Environmental Ethics 4 (4):339-343 (1982)
To the claim that Marx has no concept of human nature after 1845 and is not prescriptive, I reply that his work only makes sense in the light of his definition of the human being as creator and producer of himself through his own productive activity; otherwise, there is no reason that labor should “naturally” belong to the laborer, since other animals live from each other’s labor and exploitation is natural Marx’s rejection of exploitation is an ethical principle. On the other hand, I attack the narrow human chauvinism of Marxists which lacks environmental consciousness and concern for other species; I label it “eco-imperialism.” Marx had several important insights, but his work in general was not always free of the limitations of his age; I try to point to those insights most instructive in our time with regard to the problems of environment
|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
Value Theory and the "Golden Eggs": Appropriating the Magic of Accumulation.Michael W. Macy - 1988 - Sociological Theory 6 (2):131-152.
Karl Marx, Alienation, and the Mastery of Nature.Charles Tolman - 1981 - Environmental Ethics 3 (1):63-74.
Reconstructing Nature: Alienation, Emancipation, and the Division of Labour.Peter Dickens - 1996 - Routledge.
Development of the Productive Forces: An Ecological Analysis.Jonathan Hughes - 1995 - Studies in Marxism 2:179-198.
Value, Capital and Nature: Some Ecological Implications of Marx's Critique of Political Economy.Paul Burkett - 1996 - Science and Society 60 (3):332 - 359.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #376,705 of 2,170,078 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,514 of 2,170,078 )
How can I increase my downloads?