Environmental Values 6 (3):269-279 (1997)

Angelika Krebs
University of Basel
The question this paper examines is whether or not discourse ethics is an environmentally attractive moral theory. The answer reached is: no. For firstly, nature has nothing to gain from the discourse ethical shift from monological moral reflection to discourse, as nature cannot partake in discourse. And secondly, nature has no socio-personal integrity, which, according to discourse ethics, it is the function of morality to protect. Discourse ethics is a thoroughly anthropocentric moral theory.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.3197/096327197776679095
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,089
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Nature and Silence.Christopher Manes - 1992 - Environmental Ethics 14 (4):339-350.
Foucault, the Author, and the Discourse.Hans Sluga - 1985 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 28 (1-4):403 – 415.
Disclosive Discourse, Ecology, and Technology.David Strong - 1994 - Environmental Ethics 16 (1):89-102.
Discourse Ethics and the Problem of Nature.Stéphane Haber - 2006 - Critical Horizons 7 (1):141-158.
The Moral Imaginary of Discourse Ethics.Kenneth MacKendrick - 2000 - Critical Horizons 1 (2):247-269.


Added to PP index

Total views
23 ( #490,106 of 2,499,007 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #421,180 of 2,499,007 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes