Kritik Answers

Kritik Answers
Answers to Anthropocentrisrn Critique • Anthropocentrism is Good • Antro. Kritik is Anthropocentric • Environmental Pragmatism • Criticism Leads to Inaction Pernudlltions • Juxtaposition Perm " • Dialogue Perm • Coalitions Tum and Extension • State Action Good Advantage Solvency • Biodiversity Tum • Resource Management Good • Science Good Answers to Soci aI Ecology • Bookchin Indict • Reform Good , • Alt leads to exclusion I oppression Answers to Heidegger Answers to Eco-Feminism • Intersectionality Tum • Leads to Fascism • Irrationality ., • Leads to Stereotypes • Reductionism Tum Answers to Radical Ecology : ' . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 1 2 3- 8 9 10 11 12 - 13
14 -15

16 17 18 19 20

, , . .. ,

22 23

25 26 - 27 28 _

UlNIF 2003
MrtfltJ ~





.Parker, Philosophy and Liberal Studies Programs at Grand Valley State V., 1996 [Kelly A., "Pragmatism land Environmental Thought," in Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, page 33]

thelt human spokespersons. and that is perhaps regrettable. Far r: better that they should speak for themselves! Lacking this. they do at .......".. least httw spokespersons - and these spokespersons, their advocues. need to communicate their concerns only to other humans. To do this in anthro~c: v:aluc CaEcgoriesis not shameful. It is. after all. the only way (0 goj ']."\

f Ihave Spoken of the experience of organisms-in~nvironments as cattaUy important. Pragmatism is "anthropocentric" (or better. ·antbropomeuic")24 in one respect: the humanorgmism is inevitably one that disawcs value. This is so because human experience, Ihe human pc:rspccrivc on value, is the only thing we kmnu as humans. ... Many omer entities indeed have experience and do \IaIue things, ""'...... . ~ Again. this is not to say that human whim is the: mcuure of all things, ~~. ~ I')nJy tha[ humans are in F.acr the measurers. This must be a &etar in ~ <t aU our deliberarions about environmental issues. We can and should -'1.... . speak on the others' behalf when appropriate. but we cannot speak ~.... &om their experience. We can in some ICIlSC hMr their voices, but we •t cannot speak i" their voices. Isee no way out of our own distinaivdy .... _...~ human bodies. In this sense, the human yardstick. of expcrienr;:e ,. tI bc:contcs, by default, the mcasu~ of all things. Although the debate ('.,..._ over environmental issues is mus limited to human participants, this '\'" is not inapproptiate - after all, the debate eeneers almost exclusively . (.~. on human Ihrcats to the world. Wolves, spotted owls. and old. ') ;growth forests are unable to enter the ethics debate ac:ept through ~ (!.;.


® '::

UTNIF 2003
t'fM If {l(lI

_j_ /



Weston, Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College. 1996 [Anthony. "Before Environmental 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, critical style as a point of pride. But in actual practice this style is only careful, neutral. critic;;a] in certain directions. It is not possible to suggest anything tlijfirmt, for the project of going beyond anthropocentrism still looks wild, incaurious, intellectually overexcited. Anrhropocentrism itself. however, is almost never scrutinized in the same way.. Apparently, it JUSt forms part of the "neutral" background: it seems to be no more than what the careful, critical thinker can pmuppost. Thus it is the slow excavation and the logical "refutation" of anrhropocentrism that, perforce. occupy our time - rather than, for one example. a much less encumbered, more imaginative exploration of other possibilities, less fearful of the disapproval of the guardians of Reason. or. for another example. a psychological exploration of anthropocentrism itself. taking it to be: more like a kind of lovelessness or blindness than a serious philosophical position. Anthropo. centrism still fills the screen, still dominates our energies. It delimits wh:u ls "realistic" because in many ways it determines what "rt::dicy" iuelfisJ lL()

0 t--r




"- .....


"~."I:~.... . •• <!
1._ ...

-::..... s I!" ( '." "-'.~ ""' ,_, ....

....~-, ......




Weston, Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College, 1996 [Anthony. "Before Envirorunental Ethics," Environmental Pragmatism, ed. Light and Katz, page 143]

[The conclusion of the argument $0 far might only sec~ [0 be that we need better non-:anthropocentrisms: theories that rethink Taylor's basic question, theories mat are not so easily seduced by intrinsic ~ values. and so on. Although such theories would be useful changes. -0"\)0

the argume~t just offered also to'7ards a mu~ mOr mental con usion, one upon w very rge questions 0 m ............ ,", depend. If the most rigorous and sustained artempu to transcend "._" amhropocentrism still end up in its orbie, profoundly shaped by ~..... ,<:,","\ the thought and practices of the amhropocentrized culture wi~in L'~ ~ which they arise. men we may begin to wonder whether the proJect: ~ ....... of rranscending culture in ethical thought is, in fact. workable tit ttlJ. " Perhaps ethiC! rcquilCl a very different sclf-cono:ptiorf;) '''1)


~'!:d ""~~ ~



.Andrew Li~ Pf. Philosophy @ University of Alberta, ! Eric ~ Pf. Environmental PhilosoP'fiY"@New Jersey Institute of Technology. 1996 (Environmental Pragpyujsm, ed, Katz and Light, p. ) / -can philosopners contribute oythi"l to an invesciguion of environmental problems? Do chc: tRdirions. history and skiDs of philosophical thoUGht have any tdewance to the devdopmcnt of environmental policy? We believe that the answer is ya. Despite the problematic (and. heretofore. inelfectuaI) statUS of enviconmentzl ethics as a practical discipline, the field has much to offer. But the •ts of this hUOsapbic:al en ~ tile: mUSt be _dircctcd cowan:Isd; racu _ \Ilronmeniial


:. Esperiencz.o noQoa that there is an indEabIe '&IpeQ of the . The _rid.. .. remaki"l ino suit OW' '! purpma. is in me -.rhe kinds of liva thai _ and on-lI:n Qn IiwI..m . fim of all. ready 10 be UKd up eM' praa-<'ed .lid no.with wbich ad.Iccts our inherent limirarioAs as Snito: parts of eke wortd. from the: or IIIOst ""nerete fx:t ("I am mkli (0 rht _ abstrsct eN' tl'llMCend· mul icb ("Justice. \Viow eovimnmeIUI. "Pragmatism and Environmental Thought. ". environment is ~ all MtlOlJlmung ·out somehow separuc £n.C1Iu..ire OW" puwa j wisdr ~d tt:quiro: mat III'!: puinely Ilftdaaand du: sourcs of 1 .hole 'IIaI'Id imo an euiIy ~.1 IMIII well on it. What bis theongoi"8 series of ~ bet.t. 'IlII1OC. All rhaI_ IWany bans can fed. ir 110 funher ROWlEy.itonmcu withou1 wk.-1m equal seriousness..lPt. If we bne ollr being ill the on.td all me fte.the . our damminSdlc NiIc: :mel ita damning 11& ript bad. is til wiD !hal we undcrp no fimhc:r j powdt in apcritmce. :and what wqs of inlu. Rrpo:atcd am:mpu to dominatc nauue (e. thr:n let UI ute ICChncMogy to IUf1'I dtc .. or our mtlicomic efmm to "amc:. All tho: while _ mill( main mpect '"' me wild and inefF..unO"! orpnillN and ~n..habit directly afka. will Ib. rich ar smile.Wlbtt p..una: .rid.-ol-. nanm:: _umt Ie"'" .alUI: in the ooorId and in oundws.:r. fiutber in implementing COIMI ID be in at. We need 10 . <HI« more the_ j Char no pan of the envil'DfllllCnt icI quation is beyvnd." is in the organism-_'1 We c:annot wk abour m.: (11) For the prapnum. Whu we mill( rry 10 do is I1IK to master die rwunI "".ins:about ~ me _ baAc ICMb in prapnatism.... has its meaning.. ..:urer. To aen. loa 1M Freneh phenom~ Maul'ia! Mefleau-Ponrr said.a pan: of apc:rienu .ONMENTAL Ennes ANTHROPOCENTRlC DOMINATION OR CALCULATIVE THOUGHT Parker..m ~""" __ Environment. haab or plmranr .tonmmts perhIpI rish-dy OCICUpy OW' anention fim.. pIIIrk and city: _n and prairie..bout du: limiD of human intdliJl:na. hospitti and mounnin tnil ..t the environment become a hall..JJ dn:: en-rinlrlrnenrs we inhabil.tf-Mpring. ~ _ . -au OWl! bod. para of me csperio:n«d worki. what £arutel' 01 enYironments they -1 are --=iatcd "'m. The en¥imnmenD we i.1 li¥es wicbin various enwromnenrs..allan: pbcawberusperienr:e unfuWs... for campi". Thil TIwrw Pm: £mhlillCMminlUnl ner.. I want to (lUcian this rendmcy.in. in mmc:: upea of 111 immed.-een orpnilmsandtheirenvironmcna. If mrironmcnt ~funds· experience.moM ltuic .j . a mn'C innAlDHneti esourc:t in whict.bans' hawe to cantmel. Light and Katz...-0 culrivarc mean." rnuch. of jUIlQ IJI' of John Muir . bowing project.. where my life and die lives of ~ atite and raU pl:ac>!....unanal philosophy m_ l" bqin wid! doR a_rio" 10 the quality of expericncI! that an. bur to . We ~ 1 lIIICIIedinpy dhcienr at aI~ng:and dcmvrinI pilfU of me anh. pages 28. .Wore -:_ CJ!' . and ~. but mvimomencal philolDfIhy '-"'II ~ Kience ue: at. I.. Urban and AI raI. .u ia ·RI~· -. is dtc Sdd where expcrie:noz oc:cut5.as we deem 1tIICr8aI}'. (or -J' cwId ariIc) from inhabiri"..td -a world impol'Qftdr difti:mll from that of Kant. (1 k_ of nl) rcason to objcc:t to rhe prudc111: UK of :! natur:al p (0 ftc:al ollr homes.." in Environmental Pragmatism....fim place. and die field of senlcd nperi~. . n:mmcnt imda aparitnCle 1n." "God"). theft . cchig or cnvinJll_iJ ~- '10:) 1 ! j . i"deed arrogant to think dur we can muru nuurc: it ill mOftOftt delusional md u1timudy .t .) But du~ very idea that die . wilderness. ed. .• me u-.. is. CIIft_ient smc:k of enYifOftmena !har ~uCle UI pkuant human~.Q. . .. hut I are !Dr me _ pan inept . $ ~tJ L!!_ WITHOUT AffKritiks __LI _£_ ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS A NEW ENVIR. This may be appropriate. valuable in tEpCricaCC5.wil)' of me emi1'otunmt in¥Dlvcdas by what rM"'F'rUan brinss to tm encalUltel'.i .. Eftvim. aasRy irtmurnentalist c:ondllliom ffORl Ibis Iitie of thOl. In U$I:l'tift! fundarm:nul rdawinesa .~ me .1. Endangered en..birinl mvimnmctm ve mosr appmpriato:.in! encounll!f' wim Cln'irvnment."~ . it not mcrdy IUbjta~ It b.30] -.ur each.arld_ h . tmltd. each of DI II a pan: of me environment .rue.. a candnuum of v:ui0U5 environ menQ.:. this reasoniA!j misln p.. } dwn QUI.able upca of the world. 1996 [Kelly A. and 1m DII lIP for d."!dy r. 1'bere is an unfonuoatc tcndcnt:y to dn.. pragmatism c:omrniu UI ro utaring all enrironmenu .. 1 t 1 thai. We can indeed _r remarkable aHltrol -. sandin!. ThcquaJiqrof~pctictla-whHherlife if.. if our purposa make in die ./t?A Cr = (7ft It...-.bommI anempa to undmund. lhe 1nempr to domilW't naruR complo:rdy is I chw an armnpt to .. A. but ezperimc:c as JUen is jusc anomer flame fUr. _u me hcaoe 10 annihilarc ouneI-. predictable mini.: qu~iOnl of what iI pxI. in miniI!W . . Enwironmmc is as much a pan of tub of 115 as wt a~ paru of the mYironmcn. Such aIW'AplllO domirwo: m. ill rAe...acmicH\ to die whok canriRlNf1l of envWntncna aIkMs III co put 1Il10 paspreaive what is trul. Philosophy and Liberal Studies Programs at Grand Valley State V. We need co" wIw if.if do:mmined at much by me q. nihi_ dlt uldmate IOtI«le of our pvwth.7flAk 61H#S F~ [.UTNIF 2003 tr..nom) $hould h:nc bqun to lad! UllDI1leIhing . beIicwe in. daaoclc or orderly.

. comes from a fmurr: adequately to cue beneath the "either-or" of anthropocentrismlbiocen.. in making the conjunction.' s t.... Yet this does not mean that humans c. lft"7tro) .. for it f:tils to capture the radical conceptual shift ~ . yet such judgments must consider die value laden conrexrs involving other sentient o~isms to the la~t ~~ co~istent wi~ ~is'goaf1 .. the positions brought together.· . .. We must make iudgmenu: which provide protection for the welfare of humans. 1996 [David and Rogene. p~es 44~45] . To do so is not to evaluate in terms of mnRicring claims but to exploit duough egocentric disregard for the valuings of other organisms.10. "How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic. . consistently. In fact. r property of situations as long as and whenever there arc sentient • -. This objection. -....... . lIt may be objected that me above evaluation of me relative merits of the AIDS virus and the spotted owl in eerms of their promotion of or hann to human W!:lfatei5 a re~mcrgcnce of anthropoccntdsm ..~.UTNIF 2003 4ft f5. "both-a... \ -..' ~ not willing to move from the rhco~ egalitarianism of humans ""'''':. ." Environmental Pragmatism. me •e ~ . _2_1_£ AffKritiks BIOCENTRISM [S REDUcrIONIST AND lMPRACTICAL .. and me AIDS virus to an implementation of such theory in practice.. but it cannot be maintained in practice. There is no -all or none" involved. . however.11'environment contexts Increases With the Increased capacity of Rosentbal and Buchholz. "is inadequate..denied above..uism.. changes the original extremes of ~:~1'. . WE MUST INSTEAD ADOPT A HOLISTIC PRAGMATIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola.The biological c:galltananl5m of biocentrism can perhaps: be thought .an ignore the value conteXtSot sentient organisms within nature. o~nisms experiencing..t J. ed... Surely onc is -.. ~t the va1~e-level ~ergent in o~ism.. Yet ... Value is an emergent contcxrual ~.. but even this ~.. .Pn~m to ~pe~ie~cc in c~nscio~ and self-conscious ways...." C· 1 neither is it the case that aUvalue has equal clairnirrespea:ive of iu: '" relation to the:welfare ofhumans.~ which. the 0r.v .._..nd" is eloser to the position intended.. Light and Katz. is not the case that all value is such only in relation to humans. It /.

