic ti on j . a n . w : b A l t , g m ~ ! t l : a r u rth e l ike. T h e s e areifii!!!saWurnggles. to be ;~disdained sirn t because the are limited and aLThe seneto slow do isa ster lik e Che r n ob y t or Love Ca . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .


22/42

Zimmerman, prof. of philosophy at Tulane Univ., 1994(Michael E., Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology andPostmodernity, page number at end of card)


23/42

2k_3f tu 1 > - c .6 < = r ~ BclE;>- - - - - -

0 . . 1 1 ' . . . a> ~ H"id"U",.,,,, - In)' hi'll! p"hlish,,"- h".. k w-...on HeKl,'p,"'- and \angnaK")' Wh"", in Illy yomh, I ..... ht IlTLt . . . rd"d hythe ollki;~ Cu,,,InUIli>;, philus"p"" 1"lI ' o,urin ..\ Hdd"IIiKC"r. N..rj .."gas~, I I " Ill,lhey kfl "'" nu" " r coLd: I .....,. cl..f,niwly mul'r un ,h.. ,id.. uf ,10.'(ug.1", H"ld egll'"ri~'I>.All "." .,,(1g"'n " I : : " i " , ' UtI! 11I""'ph) lSic;. ,1 . .. .. . take ....


24/42

z.oa)) , l r ((.0 f;{ '1E LO ... Ft-I"" '1I"/ ISri( fV' 7{n'-. c -, (.N 6-

V"1 rr00- c . . J 2 . , 7/c 121/1/Cr-0(1'12[5 S!oN/7[S

All projects of feminism need to eliminate all systems of oppress ionK aren J, W arren, professor of philo sop by at Maca1ester Co ll ege, 2000 < EcofeministPhilosophy a Weatem Perspective on What it is and Why itMatters, pg # at bottom ofcard> Bu t my argument about conceptual connections b etwee n s ex ism and rumllisa~

argument C, does nOr:itw here. Th e SII I I1C sort of ~g connect s sexi sm wid!. s ys tems o f IIRjustiflcd domination (e.g., racism, classism. bcterosexism. iIUK:'~.a gei sm , a n ti -Sem i ti sm , c ol on ia li sm ) . A t the h:Yd ef malcr ia l r ea l it y , th e rauonIbis is s tnUghtforward: HWomen" ar e while, w o m e n o f c olo r, p oo r, l es bi an . )'OUlII.'phys ic al ly a nd ment al ly c ha l' et aged J ew i sh . I nd ia n, A f ri ca n . a nd c ol on iz ed peopIa.If feminism is a movement to libenitc all women. It must liberate w o m e n f rom !b emul tip le oppRSSions that c onst iu u e ! he ir geAdcred id en tities-o pp ression s ba sed .r.w:efethniciry. c la s s, a f fe ct iona l orientation, age. ability, geograph ic location .. .. .Semitism, and colonialism. At the l evel o f t he or y, th c r ea so n C orl h is is also st ra igbl-forward: ' The conceptual f tamework used In justify the d om in atio n o f b um an s by Igender has f iv e b as ic feahJMs,: Up -Down rh in k in g .o pp os iti on al v alu e d ua lisms ,c ua - ~cept ions o f p ow er an d privilege that s ys tr :ma li ca ll y a dvan ta ge Ups over DoWDS, a n da r o g i c of domin ation , T his is th e s am e b as ic c on ce pt ua l f ramewo rk that is used 10justify th e domina ti on o f h umans b y r ac eJ et hn ic it y. c la ss , age. affcctional o r i c n t a t K : D .ablIity, n:ligion. marital status, geographic l oca t ion , or nationality. And it i s !h e sam ebasic c once pt ua l f ramework u se d 10 justify th e d om in a ti o n o f n on hum an DIIbm::( and/or an ima ls ) by h um an s. T hu s, th ere a re g oo d th eo re tic al re aso ns fo r requiriDgthat tht: proj t' !c ts of feminism b e expwukd an d reconceived to include the elimina-tio n o f r u l syst el ll ;; o f domina tion , fIJ.

