David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Religious Ethics 27 (1):105 - 128 (1999)
In recent metaethical debate over ways to justify the notion of intrinsic natural value, some neopragmatists have challenged realist conceptions of scientific and moral truth. Holmes Rolston defends a critical-realist epistemology as the basis for a metaphysics of "projective nature" and a cosmological narrative--both of which set up a historical ontology of objective natural value. Pure ecological science informs the wilderness experience of Rolston's ideal epistemic subject, the "sensitive naturalist." The author argues that Rolston's account of the relation between knowing and valuing can be clarified and strengthened by appropriating Bernard Lonergan's transcendental method. Conversely, Lonergan's view of moral self-transcendence can be developed further in light of Rolston's virtue epistemology, which is embodied in the figure of the sensitive naturalist
|Keywords||environmental ethics epistemology critical realism value theory intrinsic value|
|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
Christopher J. Preston (1998). Epistemology and Intrinsic Values: Norton and Callicott's Critiques of Rolston. Environmental Ethics 20 (4):409-428.
J. Baird Callicott (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
J. Baird Callicot (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value: A Deconstruction. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
Nancy Frankenberry (1999). On Empty Compliments and Deceptive Detours: A Neopragmatist Response to Theodore W. Nunez. Journal of Religious Ethics 27 (1):129 - 136.
Wayne Ouderkirk (1999). Can Nature Be Evil?: Rolston, Disvalue, and Theodicy. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):135-150.
John Mizzoni (2002). Against Rolston's Defense of Eating Animals. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):125-131.
Katie McShane (2007). Rolston's Theory of Value. In Christopher J. Preston and Wayne Ouderkirk (ed.), Nature, Value, Duty: Life on Earth with Holmes Rolston, III. Springer
Paul Veatch Moriarty & Mark Woods (1997). Hunting ≠ Predation. Environmental Ethics 19 (4):391-404.
Francisco Benzoni (1996). Rolston's Theological Ethic. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):339-352.
Judith N. Scoville (1995). Value Theory and Ecology in Environmental Ethics: A Comparison of Rolston and Niebuhr. Environmental Ethics 17 (2):115-133.
Mark Wynn (1999). Natural Theology In an Ecological Mode. Faith and Philosophy 16 (1):27-42.
Nathan Kowalsky (2006). Following Human Nature. Environmental Ethics 28 (2):165-183.
Keekok Lee (1996). The Source and Locus of Intrinsic Value: A Reexamination. Environmental Ethics 18 (3):297-309.
Ned Hettinger (1994). Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers Versus Tree Huggers. Environmental Ethics 16 (1):3-20.
Iii Holmes Rolston (1982). Are Values in Nature Subjective or Objective? Environmental Ethics 4 (2):125-151.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads9 ( #254,415 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #369,877 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?