Indeed. Dewey's understanding of apc:riencing the world religiously provides the ultimate: context within which pragmatic ethics must be located." of what is valucabk for human enrichment. Humans exist within and are pan of nature. no situation or context is outside the reaches of moral concem. Pragmatic ethics. for their emphasis on conrinuity reveals mat at no time can we separate our developing selves from any pan of the universe and daim that it is irrelevant." Environmental Pragmatism.sc something subjective or within lIS. but a change in mow consciousness. but to increase the value ladenness of relational contexts within nature. and any pan of natu(C provides a conceivable relational contcs[ for the emergence of value. "How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic. organic. for all the pragmatists. And. While every situation or contat is in some sense unique. ed. and inorganic that make up the biosphere . Light and Katz. short range and conceivable YS. Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola. while environmentalists may scdc to describe "objective" relationships among interacring individuals . The understanding of "human interests. nor can humans be den:aruralized. AffKritiks _!j_! JL ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN ETHICAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WORLD THAT IS NOT BASED ON DOMINA nON AND FOSTERS A STRONG RELATIONSHIP OF RESPECT BETWEEN HUMANS AND NATURE Rosenthal and Buchholz.group/out~up distinctions by "delving beneath" to the sense of the possibilities of a deep-seated harmonizing of the self with the rot:aliry of the conditions to which it relarcs. to increase the cxpcrience of value is not to incrc:a. non-human.. this involves me entire universe.yet the properties attributed to the individuals :arc ROt possessed by them independendy of the interactions in whichchey exhibit themselves.human. actual.~nmental ethics) '" J Ouch . page 43] an experience brings about not a change in the inccllcct: alone. properly undemood. Nanire cannot be: dehumanized. has to be: expanded not JUSt in terms of long mt~ YS. It allows one to "risc: above" the div4iveness we:: impose through arbiuary and illusory in. -Further. 1996 [David and Rogene. is an en!ir. but in terms of a gtntIy extended notion of human interest or human wclfate.UTNIF 2003 l·jl?& =£1HH.

e. and if nature: is merely an instrument.f"' .v//7/0 _LI __k_ ENVIRONMENT DOES NOT INS-kUMENTAUZE THE ENVIRONMENT .. ~-"t~ "'. but rather there: ts an ongoing continuity in which the character of the means enters ineo me quali()" of the end. Light and Katz.IT BREAKS DOWN DOGMATIC AND APPLIES A MUL lTIUDE OF AL TERNA TIVES TO ANY SITUATION Rosenthal and Buchholz.$ ." Environmental Pragmatism. 'b- .& ~ r.. A ~ ..UTNIF 2003 te ..... page 45] fine problem is nor that environments are ultimately valuable in their actual or potential relational comexes or emergent value. intrinsic value is wrong. • "~ . .. which in tum becomes a means [0 something further. but that vaJuings and the valuable environments which aUow for them are taken far tOO narrowly..o1fHM ~?WIr AL PRAGMATISM BINARIES -'r! AAnDt? AffKritiks 1." ..~ 9' ...1!) . as wdl as .. and any value.. men no real environmental ethic is possible... 1996 [David and Rogene.. Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola.headcd from the start. Hen: it may be objected that to value nonsenriatt nature in terms of its potentiality for yielding valuing experiences is [0 say mat it has merely instrumental value..l involves consequences and is rherefore instrumental in bringing about something further. ed.. the eneire debate conceming instrumental YS. wi.any aspCCtof the context within which it emerges. Yet. At no point can pragmatic ethics draw the line between human welfare and the welfare of the environment of which it is a pan.." .(._ \of ""J-~ . Everything that can conceivably enter into experience has the potential for being a relational aspect of the context within which value: emerges. Thus Dewey holds that no means-end distinction can be made.. "How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic...thin the above framework.f .

and ~~ny different SOUtce5 of value.hore complex and world-direcrcd..:. ~ragmatiS[s would say. though. and consequently rejects the notion of fixed. w~ich on other occasions reinforce: it. can be recognized as serious and deep Jvi thout requiring funher reduaion to some single all end in itsel£ Ahd there is every reason to think that respea for other life forms arid concern for natural environments arc among those values. pages 285·286] if' } -. In popular usage tim: connotation is certainly Icommon.. however. it does nor follow chat o~ly human beings haw value: it does not follow that human beingsJ must be rhe sole or final objects of . True. 1996 (Anthony._. valJues so conceived are resilient under stress.:. 1 "". when PUt to qJesrion. True.b /. We do not need co PltnJ these values... etc.ccd the mean-ends distinction. human-centered instrumentalism. but rather to situate them in their supporting conrexts and to adjudicate their conflic[5 with others . Philosophy and Interdisciplinary S ies at Elan College. Pragmatism insists most cehtrally on the j"/n-rrlatMnm of au.:. The prbblem is not to devise uill more imaginative or exotic justifications for environmental values. pragmatism takes valuing to l." . EJen if only human beings value in this !_ <> sense.. ""'. beliefS. We are thus left with a pluralihr of concrete values.. because. which hold it in place in me larger system... SubjectiVism does dot imply. Pragmatism is aform of subj~ivism .. subjecN'4!'ntrism. ~ry value is open to critical challenge and change. I "-I. choices.::':: ..J only these scuting poina may ~ake a workable environmental ethic • possible. final ends objectively grounding the entire fidd ofhurnan strivibg. in which many different kinds of value.1.-(in AN liP 1~Ll-1[S ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN EcbLOGY OF VALUES THAT CAN GUIDE ACTION WITHOUT ANTHROPOCENTRISM 1 AffKritiks _LI_£_ Weston. ed.'''''r:~ valuation. pragmatism rc'.UTNIF 2003 r£Arr7HflO [. etc. possibly only ofhurJan subjects .... J argue that the truth is closer to the reverse: f!.bur subjectivism is not ~~"'" na:essarily anthropocentric. so to say. "Beyon~ Intrinsic Value: Pragmatism in environmental ethics. in this way.a subtle enough difference at first glance.. subjects. values. but in faa a radical shIft in philosephical perspcctive]"fS-5 i:... a kind of"ecologyR of values.<0:.. offers a theory of valtb: which is by no mean commirred to rhar crude anthropocemrismJ or indeed to any anthropocentrism at all. metaphorically at lean... because each valJe is also lit nUe precisely with those related values.. ahd possibly only human beings desire .:c.it makes valuing an activity of ~'. At the same time. Light and Katz. But neither of thclse Starti ng points rules out a genuine r r~ e» environmental ethic. beliefs. perhaps. our actual values can be much .." in Environmental Pragmatism.. a wue an draw upon those other valucs. One charge of anthro~entrism should not detain us. be a certain kind of desiring. The notion of fixed edds is replaced by a picture of values dynamically intcrdepcnding ~ith other values and with beliefs. " ~ (:Pragmarism" sounds lilce juscl~wha[ environmenral ethics is against: shortsighted. . Philtnsphual pragmatism. and exemplars: pngM4tism offets.

tal ethtcs repcesenll . maIIF" ment..Wions have wbscrilm.. 1996 [Bryan G. nred for under a lingle theary. t. . ....J AffKritiks '2.-.. ce all monl ~na:tn.in . IMt what~ the lUI. from a lingle theory.~.'.. on [he monioric approach be acco . IDOR praaicC-orienmi disip!incs Nm: been IaaL Anomer effect has beer! co dcfint an ohm IInbdpful role lOr enYironmenw ech.. and opportunities fi:>t buiLdi"l brid&a with other. analytic vernacular in Which solutions to specific. mo~ quandaries ..t'SIi b1e in un i ts ofindiy id "ai. debate. unquestioned bY iieodassiC41 economim al'ld by most of their npponents among environmental ethicim a1ib. aIlIaSmI!nt of thc mntTibution of mvironm. which ate erperienced in multiple mod . are generared.al . to Descana and Newton. and conCQU.ts of enorironmental value tum ouc to be. ~ One very pngi<:al efft:cc of mil monistic aaumpdon " that the ~ of copia open £or dUcussion in enrirDnmenaJ ethia hu been rwrowecI.. I believe..a m"ul~ed .. there wi!!. e!lvilOrlmmw pOlicy debaIci:\ ..ordingly bleak.. TIle search tJ~.p:er is that the. a miPion \hlt._" _ the basic Knltcgy must be to red ._ BAD ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNAT[VE POLICIES ARISE AS A RESULT OF THE KRITIK' S FALSE AND ONE-SIDED Norton..• "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to environmental values.un j ~cd.. Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech. This.I'" . h uma n wei fare _ and adYOQces of attributing inherem ~Iuc to non-humans _ who 10.j to a crucial ailern.. entirely ilUtrUmentai ro human objec:ti~ or I!!lementi of nature have a "good of their own" . pages 106-1071 fJhe .Be... be only one kind of themD I or. both neodu... whal objects lu.-naron: is.. ~ ." Environmental Pragmatism.. for a -Holy Grail. ed. -:.'" a rsue thar ellI: moral force of e''IVironmen u..s formulated under a Jet of cpismnolOS'...u/ ethia to environ. . l' and moral a51umptions dw harka badr.s by me aaumption.". Me. Light & Katz. . -. to a unifi~ .': mcnr. -~ ...alyz~ environmental policy today results fro~TKaI~~atiyet forced upon u..] Could it be thallhe polarized thinking r~( par. ?' .. Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech. Light & Katz. The adoption of the monilth: viewpoint and 1M: usociated goal of developing a universal monlthmry appliuble ill all ~ is ineviub!y ·m1l1f." Environmental Pragmatism. •.ve II. by unavoidable inri:rences._....-'.s become a polarim!. r It . thaI all val ue is •• p..icalwelfarc Wlnomilu _ who believe }.j miQion. a dilemma lhat lie! at the 10hean of mO&tdiscuaiono of environmental vaI . An ..'tionisti~ . eo.I princi pleJ derive fr"m the moral ~ll&idenbili'Y of natural objeCl5 . .are unyilrldingly .al policy in iu fiL'31: twO dCI:<ld~ is aa. . goal oC JeCki ng a . .:uion in the dteory of environ mental val "'Ilion: either the value of lW:urc. "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to environmental values..".. "lD? .UTNIF 2003 (i9 3ft tf"K..\. ~ advice by providing dear management dim:moa n:prchag djfficqlt t ~ and controversial probleau in tIInronmerual planning and.~ ft .is ~. I 7._..hared wumplion of monism has. .thC$is ef rh is pa. THE CRITIQUE CANNOT ACTION OFFER PRACTICAL ADVICE AND ASKS US TO ALIENATE OURSELVES FROM Norton. or what II means to have JUch ~uc. . monistiC mrory of envtronm.¥lIlue not dependent on human valuation!. mllil \. 1996 [Bryan G . 1'-'V Nor ~ environmemal cth~ been ~k: I? ofb ~ Pr:-'ctic:al .of unified theory in mvifonmc:rnal vaJuc:I hH ~ progressed tow:u~ my am~nlllS ~jng what inherent value In . . page I06) (What is curious is char thil ariological approach re5ts on an a&iumption that is common to bO[h sides in whu lu.::aUR all values.: participants in then di5C1.. locked C'IIvironmental ahidsa into:l paralyaing dilemma.~ monistic in their approaches. ed.

be expected to pledge allegiance to any of these flags (I priDri. [[b) The debate over mthropocentrism is especially tendentious... Genuine value emerges at all of these focaIlcvcb. but the occurrence of such moral conftict is not peculiar to this approach. . ~L. Anthropocentrism maintains thAt value is of or for human beings. EVERY TIME THEY SAY "LINK.. environmental ethics can be seen as oontinuous with other areas of ethics.. Sometimes the individual or the system i.. ~'"1" i ·"1 . are valuable. today's CEO Ijkew~ finds that business: values mnB.ia with me value of an endangered owl's habitat. but only at the risk of serious moral blindness. pages 32~33] ~. but a blindly misanthropic «O"Rnism ia: 1!2 IS!! d!f!lorable . Light and Katz. '__ .~..UTNfF 2003 )td't ". Each situation must be: appraised on irs own distinct terms.~= v. including natural processes.f: . An aspect of this debate concerns whether value attaches to individual entities or whether value: must be: seen holistically. •. the: twin values of susrainability and diversity provide: reference points. . and exclude the: othcn.1 .:.. ~ • "1.s human and sometimes it U: not." AffKritiks CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR AFF AND THE CRITIQUE MULTIPLiES THE PLURALITY INCREASES UNDERSTANDING AND IMPROVES ALTERNATIVES THAT MAKES OUR POLICY EVEN MORE PRODUCTIVE Parker..." in Environmental Pragmatism.J l '. sometimes on'ehe unique: value of an individual.-! 2 . Value: arises in a variety of relationships among differing parts of the experienced. relationships and non~living partS of the environment. : . Ecocentrism emphasizes the value of ecological systems as a whole. '~I' '~r~~ . Philosophy and Liberal Studies Programs at Grand Valley State U.~ .. Dmying that one or the other sphere is worthy of oonsidttation may appear [0 prevc:ru potential moral conRice from arising. Blind anrhropoccnuism has deplorable: consequences for non-human world. pluralism is a fw: e:ncountered in experience. The pragmatist would ask why we should... Antigone found that -family values" can cragically conllia with the wlucs of the stac:e. world. r. ed. Apin. From this perspective. The question concerns the primary IOCU$of value.. a distinct but integral part of ~~ inquiry in gmeral) ~.0" _1_' _J_ OF VIEWPOINTS. Ju before. "Pragmatism and Environmental Thought.' ~ ~ :! me /0- . Indeed ehere wiD be conHicts because of this... Sometimes we tightly focw on the suswnability of the whole system.)/nl"""l _. 1996 [Kelly A. Biocenrrism maintains that all forms of life.. as such.

