Bryan G.· Norton, “Environmental Ethics and Weak. Anth ropocentrism,” Environmental Ethics,. Vol. 6, No.2 (Summer ), pp. Anthropocentrism is. In Bryan G. Norton’s article entitled, “Environmental Ethics and Weak Anthropocentrism,” Norton explains his perspective of how an adequate environmental. A Pragmatic Approach to Environmental Ethics: Norton’s Weak Anthropocentrism. Blog Environmentalists have struggled with a pragmatic.
|Published (Last):||6 December 2004|
|PDF File Size:||5.62 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.84 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Laura Westra – – In Ben A. But as long as the danger exists of people coming to prefer plastic trees and internal problems as well remain, the wise plan of action would be to provide an environmental ethic based on a nonanthropocentric axiology as well. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. In this sense a rational world view is one held by those who are able to abthropocentrism what is good or environmentally sound be yond one’s own immediate p refe r enc es.
From the Publisher via CrossRef no proxy pdcnet. But he does nortoh indicate in his paper specifically what is of intrinsic value from a weak anthropocentric position and how it differs from the strong anthropocentric posit io n. The goal is to create what Tom Regan has called “an ethic of the environment” rather than “an ethic for the envi ronment”, the latter being an ethic for the management of the environ ment for better instrumental, utilitarian concerns of humans.
Another version of anthropocentrism is the one described earlier by Norton as “weak anthropocentrism,” in which val ues are determined by the perceptions or judgments of humans but can be independent of human interests. They are unaware of an ambiguity in what constitutes “human interests.
A considered preference is any desire that a human individual would express after careful deliberation, including a judgment that the desire or need is consistent with a rationally adopted worldview. The former is “any desire or need of a human individual that can at least temporarily be sated by some specifiable experience of that individual.
Norton does not deny that it may be possible to develop a nonan thropocentric environmental ethic.
Bryan G. Norton, Environmental ethics and weak anthropocentrism – PhilPapers
Once this distinction between felt and considered preferences is no ted it is possible to describe two kinds of anthropocentrism–a weak form and a strong form. We cannot know what a mountain thinks, if it thinks at all. For exam ple, an art object could be judged to have intrinsic value by the va luer. Suppose that human beings choose, for rational or religious reasons, to live according to an ideal of maximum harmony with nature. Hume’s Knave and Nonanthropocentric Virtues.
For Norton, such an adequate envi ronmental ethic will nirton “the statement of some set of principles from which rules can be derived proscribing the behaviors included in the set which virtually all environmentally sensitive individuals agree are environmentally destructive.
However, given what Norton nortom the dubious ontological status of such a value theory, and the pressing need for guidance re garding environmental problems, he holds anthrooocentrism his position is one that can now be utilized to make environmentally sound policy decisions. And it ap pears also that Norton holds that any environmentally unsound practice is ipso facto irrational and counter to any ideal and thus would not be adopted. Therefore, everyone deserves fair treatment and access to environmental goods.
Email required Address never made public. Strong anthropocentrism is more etihcs like discussed with the previously discussed author, Baxter. Holders of this view also could praise the preservation of certain natu For his position to be conceptually more attractive, Norton needs to show just what his own ontological claims are and why he believes there are no problems with them.
The merits of Anthhropocentrism position are many, including providing for the criticism of environmentally exploited felt preferences of humans, contraints on human behavior according to ideals such as living in har mony with nature, and, especially, making the important difference be tween felt and considered prefe re nce s.
The history of environmental ethics reflects this ex pansion jorton features such as the experience of pleasure or happiness, sentience, and the act of flourishing were judged to be of intrinsic val ue.
A weakly anthropocentric value theory, on the other hand, does not focus solely on felt preferences. Note that in an anthropocentric theory the anthropocentriwm for morality is still human experience, values, or preferences.
At best a strongly anthropocentric value theory could provide a theory for the best use of the environment, with “best use” determined by felt preferences of individuals.
The latter, called allocational decisions, are not reducible to the former and govern the use of resources across extended time.
Norton’s Weak Anthropocentrism
This would fit in with the position of Aristotle concerning the percep tions of the good man. By maintaining the dichotomy between acting on the basis of felt preferences and acting on the basis of some rationally maintained ideal, it envidonmental possible to censure practices generally held to be environmentally destructive.
A common argument offered against anf standard anthropocentric position is the ethcs people” argument mentioned earlier. Sign in Create an account. As noted earlier, Norton has not clearly indicated just what things can, from a weak anthropocentric view, be of intrinsic value, and al though he appears to be in favor of allowing people to attribute intrin sic value to nonhuman entities, his position still focuses on human val ues that place intrinsic value in human states or expe r ie nce s.
A Pragmatic Approach to Environmental Ethics: Norton’s Weak Anthropocentrism
From Environmental to Ecological Ethics: Likewise environmeental objects were judged by Kant to have only an extrinsic, instrumental value. Norton claims that his position is simpler conceptually while pro viding the features desired for a truly environmental ethic.
An adequate environmental ethic would give us reasons to avoid careless storage of toxic wastes, overpopulation, wanton extinctions, air and water pollution, etc.
A Typology of Corporate Environmental Policies. Norton seems to believe that if we were only a little more wise, a little more rational, if we would only learn from ecology and evolu tion, we would then create a rationally held world view that would guide us to environmentally sound considered anthopocentrism.
Consider aerial hunting in Alaska. Skip to main content.