David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Environmental Ethics 1 (4):293-308 (1979)
The application of the polluter-pays principle in environmental policy depends on answers to the philosophical questions about what is good or detrimental with respect to nature. Science and the economy constitute a functional circle of “observing” nature’s unity as well as its utility. Based on a concept of nature as a system of causally related objects or - complementary to this - as a bunch of “resources,” however, the human interest and responsibility in nature do not seem to be properly observed. Subjecting nature to human subjectivity may have been an adaptation in the wrong direction, since, if humanity is taken as the measure, there is no measure for humanity. A practical philosophy of nature should start from the assumption that science’s missing unity and the economy’s missing goodness are equivalent shortcomings in a complenlentary way. On the one hand, philosophy should engage in the problem-oriented reintegration of the sciences by establishing nuclei of interdisciplinary cooperation. We are relatingourselves to nature in a responsible way only when approaching nature as our own nature. On the other hand, while our technological faculties have reached a very high level of reliability and differentiation, we are definitely much less successful in recognizing goodness in economic “goods.” This calls for demand education with respect to how human needs are to be brought to bear as demands on nature, ahuman relation to nature as well as natural relations between human beings, again depending on answers to philosophical questions. In the history of ideas, nature has declined from “the nature of things and beings” to “the things and beings of nature,” or from being to beings. We will, however, never be able to judge what is good or bad with respect to nature if we do not from the outset start - pragmatically-with a normative concept of nature
|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
Robin Grove-White (1993). Talking About Talking About Nature. Environmental Ethics 15 (1):33-47.
Allen Buchanan (2009). Human Nature and Enhancement. Bioethics 23 (3):141-150.
Andrew McLaughlin (1985). Images and Ethics of Nature. Environmental Ethics 7 (4):293-319.
R. F. Ellen & Katsuyoshi Fukui (eds.) (1996). Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture, and Domestication. Berg.
Zhang Pengwei, Guo Qiyong & Wang Bei (2008). New Insight Into Mencius' Theory of the Original Goodness in Human Nature. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (1):27 - 38.
Robin Attfield (2007). Is the Concept of Nature Dispensable? The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 5 (25):59-63.
S. J. Samartha & Lynn De Silva (eds.) (1979). Man in Nature: Guest or Engineer?: A Preliminary Enquiry by Christians and Buddhists Into the Religious Dimensions in Humanity's Relation to Nature. Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue in Co-Operation with the World Council of Churches.
David Heyd (2003). Human Nature: An Oxymoron? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (2):151 – 169.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #314,367 of 1,941,073 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #458,098 of 1,941,073 )
How can I increase my downloads?