{c.D F [ ('41r/' ~n ,6-r/0f 2 S /'ItA C1 I P I - ! 0 r r e & -S S IU,r/) .A/1/'j)So C - IcJ - rc..c",--/or"lI t.- I r/O- UA: I ...,f> , ArvtJ WIu: NiVf I? ':nVC aroly n M erch an t, P rofessor at the University ofCalifornia a t B eridey , 1 995 - < Culrur21 e co fem irim . h I~ , h a s its feminist critics. Su san PmK ic :e

. l I r g u e s dw ecofemlnilm, while asserting !he frag il ity and ~ ofa1IUfe, Hassumes that women and mm.have an essent i.a1human ~ thattranscends culture md socialization." It implies that~ ~~do w t he p la n-et Is bad; wha .r w om en do is g t 1 O d . This : ;peci. ll l rd atio nsh ip o f w om en tona ru re l ind po li ti cs makes it difficult to admit lhat men c : a n also develop ane th ic o f c ar in g f or n atu re . S e c o n d . ecoferninism. fails to provide an a n a I y m ofcapi ta l ism that expla ins why i t domina te s na tu re. "c api ta li sm is never scnous-Iy txk.1ed by e co femi ni srs a s a p ro ce ss w ith itS own pUli cu lu h is to ry ,l og i. c,and ~. ik:ca t ll l : ecofeminism lacks this am ly!is, it cannot dew lap aneffective stn.tcgy f or c ha nge ." Mo~ve r, it d oes n ot d ea l with the problems ofpo'I'=rty an d racism experienced by mil li on s o f women around ! : h e world. BIncontrast 10 cultural e co fem in ism , t he s o c i a l and social is t s t r a n d . s . .of et9~Ilism a re b ased o n a to cio c:co nomic a na ly sis th at treats narurc and humanrwure as socially corwruacd, rooted in.lin analysis or race, class, iIf1dpder..,1


25/42

, : . J 6 O \ . . . . . . . . ~ i r r J w . . . . / i f tU"Ne W~ I w . , k . ~ . - . . r& .& f" ~zi irkcl~ ji~l lore.S .;J,~ J,;~ o r f : u c J t f 1'14Jv~4/;JJt1.

Biebl, social ecologist and Left-Green activist, 1991(Janet, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. pagenumber at end of card)


26/42

~ttJJrt1~ ~~cftiIA. 0; ~V~ f"Jo~h1j r " , } , 6 M , l m ; . 1 " 5t ' e f t ' U s ; v . e . j s e p a r - . l r f f .

B ieh l, so cia l eco lo gist a nd L eft-G reen activist, 1991(Janet, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics, pagenumber at end of card)

~ut recent scafp-minist literatu!!_ does not fulfill this promiseat all. It has not drawn on the best of previous social theory, butinstead works in a realm outSide it, even rejecting itas "male" or"masculine." It has not drawn on the best legacies of Westernculture-and despite itsmany abuses, Western culture does haveamancipatory legacies-but instead situates Wamen outside Western C1Iltm8 ahogetber. associated with a mystified notion of "na-twe." It largely ignores or rejects le.&!;.iesqf democracy. of reason.and t fi all v understa"'ldiIlg much of thenatural world as part of aradic iberato movement. For ifwomen an nature are radically countsrposa to Western c_31ltw:1t:as many ecafeminists claim. this lodges women basicall.fOutsidi)the best of that cuI tural le a . Ithas thus become an ideato that.far from being liberatory. i regresslv Jar most thinking wom_!.n~ J ~ '2

Biehl, social ecologist and Left-Green activist, 1991(Ja net, R eth in kin g E co fem in ist P olitics, p ag enumber at end of card)


27/42

Biehl, social ecologist and LeftGreen activist, 1991(Janet, Rethinking Eco fem in ist P ol itic s, p ag enumber at end of card) .~ut serious prpblems begin to arise when some ecofeminists

come to !!Ward certain persqnality aspects of women as innate.Indeed, e..s,ofeminisms healthy impulse to reclaim Women's bioi~ogv b.~in many cases become an acceptance of some of thl!.S.!fll~cons~reot~~of "women's nature" that have 10ngE..e.!nused tthem. Wben ecofeminists root women's personalitytraits i.n reproductive and sexual biology,~ey tend to give accep-tance to those male~created images that define WOID!!n as primafITYbiological beings. For Andree Collard, for example. to say thatwoman's reproductive biology is "the wellspring of her strength"is to deliver women over to the male stereot\7_~~ that root women'scharacter structure entirely in their_];iological being~

Nothing links the human animal and nature soprofoundly as woman's reproductive systemwhich enables her to share the experience ofbringing forth and nourishing life with the rest ofthe living world. Whether or not she personallyexperiences biological mothering, it is in this thatwoman is most truly a child of nature and in thisnatural integrity lies t.ie wellspring of herstrength. (emphasis added]'

In fact. psycho-biological ecofeminists believe t.hat~~:_ o~ngt. O their biological makeup. have an innately more "caring" and"nurturing" way of being th~'1.! a ..-iewthat roots their parentingattributes in a uniquely genetic makeup. ~nlike other feminists,who tried tOffemoHs"1bgender stereotypes as insufferably constrai~ing to wo~en's_Q_~l_pl!!!.l!!....!!.Jull_ h4m.a,~ beings, sucp.ecofeminists enthusiastically begin tv embrace some of these saroepsycho-biological ~"> ;,- I_ J


28/42

L~4]( esMJ { If ("S~)

&.~t"IJft\,oS A. reAd~ Ac:0r'te 1 6 . . 7


29/42

CI'f.,tf.ifN 1 A i < C . -uv1h "rp . J t 1 4 n l . . ; . t A p i !r . f " . .. ., mh.,." " r d . . dJM . al l~A'ft. ~:r - . . .J I ' \ I ~ i c . . j~Rtfof if76't U f 1 \ I ' r t ' / ' ' ' ' 1 , t J o r ' ' 1 b ' l .