'."I often been either the rejection of economics or in rigid application.. .. .siary characteristics of _ .~.. dialogue can we understand the: norms and values inherent in particular '.:. "A Pluralistic. seemingly OUt of hand.... usc of economics on this subject. c... disturbed. ~.." R. increasingly distressed in recent years by the lack of interdisciplinary communication on problems of natural resource ... ... Light and Katz. ~~... policy..[ 62 SHOULD ENGAGE TN DIALOGUE . Pragmatic and Evolutionary Approach to Natural Resource Management.. ~ ~.-. Either approach results in a tOO narrow a view of policy-making. Il" a public policy for natural resources. As an economist I have been concerned by the tendency of . scientific: disciplines. Only in light of such a ... .. At the same time I have been " .. as contrasted wirh [heir role as policy norms) '" me /11 ..&". -. by the unwillingness of many economistS to consider the '~. 1996 [Emery N... Professor in the University Graduate Faculty of Economics at Oregon State... I have concluded [hat the situation described above will not be :-~: ~ improved unless dialogue occurs on the necc.' . '.UTNIF 2003 )111. G have become ." in Environmental Pragmatism.L: -+--OVER THE FUTURE OF RESOURCE AffKritiks CRITICS AND POLICY-MAKERS MANAGEMENT Castle.. philosophical underpinnings of out discipline. .~ .. ed. The consequence has .- . page 231] ~..:presc:ntativcs of other disciplines probably have similar concerns..>.. the possible . If these norms and values ate brought inco the open we can better evaluate their contribution as scientific constructs.' some non-economists to reject.

But even the political them r~ committed to a radicalism that the great rnajorityof the . let alone radicals. must forge tne Ulua . Since compromise.cal JIOW!! to ever JDDn! minuscule.. groups. Yet at present. . I would argue the opposite. Dionne 11991:l71 so.t~I""fO." this :awn 9" ana tical divide. Whihs necessary is the creation of II new ~ticaI cmter that a~ids "bland instead seeks to build . p.-s 0 Y _ THEIR ALTO KILLS COALmON BUILDING: A. advocated. Pf.VAniAe H~tiOQ for liocw retOrm. Pf. viewing them as ideological weaklings unwilling to take a stand. the e. of Reeking evet more radical foundations for &OOial reinveption leads eeo-.l Enyironmentalism.do not participate in the wicked system iDobsoD 1990: 1631. eJiOiiDi B. According to one tbeoyy. Although this represents a fringe view.. and powerless. ILCJO (". COALITION BUILDING IS CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS .. be obtained by appealing to a centtist center to economic groUiid Of AiIieiiCiIii voters.enci. extremists to n:du. the uesl £or . est possible coalition.ost pec!!.OF ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE: WE NEED TO APPEAL TO PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR SOCIAL REFORM TO BE POSSIBLE Martin Lewis. those who and ment in appeals both e&iC1mcy and to social justice and enviroumc:o. Party stalwarts. . . ThAt SUpPOn can ODlI coalition. only the uncm· played. because only they. American public ftildS unpalatable. 1992 (Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critique of Radical Environmentalism.tal protection.V 1/11' . Radical gn:cn strategists may call for With new socW movements or "With Iadica1 political parties. If we are to take seriously the task of devising II SU9~ble fu e i"'1'5 essc:D w m be found on " y urnes.nera1. J.. 1992 (Green Delusions: An Environmentalist Critigue ofRadica. . even a concerted coalition of the disUfecwdwould be unable to ~roach the critiC&l mass Deeded to gain efiecdve And sevual radical thinkers have proposed that much narrower constitu. often regard moderates with_ contempt. ) ~Y of the more sophisticated ~0ftS eco-radicals would agree with this notion. Geography @George Washington.ce tlleil own potential bases for politi. ) ~ we are to preserve the earth. is Lugeiy without an articulated platform... can seek real cbmgc.mancss Rcnvs. rather than just a redistribution of apoils. Geography @ George Washington. 2rocess tn. e..es form potentially eco-revolutionary groups that might lead society as a whole to ita necessary transformation. by the more savvy among but . M E. wjU in e end only undercut the prospects for change. the large neca maae m pubfic: poliCY. At the same time. euvironmentalistll . p.x:tremiSts overtly denounce [Dare moderate environmcntaliits who lire i@iDi to Beek compromises with individuals or of political philosophies. in one or ano~ is Deccssary for any kind Of ottective political action. OENOUNCING OF MODERATE ENVIRONMENTAUSM PREVENTS CRITICAL COMPROMISING NECESSARY FOR BUiLDING ALLIANCes Martin Lewis. Major to be c ges t require massive public IUppon.

. for It was certainly an imponam pan 0 getting us in e sorry seaee of environmental conditions in which we nnd ourselves today. I am making a plea instead for more tolerance in the environmental. ed. but because of our duty ro the subject. Finding . 1996 [Andrew.Katz debate.oN'$ ___!_I _L AffKritiks THE NEGATIVE'S REFUSAL TO INCLUDE OUR WELL~MEANiNG POLICY iN THEIR CRITICISM IS THE SORT OF iNTELLECTUAL INTOLERANCE THAT DOOMS ECO-GRmCISM SUSTAINS IN~FIGHTfNG AMONG ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS TO IRRELEvANCE AND Light.dition to provide a . ramer.. the answers is ~success in solving some interesting puzzles or winning some intellectual gam~ . framework which can seriously address the important changes in thought and action needed 10 address environmental problems ..it is. Intol~~E.so why would anyone refuse to acknowledge valuable work from those who do not eounr th~nudves as non-antheopocentric holistsU"his is panicularly diseurbing gNen p a moment of reflection on what "finding me answers" entails. and in their sub-discipline: we are devoted to our subject not simply as the object of our work. We must tolerate those who are sincerely attempting [0 work within the anthropoc. "Environmental Pragmatism as Philosophy or Metaphilosophy? On the Weston . Light and Katz.UTNIF 2003 l<l'AI. philosophy community. success in developing -. Intellectual inroleranee is something that nands in the way of any ~ possible contribution philosophers might make [0 me solution of these problems. Environmental pragmatists take very seriously me predicate ~lIl1irD"mmtltlin their self~d~ription.We have not yet "found all the answers.41.p adeq uate environmen~(:!~. Environmental philosophy arose as a response by intellectuals who thought that philosophers are obliged to try to do something [0 avcn ovcrwhd5 contemporary environmental problems.mric m.II~s contributes to th~ p_rq~l~mi:J'lZ 7 12 ." . Research Fellow at Environmental Health Program." in Environmental Pragmatism. page 327] do not wish to defend [he legacy Offanthropoce0thtriC 'philO5Oph~ .

he consumer is often little more than a selection from among environmentally destructive alternatives . citi7.. is an indlctment not of consumers but of our system of econormc decision mak. ~ . Such decisiull making. faerories h. lakes poisoned with pesticides. perhaps pillars of their communities.o.Y·I ~"" noI yet in. the cummon counterargument to Ihis is that the Amt:ric:tn people elected tilde government and ccrtajnly It is dulng their will. however.. Mo. I The extent of radloacttvc: contamination in nuclear WCl(JURS i fadlitiC"s is already notoriuus.."ikwhere the deci'~. This action was not [he result of citizens writing to the government calling for Iess-eHldent em. since for years informatiun lIhuut it ~ was kept secret. ing... as they llIW3YSdo. that perhaps no one Is responsible.en5 did not have the opportunity to knowingly aequiesce to the contamination. The notion that we're 211 ccsponsible places the grandmother driving to church on an equal footing wilh Exxon. The choice ~ left 10 .. 192!.t lobbied.tuf Ih(lsej_ decisions arc made by industry and government."Jto the pollution.II\'('dumped toxic wastes into rivers and streams.1I responsible· fallacy. even though the final fi)l:urc::sare . There is a Rip si~ to the ·consumer choice/we·re:l. it would have added a \. This is Ihe notion that anonymous. Founder of the North Carolina Green Movement and Founder of the Prism.. lIndc'lttuund aquifers pumped dry.1lcllIrreplaceable fossiJ fuels and fouled the air . perhaps tnevttable. smokestacks have di~go~d noxiou. An effecrive response to the environmental cri5i. ust a.. "'o-~ l 0" vr . for the lower standard. provides us with an example of this viewpoint: ·Starting at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. they would not moderate thelr posltion. Time. seeking to teereese the prosperity uf their rirm and hy implication the prosperity of society.:' strong argument against weapons programs.. m sion making occurs that lead. it was the aUlOmobile manufacturers and the oil companies th:a."IO Note thai: there are no actors or declslon makers In this. It may be argued that citizens supported cite nuclear ~ ~. each of [he destructive situatiuns dt'M:rihcd hy Time was caused by Industries whose managers made dL'CIsIUlI.'t I weapons program throughout the eold war period and thereby ~ I accepted responsibility for the ecological consequences.\ .. forests have been denuded. Even In the wake of the Persian Gulf war. gases in10 the atmosphere. automobiles 1I:l"!!gU7. again in the "Pla.. These deci5i(lR makers are educated and well paid. p. Consider.-\+n"'C> \ II Daniel A.net of the Year" issue. However. Ecopoilrics: Building A Green Society.o. and accountability. description.~"'trN~"'~"""'''' c:. there are not even an~' people.. Had it been known.'I abuut what to produce and how to produce il.. often the result of careful cost-bcneflt analysc!!.o. Coleman. that in· the mid 19805 the ReaRm admlnistrafion lowered the -automobile fuel-cfficiency goal adopted during the 1970s energy crisis. In fact. However. ~-'-\ \ TC>f co~rsc. forca lead to environmental 1115.

and problem solving Mulres foHow·through. the director. In short. Finany. Ocean Development & International Law. and Q) tna organiZation will succeed in solving the prgblem for whlr. which Is new in the second Dbase Of its wark and adjusting iI! trade ban lists to reward good aam as well as punjsh bad actors. we should not ovetlook the broad observation that effedive OIginu need an organiZation.[gJ and many other envirOnmental and nonenvironmentallntematlonal regimeS. This is true of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFT A) through itS Commission for Environm. people. The question is how well it succeetled compared to the ahematives. witt! domestic environmental problems. wIIo has mostly bean cpncemed. Decisions do not make themselves. etc. While one iLtdge that the lnter-AmeIiC3.l7/fL (.f L. This is II much more difficult question to answer. But even if Ihe actions of a formal transnational organization fail to meet stringent tests of effectiveness. Resources to OAA@te the machinery and to manage the supervision of implementation are alsp needed.If ((207[( f< 70 of £N'lIlfl 0"'. McManus. a> even ifcanvayed.1/ IZC) · "'0/ ~'-4 ??o fl1 1M-./7£ .1. when we consider how much more difficult it is to achieve sustainable Qutcomes at tne Migna! or jntamationallevel rS' . f l~rztV..Uy jnadequate to the management ch. University of Southem California. Reojmes wPrlsbest if there is forum for decision 'nd a cadre of RIggle ruppnsJbte for bnDlementing what has been cktsided. these actions usually have advanced the struggle. amI trusted procedure. people taking actions according to a known. establishment of a formal organization is no guarantee that ill sufficient authority and enforcemant pcwelS will be conveyed. In short.710~. ach!eye only partial or insufficient success. familiar. must baye an qrganization to lead..1-7 [ I/'. one that is vlslble.'. the stronger regimes win have adequate mactlinery for tt1e perfonnam:e of their mandated. Dr. and they are @rely ingJemented or enforced to their fullest Cipacity. tasks. a If I "ave assessed the elements of effectiveness correctly. Witness the response of Roger E. School of International Relations. ruo. it would be preferable if the decision system eaBBS the way 10 adjusting commitments. can The creation of an organiZation with structure. protected 'eed. we need regimes thlll: can accommodate learning. and we need to get to the second level of anal)'sis in loOking for the factors that provide more refined explanations of outcome.rfTrcDical Tuna Comm!Ssionhas ' .1331 It is djffjcult to be yery mnRithatic with Mr McManus. sug:eedtd because pf astute entrepreneurjalleadership. authorly and enforcement powers will be used properly. oecision-making procedures. minerals. 2000 (Robert. it needs a presence. actions that can be shown on television. This is alSo true ~flhe Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species (CITES). Success for the Long-Range Treaty on Air PoNution can partly be claimed because of the role of the European Union in mobilizing lis members to fight regional pollution. What degree of success the Intemational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling "CAW) has achieved can be attributed to the ma9lJinerv of the Inteml!tional Whaling Commission '!We) wUh Its obligatory pcgcedures and the "books" it bas into the domeltlc pOlitics of the Onited States via the work of preseryationist NGas.t. But more than CQsmetla! are OMded: machjnery to 'cIuJ!!lly manage and implement deciBicns is needed. "'fes we have laws relating to fiSheries.~ 7. While Oran Young's preliminary judgment of a "mixed picture" is carrect. Canada.ntal Cooperation headquartered in Montreal. Academic Search Elite) It also seems that a locus of action is needed.Jllenge..s. Jan-Jun.(7 1M ?Lit1itJ1A'710r/ 11 r/I) FREIDHEIM. one that has nv.(IOr/At. people interacting. to avoid the problem of paying heavy transaction costs in arranging a collective choice only to find thai the problem has Changed. but the authQrities are usu. James Joseph. and resources Is a necessary but not suffICient condition for success in SOlving a trans-boundary problem.h it was establiShed. Those focused on finding a cyre fpr lb' problem almost always complain that eKisiing grPlDizatjon!l natign" and transnational. navjgatiol1.

