Etika Lingkungan Nova

7/29/2019 Etika Lingkungan Nova

1/10

* Correspondence to: Prof. Dr. Hab. Wodzimierz Tyburski, Institute of Philosophy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Fosa Staromiejska 1a, 87-100Torun, Poland. E-mail: [email protected]

Sustainable DevelopmentSust. Dev. 16, 100108 (2008)Published online 12 November 2007 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com)DOI: 10.1002/sd.342

Origin and Development of EcologicalPhilosophy and Environmental Ethics and Their

Impact on the Idea of Sustainable Development

Wodzimierz Tyburski*

Wodzimierz Tyburski, Institute of Philosophy, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Poland

ABSTRACTA critical review of environmental philosophy and environmental ethics is discussedin relation to the idea of sustainable development. The article makes reference to 19thcentury influences that inspired thought orientated towards protecting the naturalenvironment, and then presents the stages of the development of ecological philoso-phy, the main standpoints and their representatives. The main features of Polisheco-philosophical thought are presented together with an outline of the most signifi-cant achievements of these disciplines on a global scale. The influence of environ-mental philosophy and ethics on social aspects of sustainable development is alsopresented. Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 5 Febuary 2007; revised 7 May 2007; accepted 22 June 2007

Keywords: ecological philosophy; environmental ethics; anthropocentrism; biocentrism; holism; sustainable development

Introduction

THE CONTINUING DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD OF NATURE AND THE ECOLOGICAL CRISIS COMPELUS to intensify and integrate the organizational efforts of whole communities and search forvarious ways to halt adverse processes. We need varied technical and technological actions, anactive effort in many scientific fields (natural sciences, economics and law) and on the part of

organizers of social life, people representing different spheres and interests but united by a commonidea, the struggle to halt the damage to the human natural environment. These disciplines possess alarge number of possibilities to raise consciousness, creating attitudes, justifications and motivations.

This field of activity includes environmental protection, also defined as ecological humanism. An integralcomponent is philosophicalethical thought together with other disciplines of the humanities: eco-pedagogy, eco-psychology, eco-aesthetics or eco-theology. They complement the natural sciences, eco-nomics and law, with a range of new components, including philosophical, axiological and educationaldimensions. Therefore, for example, on the one hand, ecological philosophy strives to show the collec-tion of philosophical, cultural and world-view conditions that in the modern era have generated radicallyutilitarian positivisttechnocratic thought and whose practical consequences have proved to be highly

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


2/10

Ecological Philosophy, Environmental Ethics and Sustainable Development 101

Copyright 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 16, 100108 (2008)

DOI: 10.1002/sd

dangerous for the natural world. On the other hand, it makes its own significant contribution tothe work of building new thought about humans and the natural world, aiming to project a vision ofthe future and to build a model of civilization orientated towards ecological needs. This is best seen inthe unquestionable contribution of ecological philosophy to the construction of the foundations of theidea first of eco-development and now of sustainable development. In turn, ethical reflection presents

and justifies the desirable hierarchy of values and enriches inordinately all attempts to answer the fun-damental questions: how should people behave towards their natural environment and why should theyact in this way? With this aim it wishes to develop an axiological model of preferences in the relationsbetween humans and nature, in order that moral values should represent an important criterion regulat-ing these relations. They should also temper potential conflicts between human activities and natureand enable such choices to be made that would favour the preservation of ecological balance in situa-tions where humans intervene in the world of nature, adapting it for their needs.

There is no doubt that the situation in which the modern world and civilization have found themselvesrepresents a great challenge for philosophy and ethics. There is the need to refer theoretically toglobal processes, phenomena and tendencies, to reveal their mechanisms and also to engage actively inthe stream of practical actions. The consciousness of the need to protect the nature is confirmed by

philosophicalethical reflection by the effects of its results. Both ecological philosophy and environmen-tal ethics have clearly defined the object of their research interests and have already achieved a high levelof methodological self-awareness. They are also contributing significantly to the theory and practice ofecological education as well as to specific actions in the sphere of protecting the natural world.

International Perspective

Ecological philosophy and environmental ethics, together with their object of interest, were establishedin a reasonably mature form in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly in the United States. Since then their rapidand dynamic development has been visible. In order to reach the earliest sources and the emergence ofecological thought, we need to go back to the second half of the 19th century, when such a trend appearedin American literature, gaining a relatively high degree of resonance. It found followers among repre-sentatives of New England transcendentalism a literaryphilosophical movement with a diverse ideo-logical provenance, in which the most important positions were held by such thinkers as Ralph WaldoEmerson, Henry David Thoreau, Theodore Parker and Margaret Fuller. Their works give voice to theidea of respect for nature, which especially in the works of Emerson and Thoreau stands out sodistinctly that they remained in public consciousness not only for their contemporaries great apolo-gists for and lovers of nature.