Biehl, social ecologist and LeftGreen activist, 1991(Janet, Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics, pagenumber at end of card)

SO-.s I


30/42

lJTN IF 2003P:iP-{CI) ~

Aff Kritiks_'_I .L.? P c/I.. [WOO'-RADICAL ECOLOGY CRITIQUES HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE REAL WORLDLight and Katz, Research fellow a t Environmenta l Health Program and D ire cto r o f S cie nce , T ech no lo gy andS ociety p ro gram a t NJ Institute of Techno logy . 1996 [Andrew a nd E ric . " In tro du ct io n: E nv iro nmen ta l p ra gma tisma nd e nv iro nm en ta l eth ic s a s contested terrain," in Env i ronmenta l Pragmati sm , p, 11

~ environmental ethics approaches in third decade it is faced with'a curious problem. On the one: hand. the discipline has made8igni6cant progress in th e analysis of [h e moral relationship betweenh um anity and the non-human natural world . The field hasproduced a wide variety of positions and theories Iin an attempt toderive morally justifiable and adequate: environmental policies, Onth e o th er hand, it is d if fi cu l t t o sec what practical effect the fieldof environmental ethics has had on [he formation of environmentalpo li cy . The intramural debates of environmental philosophers,although intereSting. provocative and complex, seem to have no rea limpact on th e ddibcrations of environmental scient ists . act ivis ts andpoIicy-rna:kt:rs. The ideas within environmenu.l ethics are, appan:ndy.inert - like Hume's Trtatiu. they faJi dead.bo~n !r?m the p r e s s . . . J . ' .

DOGMATIC ECOLOGICAL CRITICISM PREVENTS THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ANYAL~ATIVESLicht and Katz, Research fellow at Environmental Health Program and Director of Science, Technology andSociety p r o g ram a tN J In stitu te of Technology, 1 99 6 [A nd rew a nd E ric , " In tro du ctio n: E nv iro nm en ta l p ra gm atismand environmental ethics as contested terrain," in Ettvironmentai Pragmatism, p, 3]

[Given the relative youth of environmental philosophy as arecognizable discipline in it s own right. it is surely odd that th e~m~uniry of scholars has agrd. near ly comple te ly , on t he ri gh t .~ "'-....direction for the further development of the field. The failure of "'''.t h is un if i~d ~sion ~o effect prac~ica! pol~cy s~o~ld give us furt~cr t~f ~ ~.pause " V iew ing thiS pro~leman~ s,uu.aclon, It I~he conclusion ')of environmental pragmansts that It IS time for environmental ethics ifto consider some new positions in th e field. and more importantly. ,,,~,to reassess it s direction. T he sm all Set of acceptable approaches to environmental ethics may be inapplicable to the development of an _; . "acceptab le env itonmental policy - it may be nece ss ary to explore ~!~e the r poss ib l e s ou r cc s and fo un da tio ns fo r a tru ly mo ra l environ men- >talism. Thus methodological dogmatism may account for the failureof ~~ron~en~1 ethics !n m e real,m of practical affairs]


31/42

UTNIF 2003A r7 rf 1 lt J ~ AffKritiks_f_!--.:h_

I I I :

TOTAL R EJE CT IoN O F ANTHROPOCENTR ISM IS SIL LY - HUMAN-C ENTEREDNESS IS IN EV IT AB LE ANDCAN BE USED TO SOLVE ENV IRONMENTAL CRIS ,E SP ark er, Ph ilo soph y and L ib eral Stu dies Pro gram s at G rand V alley State U., 199' [Kelly A. "Pragmatisma nd E nv iro nm en ta l T ho ug ht," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed, Light and K atz . page 33]

