This paper outlines a constructivist approach to environmental ethics which attempts to reconcile realism in the ontological sense, i.e., the view that there is an objective material world existing outside of human consciousness, with the view that how nature is understood and acted in are epistemologically and morally constructed. It is argued that while knowledge and ethics are indeed culturally variable, social constructions of nature are nonetheless constrained by how things actually stand in the world. The 'realist' version of constructivism (...) proposed here can be linked to dialectical forms of reasoning which see knowledge and ethics as arising out of human interactions with an objectively real environment, and contrasted with strong constructivist views which see nature as 'nothing more than' a social construct. While both the physical environment and human attitudes towards it are in part socially constructed, nature also retains a measure of autonomy, or 'wildness', apart from human constructions. (shrink)

A coevolutionary approach to environmental ethics recognizes the extent to which cultural practices and natural processes interact with and coadapt themselves to each other, but also acknowledges the extent to which each preserves a measure of autonomy from the other. The paper begins by outlining a coevolutionary theory that sees nature and culture in transactional rather than in dualistic terms and by presenting a coevolutionary view of cultural adaptation. The paper then considers how a coevolutionary framework for ethics can be (...) developed that sees human well-being and the environment as interrelated rather than as separate areas of ethical concern. (shrink)

This paper argues against the view that a single environmental ethic can be formulated that could be universally applied in all geographic settings and across cultures. The paper specifically criticizes Callicott's proposal that Leopold's land ethic be adopted as a global environment ethic, and develops an alternative bioregional perspective which suggests that while there can be a great deal of variety in how different cultures think about and interact with their local environments, there is nonetheless the need for cross-cultural dialogue (...) on how specific problems that transcend cultural boundaries can be successfully resolved. (shrink)

While a number of schools of environmental thought — including social ecology, ecofeminism, ecological Marxism, ecoanarchism, and bioregionalism — have attempted to link social issues to a concern for the environment, environmental ethics as an academic discipline has tended to focus more narrowly on ethics related either to changes in personal values or behavior, or to the various ways in which nature might be valued. What is lacking is a framework in which individual, social, and environmental concerns can be looked (...) at not in isolation from each other, but rather in terms of their interrelationships. In this book, Evanoff aims to develop just such a philosophical framework — one in which ethical questions related to interactions between self, society, and nature can be discussed across disciplines and from a variety of different perspectives. The central problem his study investigates is the extent to which a dichotomized view of the relationship between nature and culture, perpetuated in ongoing debates over anthropocentric vs. ecocentric approaches to environmental ethics, might be overcome through the adoption of a transactional perspective, which offers a more dynamic and coevolutionary understanding of how humans interact with their natural environments. Unlike anthropocentric approaches to environmental ethics, which often privilege human concerns over ecological preservation, and some ecocentric approaches, which place more emphasis on preserving natural environments than on meeting human needs, a transactional approach attempts to create more symbiotic and less conflictual modes of interaction between human cultures and natural environments, which allow for the flourishing of both. (shrink)

Although nonhuman entities are indeed incapable of entering into contractual relations with humans or of participating in social dialogue on ethical norms, they can nonetheless become the objects of moral consideration on the part of humans. Moral consideration need not be extended universally to all nonnatural entities, but only to those entities with which humans interact. Rather than regard some or all of the natural world as having “intrinsic value,” considered judgments must be made regarding which parts of nature can (...) be legitimately used for human purposes and which should be left alone. What needs to be justified are not attempts to preserve nature but rather any human interventions which infringe on the autonomy of nature. (shrink)

Having a better understanding of what worldviews are and how they function may be able to contribute to the resolution of conflicts which arise when people from different cultures holding different worldviews interact with each other. This paper begins by examining the nature of worldviews and how they might be approached from the perspective of intercultural philosophy. The paper then turns to meta-philosophical questions regarding the disciplinary boundaries, goals, and methods of intercultural philosophy with respect to worldviews. Attention is given (...) to the possibility of adopting a constructivist, dialectical approach to cross-cultural dialogue on worldviews. (shrink)