| Popis: |
Main stream environmental ethics has been criticized for its adherence to the concept of intrinsic value of nature and its failure to contribute to actual environmental problem solvings. For example, in 1980's Environmental pragmatists insisted that environmental ethics should reform itself to be more practical. They called the reformation "pragmatic turn." But it is not the only turn proposed by environmental philosophers to environmental ethics. In this paper, I examine four turns : pragmatic turn , policy turn (Robert Frodeman), motivation (al) turn (Carol Booth), environmental virtue ethics. All of these share interests for 1) practicality or activity of environmental ethics and 2) communications between environmental philosophers and others. These two are intertwined problems. Since no one can solve environmental problems by one self and collective efforts are needed, environmental ethics must include considerations about communication. Environmental philosophers seems to suppose two types of others: public and other professionals (conservationists, biologists ... ). "Policy-oriented" philosophers such as some pragmatists and Frodeman think their main targets of communication are professionals and have serious concerns for attitudes of them. In contrast, Booth and environmental virtue ethicists have concerns for attitudes of human including others and themselves. So concerns for attitudes of others are the shared feature of the four directions of environmental ethics, but two of these lack concerns for attitudes of environmental philosophers themselves. In conclusion, I insist that concerns for attitude of oneself is an essential part of ethics and for this reason the latter two are preffered as future directions of environmental ethics as ethics. |
