David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 22 (1):85-99 (2000)
One of the most distinguishing features of environmental ethics has been the effort to develop a nonanthropocentric intrinsic value theory, that is, a definition of the good which is not dependent upon some quality particular to humanity, a definition of the good whereby properties found in the terrestrial, nonhuman world are constitutive of that definition. In this paper, I argue that major nonanthropocentric theories suffer from arbitrariness. I argue through the use of representative thinkers that much nonathropocentric theory has committed the naturalistic fallacy because it has deployed various forms of empirical naturalism, and that to meet this challenge nonanthropocentrism must employ a form of metaphysically based nonanthropocentrism. I do not argue that the naturalistic fallacy is valid. Rather, I show that a sample of major thinkers, representative of a logically exhaustive set of possible evasions of the naturalistic fallacy, all fail to evade the fallacy. Further, I show that the failure of this set of possible evasionsleaves but one evasion possible, namely, ethical theory grounded in metaphysics. Finally, I recommend “process” metaphysics as the most promising metaphysical ground for environmental ethics, assuming the validity of the naturalistic fallacy
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kwok Tung Cheung (2008). On a Recent Naturalism Debate in Business Ethics – From a Philosophy Point of View. Journal of Business Ethics 82 (4):889 - 898.
William A. Rottschaefer & David Martinsen (1991). The Insufficience of Supervenient Explanations of Moral Actions: Really Taking Darwin and the Naturalistic Fallacy Seriously. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):439-445.
David Sloan Wilson, Eric Dietrich & Anne B. Clark (2003). On the Inappropriate Use of the Naturalistic Fallacy in Evolutionary Psychology. Biology and Philosophy 18 (5):669-81.
John Mizzoni (2003). Environ-Moral Realism. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:191-221.
Jonathan Barrett (1991). Really Taking Darwin and the Naturalistic Fallacy Seriously: An Objection to Rottschaefer and Martinsen. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 6 (4):433-437.
Burton frederick Porter (1968). Deity and Morality, with Regard to the Naturalistic Fallacy. London, Allen & Unwin.
John P. Crossley Jr (1978). Theological Ethics and The Naturalistic Fallacy. Journal of Religious Ethics 6 (1):121 - 134.
K. S. Shrader-Frechette (1982). Environmental Impact Assessment and the Fallacy of Unfinished Business. Environmental Ethics 4 (1):37-47.
Katinka Quintelier, Linda van Speybroeck & Johan Braeckman (2011). Normative Ethics Does Not Need a Foundation: It Needs More Science. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (1):29-51.
Julia Tanner (2006). The Naturalistic Fallacy. Richmond Journal of Philosophy 13.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads19 ( #190,051 of 1,792,922 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,575 of 1,792,922 )
How can I increase my downloads?