Graduate studies at Western
Environmental Ethics 25 (3):227-246 (2003)
|Abstract||Much anthropocentric environmental argument is limited by a narrow conception of how humans can benefit from nature. E. O. Wilson defends a more robust anthropocentric environmentalism based on a broader understanding of these benefits. At the center of his argument is the biophilia hypothesis according to which humans have an evolutionarily crafted, aesthetic and spiritual affinity for nature. However,the “biophilia hypothesis” covers a variety of claims, some modest and some more extreme. Insofar as we have significant evidence for biophilia, it favors modest versions which do not support a particularly robust anthropocentric environmental ethic. A significantly more robust environmental ethic requires the most extreme version of the biophilia hypothesis, for which there is the least evidence|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eric Katz & Lauren Oechsli (1993). Moving Beyond Anthropocentrism: Environmental Ethics, Development, and the Amazon. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):49-59.
Lauren Oechsli (1993). Moving Beyond Anthropocentrism. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):49-59.
Hugh P. McDonald (2002). Dewey's Naturalism. Environmental Ethics 24 (2):189-208.
Sharon Anderson-Gold (2002). Objective Value in Environmental Ethics. Social Philosophy Today 18:111-124.
Gary E. Varner (1998). In Nature's Interests?: Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Mark Wynn (1997). Beauty, Providence and the Biophilia Hypothesis. Heythrop Journal 38 (3):283–299.
O. Gene Myers (1996). The Biophilia Hypothesis. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):327-330.
Steven Gimbel (2004). The Greening of White Pride. Philosophy and Geography 7 (1):123-140.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,473 of 739,461 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,461 )
How can I increase my downloads?