Environmental Ethics 18 (4):339-352 (1996)
The centerpiece of Holmes Rolston, III’s environmental ethic is his objective value theory. It is ultimately grounded not in the Cartesian duality between subject and object, but in the divine. It is not his value theory, but rather his anthropology that is the weak link in an ethic in which he attempts to weave together the natural, human, and divine spheres. With a richer, more fully developed theological anthropology, Rolston could more deeply penetrate and critique those aspects of the present ways of being-in-the-world that are environmentally destructive
|Keywords||Applied Philosophy General Interest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Rolston on Intrinsic Value: A Deconstruction.J. Baird Callicot - 1992 - Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
Rolston, Lonergan, and the Intrinsic Value of Nature.Theodore W. Nunez - 1999 - Journal of Religious Ethics 27 (1):105 - 128.
Rolston's Theory of Value.Katie McShane - 2007 - In Christopher J. Preston and Wayne Ouderkirk (ed.), Nature, Value, Duty: Life on Earth with Holmes Rolston, III. Springer.
Against Rolston's Defense of Eating Animals.John Mizzoni - 2002 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):125-131.
Value Theory and Ecology in Environmental Ethics: A Comparison of Rolston and Niebuhr.Judith N. Scoville - 1995 - Environmental Ethics 17 (2):115-133.
Can Nature Be Evil?: Rolston, Disvalue, and Theodicy.Wayne Ouderkirk - 1999 - Environmental Ethics 21 (2):135-150.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #399,238 of 2,158,948 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #353,547 of 2,158,948 )
How can I increase my downloads?