IIave spoken of the experience of organisms--in-cnvironments as~uaJ.ly im portant. Pragm .atism is "anthropocentric" (or bener.anduopometric")24in one respect: th e humanorpnism is inevitablydu~onc that d iSCUS$CSalue. This is so because human experience. [h ehuman pe rs pec tive on value. is th e only ch ing w e /mow IIhumans. _Many other en ti ti es indeed have experience and do value things. ""1\..''''''''_Again. this is not to say that h um an w him is th e mcuule of al l th ings, ~ , - ~only that humaru a re in f . t c r the measu rers. This must be a & .c ro r in . -;r ~ial l our de libera t ions about environmental issues. W e an a nd sh ou ld 'l.~apeak on th e others' beh a lf when a ppro pria te. b ut we cannot speak ._ .,.from th eir exp erien ce_ We c an in some se nse MAr their Y o i c c : : s , but we ;c:annot speak inmcir v oic es, I s ec no way OUt of ou r own dist inc tively " . .. .. .hum an bodies. In th is sense, the hum an yardstick. of experience '0/becomes, by defauJt, th e rn ea su re o f a U th ings. A lthough the debate (' ..,..over envi ronment al i ss ues is t hus l im i ted to human p artic ip an ts, c his .)~is nor in ap pr op ria te - a ft er a ll . th e d eb ate c en te rs a lmo st ex clu sively . e , Sf-on hum an threats to th e world. Wolves, sported owls, and old. ') ~g rowt h fo re sts a re unable to en ter th e ethics debate except through ....U;.their human s pok es pe rs on s. an d ,hac is perhaps regrettable. Far r:better that they mouJd speak for th em selves! lack ing this. they do a t .......,.....I c a s t h t w e s po ke sp ers on s - a nd c he se sp ok es pe rso ns. t he ir a dv oc ate s,need tocommunicate chei.f c on cern s o nly to other h um ans. T o dothis in an thm!c v alu e c ate go rie s is n ot sh am efu l. It is, a fte r all. th eonly 'Nay to goj "J" ' \


32/42

U1NIF 2003 ~tP'11~ AffKritiks_j_/ .z..THE CRITIQUE IS A SELF-FULFILLlNG PROPHECY: IT OVER-DETERMINES ANTIiROPOCENTRISM SOTHAT IT r vlAKES POSSIBLE AL TERNA T1VEWORLDVIEWS IMPOSSIBLE

Weston, Phllosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College, 1996 [Anthony, "BeforeEnvironmental Ethics," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, page 143][Something similar occurs in philosophical contexts. Many of our

philosophical colleagues have developed a careful, neutral. criticalstyle as a point of pride. B ut in actual practice th is scyle is only care-ful. neutral, critical in certain directions. It is not possible to surest ,.,..~_anything t l i f frrmt, for th e p ro ject o f go in g b ey ond amh ro po cc :n trism Gstill looks wild. incautious. intellectually overexcited. Anthropo- 0b-,....c en trism itse lf. h own er , is almOSt never scru tinized in the sam e way.;o, ...fa f -...~App aren tly . it JUSt rmsparr a the "neutral" back ground: it seem s to r~b e no more chan w hat the careful, critical th in~er can pmuppose. ' """" '>. . . . ".Thus it is the slow excavation and th e lo gic aJ " n:fu ta tio n" o f anthro- '_. .pocentrism that. perforce. occupy our time - ramer than, for one 1,-..,example, a much less encumbered. more imaginative exploration ~ ......''''tof other possibilities. less f e a r f u l of th e d isapproval of the guardians of . ~fReason. or. for another example. - a psychologica l exploration -::~ ":f ~o f a n th ro po cc ntrism itself. taking it to b e more lila: a kind efloveless- ( ' .ness or blindness than a serious p hilo so ph ic:a .l p ositio n. A nth ro po - '.'.~ ...."'" 'c en tr ism s till fills th e screen, still dominates ou r energies. It delimits ~_. ~ . ~wha t is "realistic" b ecau se in m any w ay s it determ ines w ha t "reality " .'10.,~itsdfisJ ''''1

A NONANTHROPOCENTRIC ElHICS THAT IGNORES ITS OWN HUMAN-t:ENTEREDNESS WILL NEVERWORKWeston, Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College. 1996 [Anthony. "BeforeEnvironmental Ethics," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz. page 143]

[The conclusion of the argument so fa r might only seem tobe that wen eed b etter non-anthropocentrisms: th eo ries th at rethink Taylor'sbasic question, th eories th at a re not so easily seduced b y intrinsic ..,._:v alu es, a nd SO on. A lthough such theories would b e useful changes. .." .....'th e a rg umen t JUSt offered also points tow ards a much more: funda "...~t.mental conclusion. one upon which very l arge ques tions of method .....:"" ~depend. If the most rieorous a nd su sta in ed attempts [0transcend ":." tanrhropocenrrism stilt;nd up in its orbit. profoundly shaped by ~-?'::'.'\the thought and practices of the anthropoccntriu:d culture wit~in l ' ~ : :which they a ri se . t he n we may begin towondcr w heth er th e project #~,o f tr an sc en din g c ultu re : in eth ical thought is. in fact. workable Ilt I l I1 . . .P er ha ps e th ic s r eq uir es a v er y d if fe re nt s clf~ co nc :c :p tio .y ' ! . o f ). .


