Environmental Values Environmental Values
Environmental Values 16(2007): 169-186. doi: 10.3197/096327107780474555
ABSTRACT
Many recent critical discussions of anthropocentrism have focused on Bryan Norton's 'convergence hypothesis': the claim that both anthropocentric and nonanthropocentric ethics will recommend the same environmentally responsible behaviours and policies. I argue that even if we grant the truth of Norton's convergence hypothesis, there are still good reasons to worry about anthropocentric ethics. Ethics legitimately raises questions about how to feel, not just about which actions to take or which policies to adopt. From the point of view of norms for feeling, anthropocentrism has very different practical implications from nonanthropocentrism; it undermines some of the common attitudes - love, respect, awe - that people think it appropriate to take toward the natural world.
KEYWORDS: Anthropocentrism, environment, ethics, Norton, value
REFERENCES to other articles in Environmental Values:
Anthropocentrism: A Misunderstood Problem. Tim Hayward
Pragmatism, Adaptive Management, and Sustainability. Bryan G. Norton
CITATIONS in other Environmental Values articles
Editorial. Clive L. Spash
Convergence, Noninstrumental Value and the Semantics of 'Love': Comment on McShane. Bryan G. Norton
Convergence, Noninstrumental Value and the Semantics of 'Love': Reply to Norton.Katie McShane
Editorial: Ronald Hepburn and the humanising of Environmental Aesthetics. Isis Brook
Disagreement and Responses to Climate Change Graham Long
Download full text (PDF format) from IngentaConnect. Access is free if your institution subscribes to Environmental Values.
Subscriptions and back numbers of Environmental Values.
Other papers in this volume
THE WHITE HORSE PRESS
1 Strond
ISLE OF HARRIS HS5 3UD, UK
Tel: +44 1859 520204