Respect for diversity thus entails a lesson in environmental and social valUC5 drawn from the natural world. and.·This gOC'S une step farther dwt merely honorinft the differences among people and places. to unique and varying ways of life around tile wortd. destroys the environment. Ecopolitics: Building A Green Society.. but sometimes elusive.. They would not M imptic:ucd in the whotesate destruction of species that Chatacte:rl~ the: contemporary en. Coleman.l1. Respct:t for diversity will lead to diverse SOCialfonus. diversity in itself is ~)ften a barrier to Indusiveness. G~ens ii'i embodied n their bylaws' guarantee of represent:ltlon to various minorities on aU decision-making bodies or [he movemen. Respect for diversity asserts that differing narural condilions and [he diff~nt life experiences of divel'$C locale.. particularly thu. .O. Maru~ ecasystems such 35 the coral reef and the climax foresr: are characterized by a rich diversity of life forms. this SCnsitivity to the natural world Is lost..tf£. 19 ""lhe importmce of diversity in Dature is demonstnted in the thriving coevolution of millions of sprdes around the planet. . Respecting this d1versity goes hand in hand with honoring the unique natural dmtacteristics of a particular ecosystem. 'I of a community. fanning a uniform global economy of commodity-bascd consumptiun. Human cUltur_eshave historically tended to be weD adapted to and supportive of the 5tability and vitality of their narural environs.a..__.\ . le~\o".J l ~'-"-~ J:::M-Y~ 7esx T-r-c \x="T~"?«>nl c. finally. celc:bra1lng md StIpponiag the divcr. Founder of the North Carolina Green Movement and Founder of the Prism.Jity of life and community in COuntless ways around rhe planet. will lad to different goals and th~11to diff:rcnr political S[r-uegles... w. It is no wonder that as the modern economy attempts to get everyone living the nme way. The ¥:llue C2llcd ·~t for diversity.~ lS£-\\'LV. tncfu::ness Is an Important. In practice. p. The coo:'mitment to inclusiveness of the U.<. The thl'U5l: of contemporary SOd.Jj . ror example. ferent cultural experiences. Such a SOCietyis fundamentaUy alienated from the Earth and inevitably misunderstands.. Different ethnic or cultural expcnenccs. Traditional cultures depend Utterly upon and therefure respect: and value the neighboring biota.e who tend to be disempuwcn:d and on the recelvtng end (If SOCialand environmental problems. As-"\".-. It c::lDs on a transfonn:ulnnal movement to at.. lead to dif. ety Is [0 have people around the planet eating at McDonald's and watclting the same sitcoms on telc:vl5ion. Respect for diversity is a fundamental prlnclple. leading to the destruction of any habitat suited (0 species other than humans and cockroachc!s.."tivclyseek out and include the diverse element.is sometimes also called ~tnclusiVCRe$S. devalues. All groups will not alw::aysbe I~ct~ded to aU ·ects. goal. using the same resources and technOlogy lind externalizing environmental and social costs. Daniel A. 21.s.\"-t\+.

then it would shift the burden of proof in environmental arguments from environmental protectOrs to the despoilers. c' dam~ng so . As long as we can jt assert ()thn morally binding obligations . pages 121-122] we focus for a moment on the problem of warranted assereibiliry of environmentalists' goals.UTNIF 2003 n~. ..) does not follow that it is the only. But these ~ '~..apparendy.fiJ . Callicott argues it is an advantage of intrinsic: value in nature that.. nor tile best. Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech..!7 But ftom the fact that such value might be: suJJirimt [0 shift the burden of proof. 'r· . if t rl'\ ~.':\' able co enter the public arena armed with genuine and defensible D. environmentalists to shift the burden.l' t by rhese less controversial obligations would lead to most of the environmental protections favored by inherent value theorists] f~...such as an obligation to 1.hat future generations can enjoy the bounties of intact ~"".we have a basis warrantedly to asse:rt 'I" ..' mora I principles so that they can assert the priority of their goals \ I r· 1':'" \. 'J' l.:~·' obligations to protect biodiversity over many generations.. 7 "~l.~ ecological communities . . LIf . if it can be shown [0 exist. Light & Katz.' vhended in a monistic non-anrhropocentrism.. 1996 [Bryan G..I.j'... be comptt'. (" over the mere preferences of the consumer society.rather than exotic appeals to hitherro unnoticed inherent values in nature.1_ ECO-CRITIQUE SHOULD FOCUS ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAKE ITSELF ACCESSfBLE TO POLICY -MAKlNG AND SUST AINABIUTY IN ORDER TO Norton. even though abiding . Aff Kritiks _1_1. "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to env ironmental values. means available to . sustain the integrity and health of the ecological systems we are now \~ . . ed.of obligations are anthropocentriC and cannot.~' The epistemological problem is that environmentalists need to be 1." Environmental Pragmatism. it seems likely that environmentalists will achieve more by appealing to the relatively non-controversial and intuitive idea that the use of natural resources implies an oblig:arion to prorect them for future usersJ6 ..a sustainabiliry theory based in intergenerarional equity ..

cyen pm:ri%i!lIy as put of a oraer wonaertUl whOle should cut us down to size. sci~ a world view in whi e uman c ition is marked by~ Bid Olht allp 4JNUt tjpm the Mtural orae. undem:tirlinS ~ote BOer:' UlC1!:Jr:um ::n oneway ~ Dr can Q ~ . It is also obvious.reded.i 8 SCIENCE IS NOT ALL BAD: IT IS THE OVER-PRIVLEOGING OF SCIENCE WHICH IS THE PROBLEM. is based more ~ bY bOth d.tt'iZ @ dzff't!Fwn. 't11at js. and with wlUcli we I ate ~~ortant ways. that • . awesomely Ii arrogance. orton in his plea for unity among environmentalists demonstrates the significance of science within green politics.all it contains was created for the human specieS !!![one. lBiiTY. ThU5 diadem SCience.ThUS sciertce can dispel any poferifuil arrogance Of antnroporen scencecan do thi$ is ir(Whicli . p. which ai ~ Be argued. any aoen on scientific principles than on shared metaphysical and moral axioms (1991: 92). then -8dence ratnei £riih an eart1H:i!fiited Spb:1tual1ty may De a mudi better w_ay til goiiig about 1£ AS Grey notes.jhip. Progress. Environmental Politics @ Queens University (Rethinking Green Politics: Nature. According to him. One need not interests contrary to h\lD'lan ones Ul to recognize our £initude:1£ _ target Jargit. He then goes an to point out that ThE attack on human arrogance.C). withoii ocentnsm. liter is the VirtUes Of iCo-. That is. Virtue. Pf.· This Call inf vi uman-na ~ on the idea that the world is our home. as one to was well motivated but badly di. a ptOauct ~ tJf iriUdermty n iiN!d:s m15e noted. can. 1t can help avoid ~ vices of the lajiter. SCIENce CAN BE USED TO DISPLACE THE ARROGANCE OF HUMANISM John Barry. deiiiOii5trating t £tie p 'human' and 'non-h. ence for holding that the earth and. (1991: 237) Withln COntemporary Western society it is more likely that a non. but one which we WiIfi ~ of other living and non-li\'ing entities. notion of a radical or ualified aration of humans andnature. fUi\ction as a 5ti!ft'Cl\mt u~phYSiCat basiS or sreen politics.: 'Envirorunentalists' emerging consensus. 1995C).uman' ease can help ct~t~ ~~~ _J. it will tum out.V A/1 If 2003 5tAiN./. It can also demonstrate our ~ upon the envil'Onment. as O'Neill points out. Isuggest. can offer an account of the place of C_ humans in the nama! order.!2iritualized scientific understwdina of the world Bnd our place in it can provide bask metaphysical a~t ScientiBc know!can refOnn antlu:~trisrnr by ~ts tendenoes m h~ aJ@ pryde. which was moW\ted as a response St ~trism. a scientifiaUy infunned contextualistn !hat sees US iiIiirii1 6peaes iiXiStiiig aertvatiVdy. Iific theory and evidence are a necessary condition for a rational eage ~_i spicii?' (~ . saenti6c ~ natmidBiD can ptb'Vll1e a thoroughly satisfying way of realizing our Ufuty wt"ll'rttte fiUJ\-hUtnaii worm (1986: 212). ~ !!tJ:wIrd.. °A purely seanar. modem forms of scientifiC know[displace the a ce 0 h . ) t 1999 /'1£ green politics is to base itself upon some metaphysical footing. [nat 18..

fI).coJ2g'J:M!!JlggS.~~~~ ~~c. 8L at Bard COl. Andrew Ught) ~ut these are just abstract considerations. B2. ~r---~O \'~ Koval. free of all hierarchy and domination.I)iD. it ~j comes. Intolerance and dogmatism are.Pq_r.. which will be real-] iud or not according to Bookchin's treatment of his theme. tht1 ostensible narrative of social ecology. the mythos of the Fall and Redemption can tum into the vision of Blake's [erusalem or the nightmare of Mein Kampf.13 This can be rephrased: s. but is consumed. -G:::N\~ -A:~C. and complementary relationships. Depending upon how it is appropriated. 'libertarian.tn:~5 ~~..' domination. ..~.. '18 (Joel. as the protagonist of history. . renders humaniry.: the entire edifice of social ecology shows the strain.. As II • sult.. -. As it ~ evident that Bookchin is not merely dealing with the ontology of hope! or the emergence of ethical being from nature. '!. To the extent that this figure hogs the stage'-. §g2gl . ises to be..! cratic ideal of Bl and the messianic promise of H2. Prof.~N S ::. Bookchin's dialectic of reason withers and loses its claim on venalitY through a radical demythologization. the contradiction between libertarian preaching: and rancorous practice becomes stifling. There is in any case a latent contradiction between the demo-. Bl. It is a question of "spirit.. with his personal vendettas..~\ S. rather.14 In a case of this son. c. this context..._\. the running battles Bookchin wages with his Pfe'"j sumed adversaries are more than irritating distractions.. common human tendencies.\A:s:. Categories with at least latent' explanatory or emancipatory potenrial-the very notions of hierarehy... It is the lJe:..~ tYA - fer . tends to focus on 1 the Anarchist as redeemer.. the manner in which being expands into new and more comprehensive syntheses." that is.. ed.' is guided by my description of the ecosystem: the image of unity in diversity. Humanity is no longer the agent of its own transformation. to say the least. and it severely distcrts the possibilities Of~ both·· Hl and B2 by splitting them into mutually repellent fragmentS.UrNJF ~~ ::t..~ ~O) c.. ra~ with venom and rage against those he sees in the way of "freedom. whereas the effects of a meranarrative have to be decided concretely. great deal depends on what kind of a messiah Murray Bookchin prom-.1 trayal of a professed Enlightenment rationality by vindictiveness of Ohi'l Testament proportion. But it is' remarkable to find them in a thinker who announces his project as fo[·: lows: . of Soc. _~l There is indeed a kind of betrayal in Bookchin's texts.:A . so will democratic promise become fraudU-:l lent.. a 'sign flashed by the redeemer to demonstrate his ~ demptive bona fides. spontaneity. the redemptive mvth ' fen Jpiritual disaster by being denied immanent rationa~ 1. or "the PeoA pie" (Bookchin's phrase chosen to avoid using class as a leading term). ~ ~~+ I -Ar?~~C1'l\ ~~ c.My definition of the term. on the other hand. freedom itSelf-become drained of intellectual vitality and tum into rhetorical devices by means of which the Anarchist establishe$' redemptive authority...

Bookchin.th~~ has been placed in the servicc of mindleJS~o~!l)_ •. Remaking Society.:. _ These .&..:opposition to tnxic wastes • u.. a new highway.....all repre~· SCnt important acts. 1990 (Murray..gm~!tl:arur the like. founder of Social Ecology movement. or a new condOdevelopment that threatmli. A stand against the construction or a nuclear reactor. however limited.. Many people are simply pragmatic environmentalists... 1 do not wish to deny that even liberal environmentalism and the value or an instincJuve sensibility have their roles in resisting a powerful technoIOS:l.accumulation.tO dc~ce an urban landscape . wildlife. 1990 (Murray. to prevent funher en vironmenti1 delerioration. scenic narural beauty. This has not been the case. I have simplified the alternatives. But I have done so only 10 reveal their logic and implications.Bookchin.:. It requires no great theoretical or ideological wisdom to recognize that aI most everything of wonder and beauty..) It:. are important enclaves or nature and aesthetics that must be preserved wherever we can do so.w:bAlt. founder of Social Ecology movement.:::: the construction of nuclear reactors.. and ecological variety (hOlt is preserved rrom the bulldozer and profit-oriented predators. The ecology movement bas divided into several questionable tendencies that often directly contradict each other. and consumption.~ disdained sirn t because the are limited and· aLThe sene to slow do isaster like Chernobyt or Love Ca . page number at end of card) LOne might have hoped that these planetary changes would have catapulted the ecology movement into :he Ioreground of sociallhought and added new insights to the ideals or freedom. For one anini. has its place in the world and its function in the biosphere.. Their erfons arc roc used on single-issue !CrOnDS sucb a'l the control of -=:::"_==:::. page number at end of card) ~dmiltedly..-an effort to clear-cut a mountainside. areifii!!!saWurnggles. Remaking Society. restrictionj . from a statuesque tree to a burrowing mammal.. .an. Land. to be ..

such guarantees would Bookchin's ecomunicipalities/ 3~ ~ be inel . Clearly. 1994 (Michael E.J.Zimmerman.. there: is good reason probablv have the same woald will vanish jn ccocpmmuniries. Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity.n r... of liberal democr.::v is that it calls for guaranCC!! from the tyCUlnyof need to at least) that rotecr minorities ma. most small organic SOCieties have been either indifferent or nastile : <1:iberal srran ers and have en a ed in constant again thinks of ancient for why the situation wars and feuds (here" Greece).2S He offers no plausib e evideDce-~ ·'.. not on blood kinship. page number at end of card) <$ecognizing "rootedness': the: use [~_ wIEch Nazis PUt the idea of organic :::: .Bul: one can readily imagine how bioregions could become jingoistic and expansioniStic to the challenges •• l rather than tolerant communities op~ AT:! posed bv me "differences" of their neighbors."Uj But.\....' An advantage principle.t!.-. prof. tJnre_ Of{J('t. Bookchin himself acknowledges dw: his uto ian vision is threatened bv the fact that historically.oriry. page number at end of card) marker societies channel competition in terms of abstna procedures thu( minimize antagonism and promote rhe cooperation required for markets to work. "one liberated community Bookchin petitign provides little convincing will not try to dominate anomer because it has a porenrial monopoly of copper.$$'ve. of philosophy at Tulane Univ.:1 would be any differeD( in a world of ecomg.::hi~i e~phasiies thac his anarchistic municipalities should be based on elective social ties.$ ls S1-. Book.... r.cf.. 1994 (Michael E. Contesting Earth's Future: Radical Ecology and Postmodernity. uYtI~l/nli"t!~ ~ ~t!- Zimmerman.HCI. of philosopby at Tulane liniv. ~ in the: soil. prof. would no Bookchin insim that because people in ecornunicipalicies longer be greedy.: Hence. evidence that greed and com. to believe that such communi::ies munities) chance of leading to wars and ecofascism as deep ecological com- u! !3COkehiv\'~ .