33/42

k ;:-:.TD i.71+1 C .5

ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIZING PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OFENViRONMENTAL ETHICS: PRACTICAL POLICIES ARE NECESSARY.,Andrew Lig~ Pf. Philosophy @ University of Alberta,! Eric ~ Pf. EnvironmentalPhilosoPIif@ New Jersey Institute of Technology, !22. CEnyironmental PragmatWn, ed.Katz and Light, p. ) -

/ un philOiOjifte:rs COQtribu~ lUlythi"t to an invest igat ion'of environmental prob lem s? D o che Uaclitions. history and skillsof philo.ophical thought h a v e :any Rlennc:e to th e development o fenvironmental policy? We b elie ve that th e answer is y e s . . Despite th e Iprob lemat ic (and . he re tofore . i.neffcauaI) statuS of environmentalethics as a pr:ac:tical discipline. the field h a s much to o f T e r . But th e& u . i t s of this ~hilO5oPhicaI en~risc must he d . i I : e c t e d . t o w a r d sd;(l~@ resrfutlon m ~V1kiCe@ prow a: - enV IronmentalaLa = .. :min wued ia*t= .~"-.:::npr[0ieve D l j ~ O ! D D=;C/ J 2 f y ! ! ! m . _- = = - -(W 'Je h ave to get along upaca no!__ rttJ. : : . . .R

~ , an 1'aai ~ 'ft" spire to int hcoJYWilL~me a fonnf tl@emcmY#OD'd-"_' Mc:Jf~ 10 b C i l _ , . . _ ~ ~ ~ , _In. m : , : . e n v i r o n m e n ; ~ics must devdo:p for iuclf a m e t h o d o l o g yc S ip g W 4 1 i i l t 1 C g ! tV are. I ,~ 1ftiS collCCtion is an a tt emp t to br ing rogcthc r ino ne p lace th ebroad r a n a e of positions encompassed by c a l l s for an environmentalp ragmaci sm. For u s, e nv ironmenta l p ragma ti sm is the open-ended~uiry into the spec if ic real-life prob lems ofbumani ty 's r el at ionsh ipW i th th e environm ent. T he new posicion ranges from atgumCtltlfo r a n e nv iro nmen ta l p hilo so phy in fo rmed by th e lepcy of classlcalAmcricm pragmatist philosophy. to the formulation of a newb asis fo r th e rC IS IeAment o f o ur p ra c:tice th rou gh a more gen era lpragmat ist methodology.From th e pe r spec tM : of environmental pragrna.rism. we can rctum

to our question: ha s environmental ethics & i l e d todevd .praaiC:a1 t a s k ? ' .


34/42

UTNIF 2003, I f / . . , I \- . .. i""'/'Io~"'" Aff Kritiks_}_/_

B IO CENTRISM [S R EDUcnON IST AND IM PRAC TIC AL .. W E MU ST -[N ST EAD ADO PT A HOL IST ICPRAOMAT IC A PPROACH TO ENV IRONMENTAL CONCERNSR osenth al and B uchh olz, P rofessor of Ph ilosoph y at L oyola U niversity of N ew O rleans andProfessor of B usiness Eth ics at L oyola , 1 996 [D avid and R ogene, "H ow Pragm atism Is anEnvironmental Ethic," En v ir onm ent al P ra gma ti sm , ed. L igh t and K atz. pages 44-45]

lIt may be objected that th e above ev alu atio n o f me rel at iv e merirsof the AIDS virus: and m e spotted. owl interms of their promotion ofor hum [0 h uman wd& .re is a r e- emerg ence o f me anrhropocen rr ismdenied above. Th i s objc:aion. h ~ . comes f rom a fa il ur e adequate lyto CUt beneath the "either-or" of anthropocentrismlbioc:c:nmsm. Ine faCt. "both-and" is closer to th e position intended. bu t even this~. is inadequate. for it fails to caprure th e radical conceptual shift: ,.'~"which. in m ak in g the conjunction. changes th e original ex trem es o f~;'~ . me positions brought together. There is no -al l or none" involved. It.~ v : ? - is not th e case that al l value is such only in relation to humans. Yet

'"~,~('".1neither is it the c a s e : that all value has equal claim irrespective of iu'_. relation 1"0 the welfare of humans. Value il an emergent eoneextual",,-,'- ,. property of situacions as long as and whenever there are sentient; t .f. organisms experiencing. yet the value-level emergent in organism-... ,,_... environment CORtexts in-creases with me increa sed capacity of_ . ' : . 0 : ' tV ",-the organism to experience in conscious and self-conscious ways." " : . . .. ._ . r ~ . . The biological egalitarianism ofbiocemrism can perhaps be thought

~. < coI15iscentiy. but it cannot be maintained. in practice. Surely one is~ not w illing to move from th e th eo retica l eg:ditari.:anism o f h um an sand the AIDS virus to an implemenwion of such theory in practice.Y e t th is does not mean that hum ans can ignore the v alu e co nte XtS o tsentient o rg an ism s w ith in n atu re . To do so is not to ev alu ate in terms

of conflicting claims but to aploit through cgoccrnric disregard forth e valuings o f o th er organisms. We must mak e judgmenu whichprovide prorection for the welfare of humans. yet such judgmentsmust consider the value laden contexts involving other sentientore;anisms to t he l ar ge sl "degree consistent with this g o a f . ) ""f- 'fr ~ . . 4 . 11.

