• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ethics, Place and Environment >Humanism, Biocentrism, and the Problem of Justification
【24h】

Humanism, Biocentrism, and the Problem of Justification

机译：人文主义，生物中心主义和称义问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Curren and Metzger's work makes a bold, normative claim:The moral goal of sustainability is human flourishing. Their eudaimonic theory has as its summum bonum'living well' according to the fundamental psychological needs and potentials of our species. With this, Curren and Metzger implicitly affirm precisely what, today, many theoretical ethicists strain to deny — a stable human nature. (Or what Marx, emphasizing humanity's sociality, termed 'species-being') Relatedly, Curren and Metzger's work stands in clear opposition to the 'deep ecology'tradition as well. For deep ecology criticizes any special focus on human need as an illicit 'speciesism' and instrumentalization of nature. Though the authors do not engage with deep ecology specifically, their contrast (and surprising confluence) with this school of thought is well worth exploring. For the meta-ethical assumptions on either side of this humanist/biocentric divide have real import for how sustainable policies are conceived and crafted.
机译：Curren和Metzger的工作提出了一个大胆的规范主张：可持续发展的道德目标是人类蓬勃发展。他们的eudaimonic理论根据我们物种的基本心理需求和潜力，将其“活得很好”作为总结。有了这一点，Curren和Metzger隐含地确切地肯定了当今许多理论伦理学家竭力否认的东西-一种稳定的人性。 （或者马克思强调人类社会性的东西，被称为“物种存在”）。与此相关的是，科伦和梅茨格的著作也明确地反对“深生态”传统。对于深层生态学，批评人们特别关注人类的需要，将其作为一种非法的“物种主义”和自然的工具化。尽管作者没有专门从事深度生态学研究，但他们与这种思想流派的对比（以及令人惊讶的融合）还是值得探讨的。对于这种以人为本/以生物为中心的分歧的亚伦理假设，对于如何制定和制定可持续政策具有重要意义。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号