.he esaence '.feninll unlOlugi<::.clenrned to... Lin"."..11'..I eaabla "" 1<1 discern th" uue epochal roou of modrm IOWiWUniam..lIS we halll!! il""....s cone: rete soci. H""_r.and \angnaK")' Wh"".....~lf run im" "'I' ." .hI' onlOl"8i. on .urin .. iall. ."gas~· . CommliniAn)..).illin .RC" ".· H"ld e gll'"ri~'I>. _ on the eonll'ary.(i. predsc puin'.. Iher purpo n 10 rej""I: the eeologinl C:ritique of the teChnoLogical l!!ICflIo'talian of nature ultimately leads 10 a more 'environ..10 .... H"idc:KK". cl......via. Heide!.. ophy tN.. Fuo."r hi""".u-.. a> ~ H"id"U"..hk h.' of . . on HeKl. '(ug. ill ""'Y"'K". niwly mul'r un .. what n:m.. ete.. "I::"i". <·..omfilicir.rnhig'l(Iu... lh e y kfl "'" nu"" r coLd: I .1 e!loconc" "r .mrU51: ontological ho rizon wi th omic choices (..in' ((("..t to U'U ..""blll...ar.&IT\cd ifl.law .iuism with He1rl"gger..airu unthought hen: is the hiddcm o. th" 'innfi g....trich in"'.... .ly _ni.....e ...:ul..!f"r him...ai model (:. n• . iIll... Ihis engagement wu nOl 'bene:l1h' his philtorophical I.... All " •.\ Hdd"IIiKC"r·. f. politial project 'in 'pi"" of' his ontologiul phi1oic:oplW:al appraKR....onsrl"lalive. ....u..... if one ia to IIndil!ng.~ . : the ollki...n· d"i." n...o be undc:rcswlI..ee towac'd.II" ""'I"'" ti....""..ill tI.."'..cui ontol".ai truth or our or epoch...... 110" ~".....e'" ...10 \"tlK". I r.6<=r ~ BclE." ..de did with r..... 1 ..:uocd Iti. ~ho diimiucd Heidegg"('s :-iui enll'agement a..f m.." -tllo\ .... regi ..If ..2k_3 ftu1>-c.1" I'''''''''''f. rncntalho sound' tee h nol<>g!-·. uld cume ~"--'II th~ epochal .id..t. <'I r "hnIH wha... " .[eI' i'I<u ...dern . until.:t: mr main eounter~_n.{...!!...-'od)" ..leJulc.!!: """"h' lIw " tbing will. lor example ) ..d". Communism with MIme 'Heir:Len:erian MmcUII:s') all closer 10 the 0 nm\opc..d id"".. is thai it is Heidrggrr's own pttil ..rj . e He itkggc r "pins...h or his Sazi past C"onsi.....orally'" "'''rch uf a politi..".be ..whe> W-. ""f}' .diOl self· ma~cmt:"l..-.nd Heidegger. 01" ((>\I De.....deW 1I:"..."......~livdy.1 eH . d. • !IIIlII"'1IY .. nr... r.... nlul~ic.lta". carne c]lJ5"'" 'u Ihe unuilogic.. ph ilus"p"" 1"lI' o.il..hi e with H"i... Anr" .ar .lr ahotlllh e lin" of ocparati ...•mlnlugic"L diff"""nc" .. and 10 on. <. ..hil' I""'.. h...... " ul"lle·~ e"~'fIleru). I"... . gel' himself pul il) in no wav inheren~ rela.gheA ~mity....~ seen.lf put j I.imple: penonal error (a 'stupidity (Dr... i simpLe aROm~.... I bccatu<' 1I ur e "r '.' rcprou. Irg!:" r (. is always ad. Interest un Ih" t'nigmll . I .ed is til'" th" w:ry p... err "t.lWllllcdged only .. in Illy yomh. rnaR~II..u.aire~ embedded in me horizon of wh... .. political ~'''lf:.rIdignity un ..!.ed to his philosophical proje<. htIlTLt . e r""i.rap of (". "md.. oppositiom to the modem uniYe<w of ... II.»1".> ------ <::OP"'P''' uf rn."1pc:cl '" !>. in blaIanl cocuradic tiDn to his Ihough I.lnl. i.illm .r betooem the orllO Iogic:al IACiifl'ef"n.ai Tnllir are e."bnology ate . a fall 11110 Ih" OQLicLevel.? Pr~r::i. r..i&m..I"I(Y uf Cu.. "'. dreper $lfUCWni ~I.. f1<'>l Jfl~"'" iill<:rUte w-u" ."f .inJ... of it.. .. h" . idell. Here one Ihould a\"Oid the trBp dial caught t-kideggcr's defenders.e.\<'I':)' "I' ""1f . N...... I' "UoffiiI""!I"m"m wa..ai IVSICD'I:I (c:api ..1..h. YIII(. tn. . .. 011lie con tent {(.h. .u1l.u-d d.nIDaI . S<.. lf. n bcl"""~1\ ontie .~ Cu. tho. •.. .3!"m en L>"\.1. LIS 001 10 co....b.nt ~uilii . f."anas""..mull on Narum Ihe ol'u"logical cli~i~ o[ lullin!\: ...""i"n IIf . uf .: ..hen he dc:momua~ hia bow.b~ ""..il.. whil" We standard " poIilic'" Kkulugy ..(1<\<:....l:u CWf' poinu: IlO'l only _ his SHi engagt'tUenl a . Heiclrtll'er is 211 IlI'Ongesl ..h.. ... and the secrel privileging of a conere"" sociopolitic...." ur pant.>g"'n UtI! 11I""'ph)lSic. in so fM • thl!!)'all belong 10 the same horizon of modc:m teChnology. k w-..'\... .. th" ~ point is til. gr:up lite complicitr (in Hegeletc: 'specuiaw:l!! jdenut\"j betwe en Ihe "Iewtion above ontie =neenu and the passionate '<lnlie' :S~ poliLical ""at: e Rl. Hd.."r "p. .h" . ph"r wh. 11...xt as the 10 .. InUIli>.ic le. H... Th e Rill IA...hie h he.....1 .'p. r. which is wh~ Ih" phil'1liOphiral.In)' hi'll! p"hlish.""nd... man.· iI.u... .. ."ad . <. ecological. Heide gger did not engas" in th" S.-"Ihus ". LI.""nmis.inn· I 1>0.:ir .....<.... Heittq:. rd"d hy r.n.n... take ....!ably kat!< I<> error (.. f... bul Hc.

And it is !he same basic conceptual framework used 10 justify the domination of nonhuman DIIbm:: (and/or animals) by humans. 1995 <Earthcare Women and the Enyjroproent.cua.A/1/'j) ':£nV£ u: NiVfI? Carolyn Merchant.J2. f et9~ o Ilism are based on a tocioc:conomic analysis that treats narurc and human rwure as socially corwruacd. lesbian. )'OUlII. pg # at bottom of card> But my argument about conceptual connections between sexism and rumllisa~ argument C. fails to provide an anaIym of capitalism that explains why it dominates nature.lr ( fV' ((. class. and colonized peopIa.6-r/0f2£S /'ItA C1 I PI-! 0 t. {c.I cJ - r . Hassumes that women and mm •. Ft-I""'1I"/ Sri V .U7NIF z. iIf1d pder. Warren.oa) f. while asserting !he fragility and ~ of a1IUfe."1 rr S/7[S 00. Susan PmKic:e . r. of domination... It must liberate women from !be multiple oppRSSions that constiuue !heir geAdcred identities-oppressions based .. hI~.a1human ~ that transcends culture md socialization. If feminism is a movement to libenitc all women. African. rooted in . I f> .logi. class. Second. racism..£ c -. ageism. This :. (. The SIIII1C sort of ~g connects sexism wid!.. does nOr:itw here.: Up-Down rhinking •. B In contrast 10 cultural ecofeminism.1 ) -< w • . the social and socialist strand.w:efethniciry..UAt: I . iIUK:'~. affectional orientation. ik:catlll: ecofeminism lacks this amly!is.c. and ~.• have an essenti.g. Thus. geographic location .. age.oppositional value dualisms.- c. Professor at the University of California at Beridey.. wha. At the level of theory. and a rogic of domination. it does not deal with the problems of po'I'=rty and racism experienced by millions of women around !:he world.tcgy for change. n:ligion. poor. professor of philo sop by at Maca1ester College. classism. colonialism).1ed by ecofeminisrs as a process with itS own pUliculu history." It implies that~ ~~do the planet Is bad. Semitism.' physically and mentally chal'etaged •Jewish. there are good theoretical reasons for requiriDg that tht: projt'!cts of feminism be expwukd and reconceived to include the elimination of rul systelll. geographic location. 7/c 121/1/Cr- 7 {n'-.r women do is gt1Od. has its feminist critics. and colonialism. • systems of IIRjustiflcd domination (e. anti-Semitism.lll rdationship of women to narure lind politics makes it difficult to admit lhat men c:an also develop an ethic of caring for nature. bcterosexism. ability. or nationality..lin analysis or race. the rauon Ibis is stnUghtforward: HWomen" are while. ecoferninism.." Mo~ver.. 2000 < Ecofeminist Philosophy a Weatem Perspective on What it is and Why it Matters..s . thc reason Corlhis is also straigblforward: 'The conceptual ftamework used In justify the domination of bumans by I gender has five basic feahJMs.N 6- 0(1'12[5 S! oN All projects of feminism need to eliminate all systems of oppression Karen J.peci.{ ). pg # at bottom of card> Culrur21 ecofemirim.0 '1 I E LO . affcctional oricntatK:D. ArvtJ rre &-S S U.--/or"lI I r/£O.D F[ ('41 r/' ~n So C...c.. class. age. women of color.lIrgues dw ecofemlnilm. Indian. it cannot dewlap an effective stn.~ ceptions of power and privilege that systr:malically advantage Ups over DoWDS.r/) I WI . This is the same basic conceptual framework that is used 10 justify the domination of humans by raceJethnicity... "capitalism is never scnousIy txk. fI 'J.c". marital status. ablIity. At the h:Yd ef malcrial reality.

. Indeed..& f" ~zi irkcl~ j Biebl. who has criticized iftU"Ne W~ Iw..J. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. between the late 19th century and the first quarter of the aoe. to see how manv highly ideal" a eo leo whose views were infused with natural ise irn ulses were 1 elv intuitional drifts .~ irrJw..r &.£:... Where she sees Nazi ideology as identifying Jews with nature../ i~llore.JJt1. many ra tea romantics tume into reactionaries partly by mystifying nature and appealing to anti-rational impulses in support of their beliefs. social ecologist and Left-Green activist.....J6O\.. Baconian empiricism on the grounds that it lacks "self-reflectio:i. 1991 (Janet..-. vlilIdsch people and the Jews as cosmo-~litans.S .~ J. One has only to look at the German wandetvoge! movement.~. representing the Enlightenment an~ lac~8 a Volk.~ or f:ucJtf 1'14Jv~4/..k.. page number at end of card) <triffin."17 could benefit from a mor~ empirical study of recent German history.. the Nazis in fact ~ themselves as the natural. Sucll a gross misinterpretation of recent G8liiiin history mdicates that at irrational have provided estilenti ree in roun or raae LO as well as or romanticism.

