<목차>
1. Introduction (427)
2. Development of the Field (427-430)
3. Three Criticisms (430-434)
4. Rights in an Environmental Virtue Ethics (434-436)
5. Foundations (436-438)
6. Recent Work and Prospects (438-442)
p.427. (Introduction)
“Call virtue ethics that branch of ethics focused on issues of character, excellence and human flourishing.”
*덕 윤리의 느슨한 정의
1) “intrinsic value or moral considerability of non-human beings”
2) “altruism with appeals to people’s enlightened self-interest”
3) “character traits that can help people live environmentally decent lives”
*환경적 덕 윤리의 주요 관심
pp.427-430 (Development of the Field)
“the key question was not ‘whose rights have been violated?’ or ‘how have these action decreased overall happiness?’ but rather: ‘what sort of person would do that?’”
*환경적 덕 윤리의 시작 : Thomas Hill Jr.
1) “justify environmentalists’ goals in terms of their contributions to human flourishing”, “to secure the basic resources people need to live and to preserve opportunities for us to develop our higher capabilities” (John O’Neil)
2) “new ecological virtues [...] and [...] reinterpretation of established virtues [...] in new ecologically informed ways”, “bring order [...] focused on the ‘social sustainability’ of various human qualities” (Louke van Wensveen)
3) “connection between attentive appreciation of nature and human excellence and flourishing” (Philip Cafaro)
4) “broad sense of human flourishing [...] virtues may be virtues because they promote other values or goods, including the intrinsic value of non-human beings”, “beyond those linked to our own flourishing” (Ronald Sandler)
*환경적 덕 윤리의 네 가지 주요 문헌
pp.430-434. (Three Criticisms)
1) “not sufficiently ‘action-guiding’”
2) “necessarily anthropocentric”
3) “has an under-developed political philosophy”
*환경적 덕 윤리에 대한 주요 비판
1-1) “it is not the job of ethics to give us rules”, “difference between [...] ‘rules’ on the one hand and more general ethical ‘principles’ on the other”
1-2) “develop ‘v-rules’ which specify how people with the requisite virtues would respond to particular ethical challenges”, “merits in providing additional guidance in particular situations”
1-3) “If we accept human flourishing as an Ur value and accept the plausibility that certain virtuous character traits tend to further that flourishing, then the imperative to ‘cultivate the virtues’ likely provides considerable action-guidance”, “ground value the flourishing of all life [...] we will likely generate even clearer guidance”
*1) 비판에 대한 반박 (principles, v-rule of virtuous people, flourishing as Ur value)
2-1) “our environmental interests and theirs largely coincide”, “when these do differ, then human interests should prevail”
2-2) “make a place [...] for non-human nature’s intrinsic value or moral considerability”
*2) 비판에 대한 반박 (our flourishing and nature’s flourishing are interwined)
3-1) “Nussbaum turned her attention to specifying the public policies necessary to help citizens in modern democracies flourish through the development of their natrual capabilities, with a special concern to improve conditions for disadvantaged people”
3-2) “Newton details the kinds of [...] policies needed to create sustainable, floourishing societies”, “she also discusses the sorts of people we will need to be in order to make such societies work”
*3) 비판에 대한 반박 (정치철학 가능함)
pp.434-436. (Rights in an Environmental Virtue Ethics)
1) rights to clean air, clean water and sufficient pure food (to basic environmental goods)
2) right to contact with wild nature (to experience nature’s beauty and to explore the natural world)
3) right to continued existence for other species (right against anthropogenic extinction) (← natural species are the primary expressions and repositories of organic nature’s order, creativity and diversity)
*다양한 권리를 정초하는 환경적 덕 윤리
“it appears that people are morally bound to continue to increase our numbers until our descendants’ lives are barely worth living, because this increases total aggregate well-being”
“monstrous or excessive flourishing, and such flourishing is unjust, the goodness of humanity as a whole depends on our accepting limits and allowing nature to flourish”, “flourishing only makes sense and is only possible in the context of larger wholes, not at their expense”, “there are higher ends that morally aware individuals will preserve and promote”
*“repugnant conclusion”(Dereck Parfit)과 그에 대한 환경적 덕 윤리의 대답
pp.436-438. (Foundations)
“But what disciplines our discussions of particular virtues? What allows us to integrate these virtues into a cohesive whole?”
“environmental criteria for what makes a virtue a virtue. [...] genuine virtues must promote ecological sustainability”, “ground their general accounts of virtue in some substantive account of human flourishing”
*덕의 원리에 대한 의문과 그에 대한 환경적 덕 윤리의 대답
1) “reason has allowed humanity to radically reconstruct the environments we live within”
2) “reason allows us to imagine radically new possibilities for how to live”
*윤리적 판단 내에 근원적 불확실성과 시간제한성을 기입하는 인간적 조건(이성적 기능) → 생물학적 진화가 생물학 내에서 더 정확하고 객관적인 이해를 제공했듯 인간적 조건은 윤리학에 더 정확하고 객관적인 이해를 제공할 것
pp.438-441. (Recent Work and Prospects)
1) “exploring particular virtues”
2) “interdisciplinary research [...] with new developments within positive psychology”
3) “potential to make valuable contributions to general ethical theory”
*환경적 덕 윤리의 최근 작업과 조망
“empirical research shows that human behavior is too situation-specific to affirm real character traits that hold across a wide variety of situations”, “the existence of relatively stable character traits is an illusion.”
*덕 윤리에 대한 상황주의적 비판(situationist critique)
“most virtue ethicists reject [...] assuming that a more nuanced and accurate psychology will allow us to continue to talk about character traits”
*덕 윤리학자들의 통상적 대응 (상황주의적 비판을 가능케 하는 심리학적 성과 부정)
“Just as any person’s virtues and achievements rest on essential contributions from his family and society, so they rest on essential contributions from the wider biological world”
“Environmental virtue ethics, instead, asks people to see their own goodness as tributary to the goodness of larger wholes, and encourages them to keep their own prosperity within bounds both human and non-human”
“Aristotle might have written a third book on practical ethics, the Ecologics”, “Just as virtuous citizens contribute to the success of their societies while good societies help their citizens thrive, human societies and natural ecosystems could have been seen as contributing to and, in a real sense, completing one anther ”
*환경적 덕 윤리학자들의 세련된 대응 (상황주의적 비판을 가능케 하는 심리학적 성과 긍정)