Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Browse by:



Displaying: 1-10 of 10 documents


news and notes

1. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

features

2. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Michael E. Zimmerman

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Recent disclosures regarding the relationship between Heidegger’s thought and his own version of National Socialism have led me to rethink my earlier efforts to portray Heidegger as a forerunner of deep ecology. His political problems have provided ammunition for critics, such as Murray Bookchin, who regard deep ecology as a reactionary movement. In this essay, I argue that, despite some similarities, Heidegger’s thought and deep ecology are in many ways incompatible, in part because deep ecologists—in spite of their criticism of the ecologically destructive character of technological modernity—generally support a “progressive” idea of human evolution.
3. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Ariel Salleh

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
While both ecofeminism and deep ecology share a commitment to overcoming the conventional division between humanity and nature, a major difference between the two is that deep ecology brings little social analysis to its environmental ethic. I argue that there are ideological reasons for this difference. Applying a sociology of knowledge and discourse analysis to deep ecological texts to uncover these reasons, I conclude that deep ecology is constrained by political attitudes meaningful to white-male, middle-class professionals whose thought is not grounded in the labor of daily maintenance and survival. At a micro-political level, this masculinist orientation is revealed by an armory of defensive discursive strategies and techniques used in deep ecological responses to ecofeminist criticism.

discussion papers

4. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Michael P. Nelson

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Janna Thompson dismisses environmental ethics primarily because it does not meet her criteria for ethics: consistency, non-vacuity, and decidability. In place of a more expansive environmental ethic, she proposes to limit moral considerability to beings with a “point of view.” I contend, first, that a point-of-view centered ethic is unacceptable not only because it fails to meet the tests of her own and other criteria,but also because it is precisely the type of ethic that has contributed to our current environmental dilemmas. Second, I argue that the holistic, ecocentric land ethic of Aldo Leopold, as developed by J. Baird Callicott, an environmental ethic that Thompson never considers, nicely meets Thompson’s criteria for acceptable ethics, and may indeed be the cure for our environmental woes.
5. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Geoffrey B. Frasz

abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In this essay, I first extend the insights of virtue ethics into environmental ethics and examine the possible dangers of this approach. Second, I analyze some qualities of character that an environmentally virtuous person must possess. Third, I evaluate “humility” as an environmental virtue, specifically, the position of Thomas E. Hill, Jr. I conclude that Hill’s conception of “proper” humility can be more adequatelyexplicated by associating it with another virtue, environmental “openness.”

book reviews

6. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Kenneth Maly

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
7. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Gary E. Varner

view |  rights & permissions | cited by
8. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Ron Erickson

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

news and notes

9. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3

view |  rights & permissions | cited by

comment

10. Environmental Ethics: Volume > 15 > Issue: 3
Carl D. Esbjornson

view |  rights & permissions | cited by