~.I~


35/42

UTN IF 2 003c'jR& ~1H1( '1AffKritiks

_!j_/ _.f2_

ENV IRONMENTAL PRAGMAT ISM OFFER S AN ETH ICAL RELA T lONSH IP WIT Il THE WORLD THAT IS NOTBAS ED ON DOM INAT ION AND FO ST ER S A S TRONG R ELAnONSHIP OF R ES PE cr B ETWEEN HUMANS~NDNATURERosenthal and Buehhojz, Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans 'andProfessor of Business Ethics at Loyola, 1996 [David and Rogene, "How Pragmatism Is anEnvironmental Ethic," En v ir onme nt al P ra gma ti sm , ed, Light and Katz, page 43)

I#-'f'i '~

6 u c h an experience brings about not a c h a n g e in the intellectalone, but a change in moral consciousness. It allows one to "riseabove" the d ivi siveness we impose th rou gh arb itra ry an d illu soryin-group/out-group distinctions by "delving beneath" to m e senseof the possibilities of a deep-seated harmonizing of the self withth e totality of the conditions to which it relates. And. for aU thep ragmat is ts , t h is involves me entire univcne. for their emp ha sis o nc on tin uit y re ve al s that 2t no time can we s epara te ow d ev elo pin gselves from a ny pa n: of m e universe a nd c la im that it is irrekwnt.Indeed. whi le envi ronmenta li st s may seek to describe -objeccive"relationships among interacting individua4 - human. non-human,organic. and inorganic that make up the biosphere - yet theproperties attributed to m e individuals arc: not possessed by themindependently of the inte~ions in which. t hey cchib it themse lves.Nature cannot be d eh um an ize d. n or can humans be denaturalized.Humans exist within and a re p art of na tu re. a nd any pan o f n at ur eprovides a conceivable relational context for the emergence of value.The understanding of "human interests: of what is vaiuCltbk-forh uman e nr ic hment. has to b e expanded. no t JUSt in tel'I1I5 of longran~ vs. shon range and conceiv:abJe vs. actual, but in terms ofa greatly extended notion of hu.man intt:R:St or human welfare.F urth er, to in crease th e exp erience of va lu e is n ot [0i ncrease some-thing subjective or within 1 . & & , but to increase th e value Iadennessof relanonal contexts within nature. Dewey's understanding ofexperiencing the world religiously provides m e ultimate contenwithin which p ra gma tic : e th ic s mu se be l oc at ed . Wh i le every situa- I non or context ISan some sense umqee, no snuanon or context ISoUbide the reaches of moral concern. Pragmat ic e th ic s. properlyundersteed, is an en!_i l'_C )nmen ta it hi cs ) .. ..J


36/42

UTNIF 2003(L.#f { MI"'~ AffKritiks_LI.zENVIRONfo...ffiNTAL PRAGMATISM DOES NOT INSTRUMENTALIZE THE ENVIRONMENT-IT BREAKSDOWN DOGMA T IC B IN AR IES AND APPLlES A M UL TITlJDE OF AL TERNA TIVES TO ANY SITUA TIONRosenthal and Buchholz, P rofesso r of P hilo so ph y a t L oy ola University of New Orleans andP ro fe ss or o f Business Ethics at Loyola, 1996 [David and Rogene, "How Pragmatism Is anEnvironmental E th ic ," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. L ig ht a nd Katz , page 45]

, .

fine problem is not d~t environments are ultimately valuable intheir actual or potential relational contexts of emergent value, butthat valuings and m e valuable environments whim allow for them ~ '"are taken far tOO narrowiy. At no point can pragmatic ethics draw A:the line between human welfare and the welfare: of the: environment 1-of which it is :Ipart. Here it may be objeceed that to value non- ,_ 4 ' " -sentient nature in terms of its potentiality for yielding valuing " ' ; r ) o .experiences is to say that it has merely instrumental value. and if r:t l ,nature t s merely an instrument. then no r c : a l environmental ethic . . . t ' " ' 4 . is possible. Yet, within the above: framework. the entire: debate con- 9....cc:ming instrumental. vs. incrinsic value: is wrongheaded from the "'~""'!rstart. Everything that can conceivably enter into experience has m e 4 . . . , "potential for being a relational aspect of the conJeXt within which ,., ~value emerges. and an y value. as well as any aspect of the context ",'"within which it emerges, involves consequences and is therefore ~instrumental in bringing about something further. Thus Dewey -holds that no means-end distinction can be made. but ramer thereis an ongoing continuity in which the character of the means entersinto the qualirr of the end. wh ich in rum becomes a means to some-thin~ funher. 1~ .. s :


