Environmental Ethics 19 (3):267-278 (1997)
|Abstract||The social unrest in Chiapas, a southern Mexican state, revealed the complexity of cultural and natural issues behind the idealized Western version of indigenous ecological ethics and its apparently universal perspective. In accordance with the conventional interpretation of traditional native beliefs, they are often pictured as alternative perspectives arising from challenges to the scientific worldview. Inthis paper, I point toward a more comprehensive account of human-environmental relation rooted in the particular type of social and natural conditions. I also discuss changes of place, changes of identity related to changes of place, and respective changes in modes of environmental sustainability. I conclude that modernization endangers two fundamental ethical insights: “openness” to the environment and respect for nonhuman living beings|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
David W. Kidner (1994). Why Psychology is Mute About the Environmental Crisis. Environmental Ethics 16 (4):359-376.
Padmasiri De Silva (1998). Environmental Philosophy and Ethics in Buddhism. St. Martin's Press.
Georges Enderle (1997). In Search of a Common Ethical Ground: Corporate Environmental Responsibility From the Perspective of Christian Environmental Stewardship. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (2):173-181.
Andrew Brennan, Environmental Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Gus di Zerega (1995). Individuality, Human and Natural Communities, and the Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 17 (1):23-37.
Gus Di Zerega (1995). Individuality, Human and Natural Communities, and the Foundations of Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 17 (1):23-37.
Bruce V. Foltz (1984). On Heidegger and the Interpretation of Environmental Crisis. Environmental Ethics 6 (4):323-338.
Midori Kagawa-Fox (2010). Environmental Ethics From the Japanese Perspective. Ethics, Place and Environment 13 (1):57 – 73.
Norberto Valdez (2000). “Low Intensity Conflict” for Whom?: U.S. Policy and Chiapas, Mexico. Radical Philosophy Review 3 (1):75-86.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads1 ( #277,406 of 556,916 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?