Philosopher views
CRITICISMS FROM SOCIAL ECOLOGISTS
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- CRITICISMS FROM ECOFEMINISTS
- NAESS IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
- Bibliography
CRITICISMS FROM SOCIAL ECOLOGISTSSocial ecologists, such as Murray Bookchin, take issue with Naess’ approach to solving the environmental crisis. These thinkers view the root of the crisis not as anthropocentrism, but rather, as inequitable relations between humans, for example, the colonialism and imperialism of the first world over the third world that leads to destruction of the rain forests in order to supply the first world with cheeseburgers from the cows who are grazed on the land. Bookchin and others argue that humans must first learn to treat one another equitably before they can find equitable relations with nature. Deep ecology is often accused of “misanthropy” or human-hating. This is because some deep ecologists have made statements that denigrate humanity, for example, likening humans to a “virus” that will destroy its host, the earth. Others have taken violent action against humans in environmental protest. Arne Naess disavows these actions and adamantly supports non-violent protest, following the examples of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Most deep ecologists claim not to hate humans, but rather, they reject the view that humans are more intrinsically valuable than other living creatures and the ecosystem. CRITICISMS FROM ECOFEMINISTSEcofeminists, like social ecologists, see the roots of environmental domination in oppressive relationships between humans. They argue that the structure of anthropocentrism, in which nature is dominated by men, parallels the structure of sexism, in which women are dominated by men. Women are often associated with nature due to their social roles in caring for the maintenance of life and child rearing. Women are referred to as more in touch with nature and more prone to “natural” uncontrollable, irrational behaviors. This association of women with the natural has justified the oppression of women by men in politics, economic life, and personal relations for centuries. Ecofeminists argue that the dichotomies of woman/man, emotional/rational, care/management, humans/nature, and other manifestations of dualistic thinking need to be broken down in order for humanity to abandon anthropocentric assumptions. Ecofeminists charge deep ecologists with being ignorant or insensitive to the role that sexism and dichotomous thinking play in the environmental crisis. Deep ecologists respond that ecofeminism and social ecology are not incompatible with the eight principles of the deep ecology movement, that in fact, they can be “ecosophies” used to support the platform. Naess attempts to make the deep ecology movement all inclusive, and he rejects classism, racism, and sexism. Quarrels continue, however, between ecologists who locate the ideological roots of the crisis in different places. NAESS IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATENaess calls into question arguments premised on utilitarianism, anthropocentrism, or the value of development. Utilitarianism is an often-used criterion in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Naess’ gestalt ontology, provides a critique of the concept of “use-value.” The idea of “use-value” underpins utilitarianism, in which objects, ideas, or nature have value insofar as they have utility in achieving a particular end. “Use-value” makes no sense of the world is understood as a gestalt. The dominant philosophical tradition conceives of things as externally related to one another; gestalt ontology views relations as internal. “Use-value” makes no sense if things are internally related. Utilitarianism cannot account for the experience of something for which “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Hence, utilitarianism is inadequate for describing, contemplating, and evaluating humans, nature, and the world. Naess’ deep ecology also calls into question the assumption that economic growth is always a positive force. In debates where debaters affirm the value of “progress,” deep ecology can answer the idea that “progress” always leads in the direction of fulfillment and happiness. The modern myth of continual human “progression” ignores the damaging aspects of technology. Unchecked economic growth leads to unfulfilled living and ecospheric destruction. Using the work of Naess, debaters can challenge the notion that economic growth is a good thing in debates over the relative merit of economic systems, such as capitalism versus socialism. Deep ecological theories can be used to compliment Marxism, or as a counterpoint to the anthropocentric assumptions that undergird Marxist thought. Deep ecology questions who is included in the notion of the “common good.” The idea that the common good is what is best for “man” or “humanity” is suspect when the flourishing and diversity of the ecosphere is also considered to have intrinsic worth. Cases that ignore the non-human world in pursuit of the “common good” of humanity can be attacked for anthropocentrism. Deep ecology is obviously an invaluable perspective to be familiar with when debating resolutions about the environment. Mainstream environmental reform proposals, insofar as they reflect an anthropocentric, technological worldview, can do more harm than good in addressing the problems of species loss, rain forest depletion, global warming, overpopulation, and consumption. Debates over environmental ethics that only involve the conflicts between the desires of individuals to pursue economic needs versus the desire of society to maintain a healthy environment for posterity and current generations are lacking in depth of analysis, in that they only consider the perspectives of humans as atomistic actors. BibliographyBookchin, Murray and Dave Foreman. DEFENDING THE EARTH : A DIALOGUE BETWEEN MURRAY BOOKCHIN AND DAVE FOREMAN. (Boston, Ma.: South End Press, 1991). Bookchin, Murray. REMAKING SOCIETY. (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1989). Bowers, C.A. CRITICAL ESSAYS ON EDUCATION, MODERNITY, AND THE RECOVERY OF THE ECOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE. (New York : Teachers College Press, 1993). Cheney, Jim. “Eco-Feminism and Deep Ecology." ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS. 1987, Volume 9 p. 11545. Cramer, Phillip F. DEEP ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS : THE ROLE OF RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM IN CRAFTING AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY. (Westport, Ct: Praeger, 1998). Curtin, Deane. "Dogen, Deep Ecology, and the Ecological Self." ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS. 1994, Volume 16, p. 195213. Devall, Bill and George Sessions. DEEP ECOLOGY. (Salt Lake City, Utah : G.M. Smith, 1985). Drengson, Alan and Yuichi Inoue. THE DEEP ECOLOGY MOVEMENT: AN INTRODUCTORY ANTHOLOGY. (Berkeley, Ca.: North Atlantic Books, 1995). Fox, Warwick. "The Deep Ecology-Ecofeminism Debate and Its Parallels." ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS. 1989, Volume 11, p. 525. French, William C. "Against Biospherical Egalitarianism." ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS. 1995, Volume 17, p. 3957. Naess, Arne. COMMUNICATION AND ARGUMENT; ELEMENTS OF APPLIED SEMANTICS. Trans. Alastair Hannay. (Totowa, N. J., Bedminster Press, 1966). Naess, Arne. ECOLOGY, COMMUNITY, AND LIFESTYLE: OUTLINE OF AN ECOSOPHY. Trans. David Rothenberg. (Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1989). Rothenberg, David. IS IT PAINFUL TO THINK?: CONVERSATIONS WITH ARNE NAESS. (Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press, 1993). Gullvag, Ingemund and Jon Wetlesen. IN SCEPTICAL WONDER: INQUIRIES INTO THE PHILOSOPHY OF ARNE NAESS ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 70TH BIRTHDAY. (Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1982) Sessions, George. DEEP ECOLOGY FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY. (Boston: Shambhala, 1995). Tobias, Michael. DEEP ECOLOGY. (San Diego, Ca.: Avant Books, 1985). Turner, Jack. THE ABSTRACT WILD. (Tucson : University of Arizona Press, 1996). Michael E. Zimmerman. CONTESTING EARTH'S FUTURE : RADICAL ECOLOGY AND POSTMODERNITY. (Berkeley : University of California Press, 1994). Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|