But ecofeminism reneges on this historical ~ssion of opposition movements when it abjures coherence itself.Biehl. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics.fOutsidi) the best of that cuI tural le a . this lodges women basicall.ies democracy.. and tends to "become dogma. 1"5 separ-. Historicallv. leads to "polarization. of reason. but evanescence is now apparently in vogue--in a time when social movements have never been mare grimly in need of coherent explanations of social develoements today)'JO It - ~ttJJrt1~ t'eft'Us. It has not drawn on the best of previous social theory. far less can it explain the human social world.va a coherent ex lanatien of e social wor d. page number at end of card) <I cannot help but note again that if mythopoesis cannot explain the natural world. w as ia iti ovements emse v eu w a oes not regarn even the loss of the ecofeminist movementwith which she presumably identifies-as a tragedy. but instead works in a realm outSide it. ad the mystifications of hierarchies and ru 1ng c asses . W en we lose our rational critical faculties." It has not drawn on the best legacies of Western culture-and despite its many abuses. i regresslv Jar most thinking wom_!.n~ J~ '2 . For ecofeminist Lee Quinby.lm. far from being liberatory. is to a 'ure aBon ts8 and its project 0 attem tin to . For if women an nature are radically countsrposa to Western c_31ltw:1t: as many ecafeminists claim. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. ovemsnts have done this by formulating and articulating coherent theoretical understandings of social realities. being only a "provisional politics. Biehl. even rejecting it as "male" or "masculine. "15 But to abjure coherence in favor of an "interrogative made. social ecologist and Left-Green activist. page number at end of card) j a I 1 . it has been the resE£_nsibility of radical movements to offer an explanation of social realities that chaIts. ~ut recent scafp-minist literatu!!_ does not fulfill this promise at all. social ecologist and Left-Green activist. associated with a mystified notion of "natwe.e. 1991 (Janet. .&§!. 0.v.}. Western culture does have amancipatory legacies-but instead situates Wamen outside West· ern C1Iltm8 ahogetber.6M." It largely ignores or rejects le. j ~~cftiIA. ~V~ f"Jo~h1j r".. qf and t fi all v understa"'ldiIlg much of the natural world as part of aradic iberato movement." so ieal of postmodernism.lrff. 1991 (Janet." Not only incoherence. coherence itself is "totalizing.. It has thus become an ideato that..

e. ecofeminists enthusiastically begin tv embrace some of these sa roe psycho-biological I_J ~"> .~ beings. ~nlike other feminists. psycho-biological ecofeminists believe t.. it is in this that woman is most truly a child of nature and in this natural integrity lies t.n reproductive and sexual biology.ofeminism·s healthy impulse to reclaim Women's bioi~ ogv b. who tried tOffemoHs"1bgender stereotypes as insufferably constrai~ ing to wo~en's_Q_~l_£pl!!!. attributes in a uniquely genetic makeup..- . (emphasis added]' In fact. sucp. ~ut serious prpblems begin to arise when some ecofeminists come to !!Ward certain persqnality aspects of women as innate.hat~~:_ o~ng t.Jull_ h4m..~ey tend to give acceptance to those male~created images that define WOID!!n as primafITY biological beings.ie wellspring of her strength.. For Andree Collard.!n used tthem. to say that woman's reproductive biology is "the wellspring of her strength" is to deliver women over to the male stereot\7_~~ that root women's character structure entirely in their_]. for example. social ecologist and Left·Green activist.s.! a ...-iew that roots their parenting .l!!. Wben ecofeminists root women's personality traits i.iological being~ Nothing links the human animal and nature so profoundly as woman's reproductive system which enables her to share the experience of bringing forth and nourishing life with the rest of the living world. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. Indeed.S.O their biological makeup..!fll~ cons~reot~~of "women's nature" that have 10ngE. Whether or not she personally experiences biological mothering.Biehl.e. have an innately more "caring" and "nurturing" way of being th~'1.!!. page number at end of card) .~in many cases become an acceptance of some of thl!. 1991 (Janet.a.

." and in Christian culture. regarded women as "misbegotten" and defective. Ity..oS ( esMJ{If("S~) Ac:0r'te<. 1991 (Janet..s Biehl.e . 11 EUripides in a fragment savs that "woman is a more tembla thlngthan the violence of the raging sea. page number at end of card) <{]le fact is that Western associations of..>acitjes. To focus o_verwbalmingiy onwomen's "cari. J 5 . I~." PiatQ beli eved tha~ in the origin of the two sexes.~ 1lw AfSOCiA-h .trfo Dl1e or ~~ S/~ s~s rI£...D.<P'?b\ j S\lm. social ecologist and Left-Green activist." Aquinas. following Aristotle.. E~ofeminist im es of women...f~ . than the force of torrents. Ancient Roman law regarded women as having a "levity of mind. instead oi expanding the full range of women's human otentialities and abilities.J"rtll'l.. than the sweeping breath of fire. "the gateway to hell.'a Semonides del ivered a diatribe comparing what he saw as various types of women to various animals...J.!vomen with nonhuman nature--o closer to nonhuman nature than men-e-wers enormously ehasin 0 women. The association ·th nonb an fa or as beings closer to nonhuman natu e has thus been mmensel egra 1 or women. Ancient Greek culture excluded women om politicaillfe be~E!~eir_p~e~~:n.1 t.Jv.J . on earth come bact. J' t.d<s o.:d int~ ~nferiOrity: Aristotle wrrote that their logos or reason "~uthor.fii'action ."\y'eIUIl JheiiJi_fe. ontributin t untol ise in the lives of count ess women in Western culture> 16 .. reAd~ (~c.___!ir hUman horizons and ca.ihS' £. leati$1t> ~~~ ~. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. some feminists (who are not ecofeminists) have criticized ecofeminism and its closely associated cultural feminism for their . women resu It when men who do not c!2. page number at end of card) Qespite ecofeminism's allegedly "revoluuoaary" potential. Augustine saw women as "weaker.~t"IJft\. through transmigration of the soul as females. retain th -atrlarch tereot f wh t en expect women to be. . social ecologist and Left-Green activist.. Biehl. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics.L~4] &. these crttics correctly warn." Eve came to be seen as a temptress for her-role in the Fall-in the words of the Christian father Tertullian....:'). These stereotypes freeze women as merely ~aring and nurturing beings. 1m lications..g nature" as the source 0 ecologically necessary "values" easil leads to the 'on that women are to remain intuitive and discourages _them from exp~~I_!g__.. 1991 (Janet..fl w~ A.e. J:+ .- 7 .

and (. and military controlthings that some women..JI ~A'ft.c.. all Biehl. Rethinking Ecofeminist Politics. and this keeps them from exercising the full range of their human capacities for love..... social ecologist and Left·Green activist. We need not mystify this by attributing to male capitalists.es. page number at end of card) <Prototypical" or "archetypal" as the oppression of wom!_U may be.. It is true that.in their own rt ht. 1991 (Janet. homosexuals. no thinking person will seriously disagree iliat the liberation of women from the gender roles to which they have been confined holds the promise of Uberating men from gender roles as weil.. writes Prsn tics .Jt14nl. a.tJor''1b'l. trust.hey de this not for the ultimate purpose of dominating women ut for veO' dea!' reasons that reguire no psychoanalysis to explain.·. reasons. of male thinldng.. the claim that it underpins all later forms of oppression i~ sOCiety is even more difficult to substantiate today. it cannot be used to su lant the elaboration of dominati on into all di tferen t sp eres of social life..r. They usually stand to gain very distinct things. unprovable and inferred gender-derived neuroses.tJ. -uv1h "rp. Nazis wanted to kill Jews. such as material wealth. men aminate other meD.. let alone from radst s ' . and methods are much more mundane.. for example.. status. t. as a careful reading of any economic text will reveal.d ethnic 9 ressions-and sexism itself-have a "history. ~:r -. motivations. feminism promises liberation for men as well as women. thev used German women for their own purposes and even "glorified" them in pursuit of their ends.Mf. What they stand to gain is clear. des pite the obvious privileges that male domination gives men.. gender roles also confine males to stereotypical roles of their own. if76't Uf1\I'rt'/''''1. as. cooperauveaess. ~ill also free women-or men-from oppression under capitalism and the nation·state. Shedding roles that require males to be breadwinners or to suppress tender feelings would certainly be emanci patory for them.1 ~ g . CI'f." Their aims. but not women as such. as Susan Prentice..'1....tf." ecofeminism makes poll tical and economic systems simply derivath . have not been immune to wanting..f" . mh. statism. They are conscious projects in their own right. a critic of eco eminism..''') Men do not become capitaHsts because they are misogynists or emotionallv re ressed or be sa the are afraid of women's "8 emental power. and g}lPs."'. when one scans the r:omplex systems of oppression that afflict the entire landscape or society..JI'\ I~ic. andstrug81e" of their own. While the ecofeminist view that the domination of women is prototypical may be sound.s I e SiL' d... In these senses. vast state power."'-> SO-. "By locating the origin of the domination of women and nature in male consciousness.· - n . E'Vi!n as trie ~-"? dominate women.. and a nurturing emotional life in general. 10 'c. /. 10 be sure." " rd. S~tems of domination like capitaHsm. dJM. / But it is difficult to see baw freeing women from misogyny a . puts it. j~Rtfof tApi!r. too..ifN 1Ai<C.

. pause" Viewing thiS pro~leman~ s. It I~ the conclusion ') of environmental pragmansts that It IS time for environmental ethics if to consider some new positions in the field. the discipline has made 8igni6cant progress in the analysis of [he moral relationship between humanity and the non-human natural world.aclon. Thus methodological dogmatism may account for the failure of ~~ron~en~1 ethics !n real." in Environmental Pragmatism.J. The small Set of acceptable approaches to • environmental ethics may be inapplicable to the development of an _. this unifi~d ~sion ~o effect prac~ica! pol~cy s~o~ld give us furt~cr t~f ~ ~. The field has produced a wide variety of positions and theories I in an attempt to derive morally justifiable and adequate: environmental policies. activists and poIicy-rna:kt:rs.. The intramural debates of environmental philosophers.lJTNIF 2003 P:iP-{CI) ~ ?P c/I.l ethics are. On the one: hand..L.like Hume's Trtatiu. appan:ndy. 1996 [Andrew and Eric.. .• ether possible sou rccs and foundations for a truly moral environ men> talism. 3] [Given the relative youth of environmental philosophy as a recognizable discipline in its own right..m of practical affairs] me . direction for the further development of the field. The failure of "'''. p." in Ettvironmentai Pragmatism. provocative and complex. inert . it is surely odd that the ~m~uniry of scholars has agr«d.bo~n !r?m the press. to reassess its direction. "Introduction: Environmental pragmatism and environmental ethics as contested terrain. p.. Research fellow at Environmental Health Program and Director of Science. nearly completely. on the right . seem to have no real impact on the ddibcrations of environmental scientists.. " acceptable envitonmental policy . it is difficult to sec what practical effect the field of environmental ethics has had on [he formation of environmental policy. although intereSting. .uu.'. The ideas within environmenu.~ -«. On the other hand. they faJi dead.it may be necessary to explore ~!~ . DOGMATIC ECOLOGICAL CRITICISM PREVENTS THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF ANY AL~ATIVES Licht and Katz.~"'-.. 11 ~ environmental ethics approaches in third decade it is faced with' a curious problem. Technology and Society program atNJ Institute of Technology. "Introduction: Environmental pragmatism and environmental ethics as contested terrain. Aff Kritiks RADICAL ECOLOGY CRITIQUES HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE REAL WORLD Light and Katz. Research fellow at Environmental Health Program and Director of Science. Techno logy and Society program at NJ Institute of Technology. and more importantly. [WOO'- _'_I . 1996 [Andrew and Eric.

tcr the measurers.• "Pragmatism and Environmental Thought.. ~ ... their advocates. _ Many other entities indeed have experience and do value things. the human yardstick. ·anduopometric")24in one respect: the humanorpnism is inevitably du~onc that diSCUS$CS value.atism is "anthropocentric" (or bener.and chese spokespersons.:h_ TOTAL REJECTIoN OF ANTHROPOCENTRISM IS SILLY .. ') ~ growth forests are unable to enter the ethics debate except through .. is the only ching we /mow II humans. of experience '0/ becomes. after all. from their experience_ We can in some sense MAr their Yoicc::s.UTNIF 2003 Ar7rf1ltJ ~ III : AffKritiks _f_! --.)~ is nor inappropriate .r ~i all our deliberations about environmental issues.. Pragm. the debate centers almost exclusively .. We an and should 'l... Icast htwe spokespersons .. and old. Sfon human threats to the world. page 33] I Ihave spoken of the experience of organisms--in-cnvironments as ~uaJ.. but we •. sported owls. ed.. . they do at .... This must be a &.. I sec no way OUt of our own distinctively " . ~ human bodies.. e .-. 199' [Kelly A . Although the debate ('. Philosophy and Liberal Studies Programs at Grand Valley State U. over environmental issues is thus limited to human participants.-~ only that humaru are in f.. It is..hac is perhaps regrettable. the only 'Nay to goj "J"'\ ..cror in . need to communicate chei. the rneasure of aU things.~ apeak on the others' behalf when appropriate. Wolves.U..after all." in Environmental Pragmatism. c:annot speak in mcir voices. chis .HUMAN-CENTEREDNESS CAN BE USED TO SOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL CRIS.ES IS INEVITABLE AND Parker..f concerns only to other humans. and . their human spokespersons. This is so because human experience...ly important. In this sense..._.''''''''_ Again. ""1\.. To do this in anthm£!c value categories is not shameful. Light and Katz. but we cannot speak . [he human perspective on value.. by defauJt. this is not to say that human whim is the mcuule of all things.. Far r: better that they mouJd speak for themselves! lacking this.