37/42

UTNIF2003@df""1lfflP

Aff Kritiks___I _6_

ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN ECOLOGY Of VALUES THAT CAN QUIDE ACTIONWITHOUT ANTHROPOCENTRlSMWestea, Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College, 1996 (Anthony, "BeyondIntrinsic Value: Pragmatismin environmental ethics," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Lightand Katz, pages 285-286]

rPragmatism~ sounds like just what environmental ethics is against:"Shortsighted. human-centered inserumeneahsm. In popular usagethat connotation is certainly common. Philosllphical pragmatism,however, offers a th.eory of values which is by no mean committed tothat crude anrhrcpocenrrism, or indeed CD any anthropocenrrismat all. True. pl'3gttlatism rejects the mean-ends clistinction. and con-sequently rejects the notion o f f ix ed . final ends objectively groundingthe entire field of human striving. True. pragmatism r a k e s valuing to E. ;;;~( .be a certain kind of desiring, and possibly only human beings desire _';,in this way. But neither ef ehese starting poinu rules out a genuine [r~..e..."environmental ethic. I argue that the truth is closer to the reverse: "'Ionly th ese starting p oin ts m ay m ak e a workable environmental ethicpossible. 1- . . , ~I_'One charge of anrhropccenerism should not detain us.I "....~,Pragmatism is a.form ofsubjectivism - it makes wluing an activity of .'_:..subjectS. possibly only of human subjects - but subjectivism is not ."' v-,neces sa ril y a nt hr opocen tr ic . Ev cn if only h uman b ein gs v alu e in this '._ ~sense, it does not follow that only human beings h4wvaluci it does ,not follow that hurn ..n beings mWE be the:sole or final objects of .~.-~"l:

valuation. Subjectivism docs not imply. so to say. subject-centrism;our actual values can be much more complo: and world-dircc:tc:d.Pragmatism insists most centrally on the inrnnlatd1lrJs of ouivalues. The notion of fixed ends is re pl ac ed b y a picture of valuesdynamically inte:rdc:pending with other values and with beliefs.choices, and exemplars: p~ti.sm offen, metaphorically at least. akind of "ecology~ of values. Values s o c on ce iv ed a re rC5 ilie nt unders ue ss , b ec au se . wh en put to question. a value can draw upon thoseother values. beliefs, etc. which hold It in place in the larger system.At the: same time, though, every value is open to critical challengeand change. because each value is also at slAke precisely with thoserelated values. beliefs, ere. which on other occasions reinforce it.We:a re rh us left w ith a plu rality of con crete v alu es, in w hich manydifferent kinds of value, and many diffctc:nt sources of value, can berecogniud as serious and deep wirhoutrcquiring further reduction tosome single all end in itself. And there is every reason to think thatrespect for other life forms and concern for natural environmentsare among those values. The problem is not to devise still more imag-inative or exotic ;waifications for environmental values. We do notneed togrtIunJ these values. pragmatists would say, but rather tosin1ate them in their supporting contexts and to adjudicate theirconflicts with otheD - a subtle enough difference: at first jlancc.per ha ps . b u t in fact a radical shift in philosophic:a1perspectiveJ."-&

'- ."

,i- .~

,~.


38/42

UTN IF 2003W;rfA' ;(d AffKritiks-.:b_ / "'2_BAD ENV IRONMENTAL POL IC IE S ARIS E A S A RESUL T' OF THE KR IT IK 'S F AL SE AND ONE -S ID EDALTERNATIVE

Norton. Professor of Phi losophy at Georgia Tech, 1996 [Bryan G" "Integration or Reduction: Twoapproaches to environmental values," Environmental Pragmatism', ed. Light & Katz, page 1061CWh at ;$


39/42

UTNIF 20031>11~d,""t@ AffKritiks_J_/-+-C RIT IC S AND POL fC YMAKE RS SHOU LD ENGAG E IN D IA LOGU E OVE R THE FU TURE O f' R ESOUR CEMANAGEMENT

