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 5 (2):99-131 (1983)
Recently several philosophers have argued that environmental reform movements cannot halt humankind’s destruction of the biosphere because they still operate within the anthropocentric humanism that forms the root of the ecological crisis. According to “radical” environmentalists, disaster can be averted only if we adopt a nonanthropocentric understanding of reality that teaches us to live harmoniouslyon the Earth. Martin Heidegger agrees that humanism leads human beings beyond their proper limits while forcing other beings beyond their limits as weIl. The doctrine of the “rights of man” justifies human exploitation of nonhuman beings. Paradoxically, however, the doctrine of rights for nonhuman beings does not escape the orbit of humanism. According to Heidegger, a nonanthropocentric conception of humanity and its relation to nature must go beyond the doctrine of rights. We can dweIl harmoniously on Earth only by submitting to our primary obligation: to be open for the Being of beings. We need a new way of understanding Being, a new ethos, that lets beings manifest themselves not merely as objects for human ends, but as intrinsically important. Heidegger calls this ethos the “fourfold” of earth and sky, gods and mortals. Humanists argue that Heidegger is wrong to abandon the principle of human rights in favor of the notion that we are obligated to “let beings be,” while some radical environmentalists accuse hirn of being a humanist because he supposedly overestimates the importance of humankind’s ability to speak. Heidegger insists, however, that language makes possible culture, without which thereis no human experience of nature. An environmentally sound ethos. can arise, according to Heidegger, only from a shift within the cultural heritage of the West. Richard Rorty agrees that we must become open for a new “conversation” with the West, even if this requires abandoning traditionally important fields such as epistemology. The need to develop a new understanding of Being is so great that thinkers from the analytic and continental traditions of philosophy are finally initiating a long-overdue dialogue
|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
Robert Sessions (1991). Deep Ecology Versus Ecofeminism: Healthy Differences or Incompatible Philosophies? Hypatia 6 (1):90 - 107.
Similar books and articles
James W. Nickel & Eduardo Viola (1994). Integrating Environmentalism and Human Rights. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):265-273.
Eduardo Viola (1994). Integrating Environmentalism and Human Rights. Environmental Ethics 16 (3):265-273.
Laura Westra (1985). Let It Be: Heidegger and Future Generations. Environmental Ethics 7 (4):341-350.
P. J. Lomelino (2007). Individuals and Relational Beings. Social Philosophy Today 23:87-101.
James Phillips (2010). Restoring Place to Aesthetic Experience: Heidegger's Critique of Rilke. Critical Horizons 11 (3):341-358.
Paola Cavalieri (2001). The Animal Question: Why Nonhuman Animals Deserve Human Rights. Oxford University Press.
Michael E. Zimmerman (1987). Feminism, Depp Ecology, and Environmental Ethics. Environmental Ethics 9 (1):21-44.
Lucas D. Introna (2009). Ethics and the Speaking of Things. Theory, Culture and Society 26 (4):398-419.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #152,492 of 1,934,424 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #434,207 of 1,934,424 )
How can I increase my downloads?