But in actual practice this scyle is only careful.. THE CRITIQUE IS A SELF-FULFILLlNG PROPHECY: IT OVER-DETERMINES ANTIiROPOCENTRISM SO THAT IT rvlAKES POSSIBLE AL TERNA T1VE WORLDVIEWS IMPOSSIBLE Weston. . neutral. Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College. "Before Environmental Ethics. critical in certain directions. perforce.. then we may begin to wondcr whether the project of transcending culture: in ethical thought is.ramer than.." Environmental Pragmatism. .r~ be no more chan what the careful.. the argument JUSt offered also points towards a much more: funda· ". one upon which very large questions of method . example. for the project of going beyond amhropocc:ntrism still looks wild. . theories that are not so easily seduced by intrinsic .. still dominates our energies.." Environmental Pragmatism..."'"' centrism still fills the screen. more imaginative exploration ~ . is almOSt never scrutinized in the same way... "Before Environmental Ethics. it JUSt fa rms parr a f the "neutral" background: it seems to -. page 143] [The conclusion of the argument so far might only seem to be that we need better non-anthropocentrisms: theories that rethink Taylor's basic question. and SO on." t anrhropocenrrism stilt. for another example.~_ anything tliffrrmt. ..... Many of our philosophical colleagues have developed a careful..... Thus it is the slow excavation and the logicaJ "n:futation" of anthro'_..:"" ~ depend.( ' •... . '""""'>. taking it to be more lila: a kind efloveless.'10..nd up in its orbit.. howner.-.0 b-. occupy our time .. It is not possible to surest ..~t. Although such theories would be useful changes. . ed.... If the most rieorous and sustained attempts [0 transcend ":. Perhaps ethics requires a very different sclf~conc:c:ptio. ed.a psychological exploration -::~ ":f ~ of an thropoccntrism itself. ~ .. for one 1. ~ Apparently. Light and Katz..y '!.of) ~-?'::'.".. . of other possibilities.~ A NON·ANTHROPOCENTRIC ElHICS THAT IGNORES ITS OWN HUMAN-t:ENTEREDNESS WILL NEVER WORK Weston.' . .'\ l'~:: #~. workable Ilt IlI1.. centrism itself.. less fearful of the disapproval of the guardians of ''''to.". .. It delimits ~_.. neutral. 1996 [Anthony.z.o.. •~f Reason... or. critical thin~er can pmuppose. Phllosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College. Anthropo. ~ what is "realistic" because in many ways it determines what "reality" G itsdfisJ ''''1 .• pocentrism that. ness or blindness than a serious philosophic:a._: values.. in fact..l position. Anthropo'.. 1996 [Anthony. profoundly shaped by the thought and practices of the anthropoccntriu:d culture wit~in which they arise. incautious. critical style as a point of pride.'....® ~tP'11~ U1NIF 2003 AffKritiks _j_/ .~ . mental conclusion. intellectually overexcited. page 143] [Something similar occurs in philosophical contexts. a much less encumbered. Light and Katz.

rism. ~ics bCil _. Despite the I =. the field has much to ofTer.m:.enVIronmental environmental policy? We believe that the answer is yes. ::. 5 ENVIRONMENTAL THEORIZING PREVENTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENViRONMENTAL ETHICS: PRACTICAL POLICIES ARE NECESSARY._ (W'Je have to get along rttJ. pr [0 §ieve wued Dlj~O!DD =.:-:. history and skills of philo.Andrew Lig~ Pf.k . to the formulation of a new basis for the rCISIeAment of our prac:tice through a more general pragmatist methodology. !22§. ed. I . ~"-. (l~@ resrfutlon ~V1kiCe@prowa: .:.. . environmen.. Philosophy @ University of Alberta.iI:ected. From the perspectM: of environmental pragrna. 71+1 C. environmental pragmatism is the open-ended ~uiry into the specific real-life problems ofbumanity's relationship With the environment.! Eric ~ Pf.. Environmental PhilosoPIif@ New Jersey Institute of Technology. ) - / un philOiOjifte:rs COQtribu~ lUlythi"t to an investigation 'of environmental problems? Do che Uaclitions. :::n -==-aLa paca c:Jf~ m :min ¢ . In . The new posicion ranges from atgumCtltl for an environmental philosophy informed by the lepcy of classlcal Amcricm pragmatist philosophy. to in M' _ are must devdo:p for iuclf a methodology ~ 1ftiS collCCtion is an attempt to bring rogcthcr in one place the broad ranae of positions encompassed by calls for an environmental pragmacism.R ~ .its of this ~hilO5oPhicaI en~risc must he d. an 1'aai ~ 'ft" aspire thcoJYWilL~me a fonnftl@emcmY#OD'd-"_' 10 cSipgW41iilt1Cg!tV . p. For us... towardsd.ophical thought have :any Rlennc:e to the development of problematic (and. praaiC:a1 task? ' .. But the &u. TD i.C A/J2fy!!! • no!__ ia*t= u m.neffcauaI) statuS of environmental ethics as a pr:ac:tical discipline. we can rctum to our question: has environmental ethics &iled to devd ._~~~. heretofore. Katz and Light. . CEnyironmental PragmatWn. i.

"How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic.. is inadequate.. but it cannot be maintained.f." Environmental Pragmatism.anisms to the largesl" degree consistent with this goaf. Light and Katz.. owl in terms of their promotion of or hum [0 human wd&.~('". property of situacions as long as and whenever there are sentient . We must make judgmenu which provide prorection for the welfare of humans.'fr •e . Yet this does not mean that humans can ignore the value conteXtS ot sentient organisms within nature. t .0:' tV ". ..UTNIF 2003 . Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola. environment CORtexts in-creases with me increased capacity of ' •• _. Yet '"~ .-the organism to experience in conscious and self-conscious ways. Value il an emergent eoneextual ".:anism of humans and the AIDS virus to an implemenwion of such theory in practice. yet such judgments must consider the value laden contexts involving other sentient ore.'~"which..r~«. In faCt. "": . 1996 [David and Rogene. 11.':.) ""f.. i""'/'Io~"'" Aff Kritiks _}_/_£ BIOCENTRISM [S REDUcnONIST AND IMPRACTICAL •... for it fails to caprure the radical conceptual shift : .._.. yet the value-level emergent in organism. organisms experiencing. The biological egalitarianism ofbiocemrism can perhaps be thought coI15iscentiy. pages 44-45] lIt may be objected that the above evaluation of me relative merirs of the AIDS virus: and spotted.'~ .... Surely one is ~ not willing to move from the theoretical eg:ditari. .'. 4.re is a re-emergence of me anrhropocenrrism me denied above. It is not the case that all value is such only in relation to humans. < ~. but even this ~.. To do so is not to evaluate in terms of conflicting claims but to aploit through cgoccrnric disregard for the valuings of other organisms. This objc:aion... h~.. I~ • ~ . in making the conjunction. ed.~ v:?- •• ~. There is no -all or none" involved. changes the original extremes of ~.If/. relation 1"0 the welfare of humans.-. me positions brought together.._. "both-and" is closer to the position intended. neither is it the case: that all value has equal claim irrespective of iu 1 '_. I\. in practice... to CUt comes from a failure adequately beneath the "either-or" of anthropocentrismlbioc:c:nmsm... WE MUST-[NSTEAD ADOPT A HOLISTIC PRAOMATIC APPROACH TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Rosenthal and Buchholz.

is an en!_il'_C)nmentai ethics) . 1996 [David and Rogene. nor can humans be denaturalized. It allows one to "rise above" the divisiveness we impose through arbitrary and illusory in-group/out-group distinctions by "delving beneath" to me sense of the possibilities of a deep-seated harmonizing of the self with the totality of the conditions to which it relates." Environmental Pragmatism. Nature cannot be dehumanized. Dewey's understanding of experiencing the world religiously provides ultimate conten within which pragmatic: ethics muse be located. no snuanon or context IS oUbide the reaches of moral concern.for human enrichment.. not JUSt in tel'I1I5 of long ran~ vs. for their emphasis on 6uch I f' ~' continuity reveals that 2t no time can we separate ow developing selves from any pan: of universe and claim that it is irrekwnt. this involves me entire univcne. ed.. Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans 'and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola. page 43) an experience brings about not a change in the intellect alone. Pragmatic ethics. for aU the pragmatists. While every situa• ••I •• • • non or context IS an some sense umqee. shon range and conceiv:abJe vs. to increase the experience of value is not [0 increase something subjective or within 1. me Further. properly understeed. has to be expanded. "How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic.J me . Light and Katz. but a change in moral consciousness. Humans exist within and are part of nature. they cchibit themselves.yet the properties attributed to individuals arc: not possessed by them independently of the inte~ions in which. The understanding of "human interests: of what is vaiuCltbk. And. actual. non-human. but to increase the value Iadenness of relanonal contexts within nature. Indeed. but in terms of a greatly extended notion of hu. and inorganic that make up the biosphere .UTNIF 2003 c·'jR& ~£1H1('1 AffKritiks _!j_/ _. while environmentalists may seek to describe -objeccive" me '#-' i¥' ~' relationships among interacting individua4 .human..man intt:R:St or human welfare. and any pan of nature provides a conceivable relational context for the emergence of value. organic.f2_ ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN ETHICAL RELA TlONSHIP WITIl THE WORLD THAT IS NOT BASED ON DOMINATION AND FOSTERS A STRONG RELAnONSHIP OF RESPEcr BETWEEN HUMANS ~NDNATURE Rosenthal and Buehhojz.&&.

r: ._ A: "'..r)o.. Yet. within the above: framework. vs.'" 4. which in rum becomes a means to somethin~ funher. involves consequences and is therefore instrumental in bringing about something further.ffiNTAL PRAGMATISM DOES NOT INSTRUMENTALIZE THE ENVIRONMENT-IT BREAKS DOWN DOGMA TIC BINARIES AND APPLlES A MUL TITlJDE OF AL TERNA TIVES TO ANY SITUA TION Rosenthal and Buchholz.. but ramer there is an ongoing continuity in which the character of the means enters into the qualirr of the end. s: me ~ '" ... Thus Dewey holds that no means-end distinction can be made... ~ ".#f{ MI"'~ AffKritiks _LI . ~ "'~""'!r . At no point can pragmatic ethics draw the line between human welfare and the welfare: of the: environment of which it is :I part. Light and Katz.z ENVIRONfo. 1996 [David and Rogene.. incrinsic value: is wrong· headed from the start. then no rc:al environmental ethic is possible.t 14' "- me . the entire: debate concc:ming instrumental." 9' .. as well as any aspect of the context within which it emerges. page 45] fine problem is not d~t environments are ultimately valuable in their actual or potential relational contexts of emergent value.. and any value. Here it may be objeceed that to value nonsentient nature in terms of its potentiality for yielding valuing experiences is to say that it has merely instrumental value." Environmental Pragmatism. • 'tl.. and if nature ts merely an instrument. Everything that can conceivably enter into experience has potential for being a relational aspect of the conJeXt within which value emerges. . Professor of Philosophy at Loyola University of New Orleans and Professor of Business Ethics at Loyola. ed. 1~ . "How Pragmatism Is an Environmental Ethic. but that valuings and valuable environments whim allow for them are taken far tOO narrowiy...UTNIF 2003 (L.. '"'4..

though.a subtle enough difference: at first jlancc. a kind of "ecology~ of values.. ed. etc. pragmatism rakes valuing to be a certain kind of desiring. At the: same time. ~ -. ."' v-."-& Pragmatism is a. ere. subject-centrism.. our actual values can be much more complo: and world-dircc:tc:d.sm offen. ~.UTNIF2003 @df""1lfflP Aff Kritiks __£_I _6_ ENVIRONMENTAL PRAGMATISM OFFERS AN ECOLOGY Of VALUES THAT CAN QUIDE ACTION WITHOUT ANTHROPOCENTRlSM Westea. so to say. The problem is not to devise still more imaginative or exotic . metaphorically at least. but in fact a radical shift in philosophic:a1perspectiveJ. which on other occasions reinforce it. 1996 (Anthony. beliefs. perhaps. ~I_' ". I .. True.n beings mWE be the: sole or final objects of . subjectS. every value is open to critical challenge and change. because. and possibly only human beings desire in this way. necessarily anthropocentric. in which many different kinds of value..~. can be recogniud as serious and deep wirhoutrcquiring further reduction to some single all end in itself. but rather to sin1ate them in their supporting contexts and to adjudicate their conflicts with otheD . not follow that hurn .. pragmatists would say." "'I i . which hold It in place in the larger system. Evcn if only human beings value in this '. possibly only of human subjects . Philosophy and Interdisciplinary Studies at Elon College. We:are rhus left with a plurality of concrete values. offers a th.~ .. beliefs.it makes wluing an activity of charge of anrhropccenerism should not detain us. Philosllphical pragmatism." in Environmental Pragmatism. and exemplars: p~ti. "Beyond Intrinsic Value: Pragmatismin environmental ethics. choices.. I argue that the truth is closer to the reverse: only these starting points may make a workable environmental ethic '-. But neither ef ehese starting poinu rules out a genuine environmental ethic. Light and Katz. because each value is also at slAke precisely with those related values. In popular usage that connotation is certainly common. Subjectivism docs not imply.form of subjectivism . possible.-~"l: valuation. _'.eory of values which is by no mean committed to that crude anrhrcpocenrrism. a value can draw upon those other values...~(.. human-centered inserumeneahsm. One 1-. ... . .waifications for environmental values.but subjectivism is not . The notion of fixed ends is replaced by a picture of values dynamically inte:rdc:pending with other values and with beliefs. [r~.. when put to question. or indeed CD any anthropocenrrism at all. and consequently rejects the notion of fixed. however. True.e. Values so conceived are rC5ilient under suess. pages 285-286] rPragmatism~ sounds like just what environmental ethics is against: "Shortsighted. it does not follow that only human beings h4wvaluci it does ._ ~ sense. And there is every reason to think that respect for other life forms and concern for natural environments are among those values. and many diffctc:nt sources of value. pl'3gttlatism rejects the mean-ends clistinction. " E. final ends objectively grounding the entire field of human striving.'_:. We do not need to grtIunJ these values. Pragmatism insists most centrally on the inrnnlatd1lrJs of oui values.