Castle, Professor in the University Graduate Faculty of Economics at Oregon State, 1996[Emery N ., "A P lu ralistic, P ragm atic an d E vo lu tion ary A pp roa ch to N atu ral R eso urceMana geme nt," in Environmental Pragmatism, e d. L ig ht and Katz, page 231 J":'. G have become increaSingly distressed in recent years by the lack ofinterdisciplinary communication on problems of natural resource ...;

policy. A$ an economist I have been concerned by the tendency of ~'some non-economists [0reject, seemingly out of hand, rhe possib le .;;~.use of economics on this subject. At the same time I have been -....disturbed by the unw illingness of m any economists to consider the "'""'.philosophical underpinnings of our discipline. Tht consequence: has ...._,often b ee n e ith er th e re je ctio n of e conom i cs o r its rigid application. ~Either approach results in a too narrow a view of policy-making. . '\:Rq>rescntatives of other d isc ip lin es p ro ba bly h av e sim ila r c on cern s. O : ' - . ~ 0 1 ! . . . .. . ..Ihave concluded mat the situation described above will not be :~r';- l'improved unless dialogue OCCurs on the nCCC$Suycharacteristics of ..........."a public policy for natural resources. Only in the light of such a ..:.,d i a l o g u e CUl we understand the no rm s a nd va lues inh erenr in particular 'scientific disciplines. If these norms and values are brought intothe open we can better evaluate their contribution as scientificconstructs, as conttaSted with their role as policy norms] ,....,

.fr v

~.

;~-i '_

.~

III


40/42

D aniel A . Coleman, Founder of the N orth C arolina G reen M ovem ent and Founder oim e Prism , 1 92:!,E co po litic s: B uild in g A Green S oc ie ty , p . ~-\"I. \Thr co;rsc:, the Ci)mmon counterargument to this is that theAmerican people elc(."ted their goVernment and certainly it is

doing their will. Consider. however, that in. the mid 19805 theReagan administration lowered the - : lU l omob i l c fuet-eflk:iencygoal adopteu during the 1970s energy crisis. This action wasnot the result of dtizc:ns writing to the government calling for(eM.efliciem cars; It was the: automobile manufacturers and tru=oil companies that lobbied, ItS they always do, for the Jower

standard. Even in the WlIkeof the Persian Gulf war, they wouldnot moderate their position.1l\e extent of radioactive contamination in nuclear WClIIpun!i

fat..ifiti~ is already notorious, even thouJ,lh the final ngures arenot yet in. It may be :ugt.led that citizens supported the nuclearweapons program throughout the cold war period and therebyaccepted responsibility for the ecological COnsequences. How-ever, cltl7.ens did not have the Opportunity to knowingly acqui-esce to the contamination, since for years informali"n ahout itW:lS kept secret. "3d it been known, it would have atkled a5trOng argument 21fo11nnweapons programs.There i ( ' ; a flip side to the "consumer choice/we're all respon-siblc~ fallacy. This is the notion rhae anonymous, perhaps inevi-

table, forces lead to environmental ills, that perhaps no nne isresponSible. Time, again In the "Planer of the Yc:arW Issue, pro-vides us with an example of this viewpoint: Stattlng at thedawn of thelndustrial Revolution, smokestacks have dl'igorgcdnoxiou.s gases Intn the ::atmosphefC, factCKi~ have dumped tuxicwastes into rivers and streams, automobile;:s hlwe guzzled Irre-place::able fossil fuels and fouled the air ... forests have beendenuded, lakes polsoned with pesticides, undergrl)ulldllquifcfflpumped dry .wHI Note that there are no actors or decision mak-ers in this description. In fact, [here arc not even any people.Uowcvcr. each of the dcstructive situatinns dt '1\Crihl"t!hy Timewas caused by indlJ$lries whose managers made decl5ions. aboutwhat to produce and how to produce it. These decision makersare educated and weD Plid, perhaps pill.ars of their communi-ties, seeking to lncrease the prosperity of (heir firm ami byimplication the prosperity of society. Su


41/42

~ 7A -7 [ 70

T H [ IV " " 1 [(2;J/,171()_,./,4 Lrt()(..i I f2 C )

[Alv/(2o",// tJ7/rL1M (Lc-t1irJ1A-710,J

of( n O " " [ ( 7(0/Ifr/v ~ Lt ?rcJ fl .7

FREIDHEIM, School of International Relations, University of Southern California. 2000(Robert, Ocean Development & Intemational Law, Jan-Juri, Academic SearCh Elite)It als o s ee ms th at a lo cus o f actio n js n e e de d , o ne that I s v iSi b l e , o n e th at h as live p e o ple In te ractin g , p e o ple tak in g a ctio n saccording te a known, f am i li ar , a n d trusted p ro ce dure , actio ns ttla t can b e s ho wn o n te le vis io n , In s ho rt, it n ee ds a p re se nce .But m pre th an co sm etics are n ee de d' m ach jn erv to a ciu al

Documents

Old School K Answers