.\ en". ..>'-' ~ argue mat me mom force of en .1 ~mics has been NllnowccI.uon.nB bridges.... . a dilemma dw lies. pages 106-107] [!he thesis of [his ". Ind opportunities lOr build.'.. ( envi I1lDmcntal value turn OUt ro be.'_. very u the range of topiu... CDtircly instrumcnrai 10 hum"n objectives. wi!!. 1996 [Bryan G" "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to environmental values.' : ~ ~vice by providing dear mm~t c1inaiva: ~ing diffic:ult t ind contRMniai Pf"bItnu in cnYUUtlmeaw planning and. nOI dependent on human v. open for dUawion in..1 cth.'_ on the monistic apprQ...t the '.pi of setlUn.... and adVOQlte5 of amibutinll inherenr value: to non-burnaO$ _ who ..1 mlll'l~cd milsion."per is [hat the . aueumcnt of the alntriburion of environrntnW crhlcs 10 en . .v. . point and the associ:u:ed pi of developing a universal mor?1 theory applicable in all cues is incvirab. Light & Katz. .t it means to have AId.t ha"." Environmental Pragmatism.riud minking t~ . I belicYc. own" .:b_ / "'2_ BAD ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES ARISE AS A RESULT'OF THE KRITIK'S FALSE AND ONE-SIDED ALTERNATIVE Norton. ... Most panicipanu in th~ disclllliions have JUb...(d AffKritiks -. _. unqUCRioned bY ii"eodll55. .cribcd to a eruci..ic:d wdhR economists _ who ~Iiev.rnnmenr:al cthicisu bct:n ablt to offi:r usc:fuI practica1 . mUSt \ " .lodted environmental crhiw!5 infO a par:al. ~ V" Nor ..alu. ~ pm:dClt-Orienud diliiplines mtve been m Another ~ hu been 10 dllfinc an often u. a .rfA'. Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech..id . by ulUlvoicbble in&renca...inci pies derive from Ihe m01':l1coruidetibility or Rarural ob~ct.U rieus i.ue go:-ncratcd. J Could it be Ihar me pol ..lt theory.h solution s to spcci fie mor:al '1uandaries '1".uni~ed.". The adoption of die monuric vicw."""1 ..'. The lard! ~~.· One pncric:al dfea of the moniltic UlUmpDon. value.." Environmental Pragmatism'.l rhar th is IXiologica I i pproach reses on an :assumption that it. _ ale unyieldingly . . {he theory of ~nvi mnmental valwltion: eimer the value of tlINft: i:5 . ironmcMai !". Light & Katz. miuion thlnns formulated under a _ of qrinemoIClllc:al . thll all v"lue i. Professor of Phi losophy at Georgia Tech.m " .. . c!tprtlliblc i" units ofindi .. or wh3... propem:d toWards any coftSensus rcprding what . All • .. f! \ and monl Ulumptions harks back 10 Descartes a~ Newto~. ocher.ly ~rcduaionistic.w valbtS has ~ t ... I'Ic:ut of 111m! dUcUilions or environmental values..\ .· Bccauac 211valu . !6 n.. lOr 1 -Holy Grair of uninal theory in environmen. 1111 w. management. l'hiJlharcd assumption of moni:5m has.dfarc.' which arc e~pe:rienced in multiple modes and contexrs.~": menm policy in if$ fin! I.. analytic VCrDiQllar in wh i. cn_Wen~a. from i sinpe chcury.ungdilemma.. '~ ·1 -or mrccd rftcmD ~ men: THE CRITIQUE CANNOT OFFER PRACTICAL ADVICE AND ASKS US TO ALIENATE OURSELVES FROM ACTION Norton..~ moni&ric in thcir approm .. •. common m both sides in what hu hcc:ame a polarized debate': bom neoclK. ed. environmental cthidn.. .' rnitufC is what objects tuvc il-.: ~. .leh be accounted for under" sinr. ·_i . monistic: theory of environment. thaI .ai OIlternadon in .Ihe basic strategy mUSI be til reduce aU moral CQnccrnlto ~ unified \. 1996 [Bryan G.. ed.s n:pfeKnl$ . or demenl$ of nilurc havc i -good of mei..nhereftl value 'Il ':'. alike.. page 1061 CWh at . be only on~ kind of IJ{. human .nhelpful role lOt envicorunenral a:haam to environmental palier debalelj .. r paralyus environmental policy today ~su"s &o~ a1~~nativd: upon us by me _umption..WO dccado::s is IIXOrdinpy bleak.. "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to environmental values. ' .. that whatever the units .aiuarionl..$ <.UTNIF 2003 W.al economim and by m"'t of tbclr OpPOncnu amonr.

.. as conttaSted with their role as policy norms] . rhe possible ... policy.fr v.~. O:'-. ~ ...l' improved unless dialogue OCCurs on the nCCC$Suy characteristics of . use of economics on this subject... ~ Either approach results in a too narrow a view of policy-making. ed. . (" ~.....~01!. A$ an economist I have been concerned by the tendency of ~' some non-economists [0 reject._.. .. Professor in the University Graduate Faculty of Economics at Oregon State.~ interdisciplinary communication on problems of natural resource . philosophical underpinnings of our discipline. disturbed by the unwillingness of many economists to consider the "'""'.~- i '_ ... page 231 J ":'. G have become increaSingly distressed in recent years by the lack of .. I have concluded mat the situation described above will not be :~r'.""t @ AffKritiks _J_/-+- CRITICS AND POLfCY·MAKERS SHOULD ENGAGE IN DIALOGUE OVER THE FUTURE Of' RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Castle. '\: Rq>rescntatives of other disciplines probably have similar concerns. Only in the light of such a ..... III .UTNIF 2003 1>11~d..... . ...." in Environmental Pragmatism. Pragmatic and Evolutionary Approach to Natural Resource Management. often been either the rejection of economics or its rigid application. Tht consequence: has .. a public policy for natural resources.:. 1996 [Emery N. seemingly out of hand... dialogue CUl we understand the norms and values inherenr in particular '» scientific disciplines.... If these norms and values are brought into the open we can better evaluate their contribution as scientific constructs. "A Pluralistic... Light and Katz. At the same time I have been -.

cltl7. Most uf those j_ decisions are made by industry and government.must a. for the Jower standard. about what to produce and how to produce it.. the mid 19805 the Reagan administration lowered the -:lUlomobilc fuet-eflk:iency goal adopteu during the 1970s energy crisis. perhaps pill.~ where the dect_~. Consider. w There i('. is an imJictment not of consumers but of our system of c:cunomic decision making' and accountability. it would have atkled a 5trOng argument 21fo11nn eapons programs.ens did not have the Opportunity to knowingly acquiesce to the contamination. however. Uowcvcr. undergrl)ulldllquifcffl pumped dry. This is the notion rhae anonymous.wHI Note that there are no actors or decision makers in this description.lh the final ngures are not yet in.. "3d it been known.ars of their communities. factCKi~ have dumped tuxic wastes into rivers and streams. \ Thr co."ted their goVernment and certainly it is doing their will.. It may be :ugt.:s hlwe guzzled Irreplace::able fossil fuels and fouled the air .~ .. that in. Coleman. [here arc not even any people..efliciem cars. perhaps inevitable... The choice :l left to the consumer Is often tittle more than a seleenon from among environmentally destructive altematlves:. In fact. Su<:h decilliun making. a flip side to the "consumer choice/we're all responsiblc~ fallacy. An effective response to the environmental crisi. sian making occurs that leads to the pollution. automobile. each of the dcstructive situatinns dt'1\Crihl"t!hy Time was caused by indlJ$lries whose managers made decl5ions. 1l\e extent of radioactive contamination in nuclear WClIIpun!i fat. Time. since for years informali"n ahout it W:lS kept secret.led that citizens supported the nuclear weapons program throughout the cold war period and thereby accepted responsibility for the ecological COnsequences. they would not moderate their position. ~-\"I.o.. seeking to lncrease the prosperity of (heir firm ami by implication the prosperity of society. even thouJ.ifiti~ is already notorious. forests have been denuded. smokestacks have dl'igorgcd noxiou..s gases Intn the ::atmosphefC. The notion that we're all responsible places the grandmother driving to church on an equal footing with Exxon. again In the "Planer of the Yc:ar Issue. ItS they always do..t "' . lakes polsoned with pesticides. tl'J::>'" '~""II""'"". provides us with an example of this viewpoint: ·Stattlng at the dawn of thelndustrial Revolution. It was the: automobile manufacturers and tru= oil companies that lobbied. These decision makers are educated and weD Plid. \ IJ C-~J:~\> Daniel A. ofren the result of careful cost-benefit anal~e5. '" l W . forces lead to environmental ills.rsc:. Ecopolitics: Building A Green Society. Founder of the North Carolina Green Movement and Founder oime Prism. 192:!. the Ci)mmon counterargument to this is that the American people elc(. Even in the WlIke of the Persian Gulf war. that perhaps no nne is responSible. However. p. This action was not the result of dtizc:ns writing to the government calling for (eM.

lH question to' .. it needs a presence. Thgse focused on finding I cyre for the problem almost al!nn complain that existina organizations. McManus: "Yes./. Ocean Development & Intemational Law. and trusted procedure. But eyen II' the actions of a fannal transnallonal olllanjzation fiil to meet stringent tests of effectiveness these actions usually have advanced the struggle.J ~Lt ?rcJfl. we have laws relating to fisberiet.· This is also true . School of International Relations.re aM Whaling Commission (!We) with Its obligatory groctdu . 2000 (Robert..nt " challenge.. This is a muCh more diffiO. actions ttlat can be shown on television. when we consider how much more dHfiCYIt II Is to achieve sustainable outcomes at the n:aiOOII Of international level nut . tb. The creation of an organization with structulll. While Oran Young's preliminary Judgment of a "miXed picture~ is conect. which is In the sepond phase of ils work and adjusting jts trade ban lists to reward good IctOrs. authority and enforcement powers will be used properly: and Q) the organization will succeed in solvjOa the problem far which It was established. IJacislons do not m1!kethemsetves. Dr. Begime.. What dlHlree of success the Intemational Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (lCRW) has achieytd Ciln be attributed to the machinery of the Intemat~J'lal . Jan-Juri.4 L 7 (0/ (nO"" [( rt£()(.f the Convention gn International Trade in Endangered Spades (CITES)... answer. University of Southern California.J/. and the "hooks" it has tnto the dgmJWjcpp!IMcii Pf!be Un1ted Stales via the work of preservatignist NGOa. and resources is a necessary but not sufficient conclition fer success In soMng a trans-boun<18"1 problam. cadre gf pepple I'Hponslbl. Academic SearCh Elite) It also seems that a locus of action js needed. now regimes. protected spedes etc.'331 It is difficult to be veN sympathetic with Mr McManus. to avoid the problem of paying haavytransaciion -COstS In stringing a collective choice only to find ttlal the problem has Changed. as welt as punish bad actors. This is true Of the North American Free Tracie Agreement (NAFTA) through its Commission for Envirorvnental Cooperation headquartered in Montreal. people taking actions according te a known. In short.171 () _. the stronger regimes wilt have adequate machinery for the performance of their mandated tasks. the director. people. While one ca9judge that the 1n1er-AmariCan Tropical Tuna Commiss1qn has succeedtld because of astute entrepreneurial leadership. national and transnatipnaL achieve onlv Dartial or Insufficient success. Witness the resppnseOf' Roger E. Resources to6perate the macblnerY aM tOni_Dilig!!! ~supeNision of jmplementatioD are also needed. we need regimes that can accommodate learning. for Implementing what has bji.. In short.//£ tJ7/rL TH[ If r/v I/V""1 [(2 . decision-making procedures. @ even If conveyed. 7 FREIDHEIM.i I f2 C) 1M (Lc-t1irJ1A-710.. one that Is viSible. ull'H follow-through.~ 7A-7 [ 70 of [Alv/(2o". James Joseph' muSt haye an 'organiZation Icrlead. and problem solVing . wgrkbHt If is a fortlrtffor decision a. navjgatlon. and they are rarely inplemented gr enforced to their Mest eaRadty. tbe authorities af! usyally jrijdegyate to tbe mlnagem.eD dliddet!. who bas mqstly bean concemed with domestic enyjrgnmentat problems. we $hould not ovetlook the broad observatiOn that effective reginas need an organization.~ and many other environmental and nonenvlronmental international If I have assessed the elements of effectiveness correctly. SucCess for the Long-Range' Treaty on Air ponutiOn can partly be daimad because ofthe role of the European Union in mobilizing Its members to fight regional pollution. it would be preferable If the decision system eases the way to adjusting commitments. Canada.. Establishment of a formal organization is no guarantee that (1) sufficient authority and enforcement powers will be conveyed. one that has live people Interacting. and _ need to get to the second level of analysis in looking for the factors that provide more refined explanations of outcome. But mpre than cosmetics are needed' machjnerv to aciually manage and implement decisions is needed. familiar. Finally. The question is how well it succeeded compared to the alternatives.. minerals.

_\ ...i: AND SUSTAINABILITY IN ORDER TO Aff'Kritiks EeO-CRITIQUE SHOULD FOCUS ON RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MAKE ITSELF ACCESSIBLE TO POLICY-MAKING NortoD.UTNIF 2003 '-!.. Professor of Philosophy at Georgia Tech.) does not follow that it is the only." damagi ng SO that fUture generatioos can enjoy the bounties of intact I.we have a basis w:i. moral principles so that they can assert the priority of their goals I': t. it seems likely that environmentalists will achieve more by appealing to the relatively non-controversial and intuitive idea that me usc of natural rcsourCC$implies an obligation to protect them for future usersMi. '. . . ('~"~ ecological communities . "Integration or Reduction: Two approaches to env ironmental values. But these _'. apparently.a suseainabiliey theory based in ineergeneraeioeal equity .• ' .tct that such value might be sufficimt [0 shift the burden of proof. if it can be shown to exist.rramedly [0 assert ~.. means available to :/)... then it would shift the burden of proof in environmental arguments from environmentaJ protectors eo me dcspoilersY But from the F.. \ ..jJt.~.~ LIf of .. i' over the mere preferences of the consumer society. pages 121-122 J we focus for a moment on the problem warranted assercibiliry of environmentalists' goals. 1996 [Bryan G." Environmental Pragmatism. ed.such as an obhgaricn [0 .mended in a monistic non-anthropocentrism.:\. ~' . As long as we can . ~. • sustain [he integrity and health of the er:ological systems we arc now \..:( The epistemological problem is that environmentalists need to be ~. I-' obligations to protect biodiversity over many generations.... .\ .rather [han exotic appeals to hitherto unnoriced inherent values in nature... assert otkr morally binding obljgations . able to enter the public arena armed with genuine and defensible II \.' I' by these len controversial obligations would lead to most of the environmental protections favored by inherent value cheorisr. it ~fl .(:tJ t?:. even though abiding .. _ environmentalists to shift the burden.f obligations arc anthropoantric and cannot.. Light & Katz. . nor the best. "1'"1 7 _'_I .. be compte. Callicott argues it is an advantage of intrinsic value in nature that.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times