Emerson (Gromczynski, 1992) openly criticized the purely utilitarian treatment of nature. His phi-losophy proclaimed the idea of harmonious accord and interdependence of the natural and humanworlds. The philosopher was convinced that nature could become a kind of teacher for people, sincethey can perceive its internal order and harmony.

Without opposing peoples technical intervention in the world of nature, Emerson believes that it isof much greater value when we forego the attitude of dominance and experience a fusion with natureand become conscious of our kinship and substantial identification with everything that surrounds us.This aim is unattainable for those who limit themselves to narrowly utilitarian actions and what is calledscientific reason. What is needed is a change in looking at ourselves and at what surrounds us, embrac-ing with a new look our existence in its substantial unity with the world.

It is Emersons belief that language is of particular importance in revealing the true nature of exis-tence. It owes its peculiar properties to its various dimensions. Language only fulfils this kind of role


3/10

102 W. Tyburski


DOI: 10.1002/sd

when we discover its deepest meanings, which are based on expressing the primary text of nature,forgotten in everyday life. By discovering the primary text of nature we can begin an authentic dialoguewith it.

This skill of communing with nature and conducting his own interpretation of dialogue with it wasmastered by H. D. Thoreau, author of the famous and excellent essays collected under the title Walden,

or Life in the Woods. In these essays he expressed his love for wild nature, declaring like the majorityof people I am drawn to both the sublime and the sphere of the primitive and the wild, but I respectthem both equally. I love wildness no less than goodness and he added goodness is the only investmentthat never disappoints (Thoreau, 1854). His literary output, full of admiration for nature, was also akind of manifesto declared in defence of wild nature. Thoreaus book and Emersons philosophicalthought became the source of inspiration for the world view of many creators and thinkers fascinatedby this idea: Chekhov, Tolstoy, Gandhi; and above all it formed the American mentality. Among othersto find themselves under the spell of these ideas was John Muir, an eminent activist in the field ofenvironmental protection, particularly regarding areas of wilderness in the United States. He was theprecursor of the idea of the protection of wild nature and a eulogist for wilderness, who called for theseareas to be left untouched by human activity and declared the superiority of wild animals over domestic

ones. He thus initiated, on a practical level, the position in the matter of environmental protection thatis defined as preservation, whose supporters strive to preserve the environment and to leave it in a statechanged as little as possible, then formulating an additional postulate the protection of nature, par-ticularly wild nature, for its own sake.

These ideas also touched the style of Aldo Leopold, considered to be the father of ecological philoso-phy and environmental ethics in its various versions. It is he who has most expressively presented themain principle of the idea of preservation. It dismisses the belief in the purely ancillary role of naturetowards humankind and does not accept utilitarianism because it confers value on nature only to thedegree to which it is a requisite of human prosperity and benefit. Instead he expressed the view that theinterests of non-human beings should be taken into consideration for their own sake and not only whenthey serve human aims and needs. Nature should be considered as an ethical good to which humansshould show commitment. He emphasized that nature as a whole, and not selected wild areas as Muirpostulated, had a value in its own right and had the right to exist and to last in the form most appropri-ate for it. The duty of humans is to respect this fact. This is why in his well known book A Sand CountyAlmanac(Leopold, 1948) he presents the proposition of the so-called land ethic. This ethic widens theborders of the biotic community. He proposes a new way of thinking, which from the start poses thequestion not only as to what is profitable from the economic point of view, but also what is ethically andaesthetically right. The correct answer to this, Leopold claims, is based on the conviction that what isright is what benefits the preservation of the coherence, stability and beauty of the biotic community.What is not right, on the other hand, is what is not beneficial for this. Leopold criticizes the system ofnature protection based exclusively on economic benefits while ignoring many elements of the earthscommunity that have no utilitarian values but are indispensable for it to function healthily. Here ethicsplays an unusually far-reaching role, connected with the obligation of protecting all component parts ofthe biotic community.

Leopolds thoughts from his book A Sand County Almanacplayed an inspirational role in establishingthis style of thinking, which generated the new disciplines of reflection of ecological philosophy andenvironmental ethics. With some justification, then, Leopold is widely recognized as the precursor ofthese disciplines. The ideas of the amateur philosopher and forester had enthusiastic followers but werealso the subject of criticism on the part of those who practised philosophy professionally and indicatedthe lack of theoretical justification and found inconsistencies in his thinking, especially the committingof the naturalistic error. Leopolds heir and continuator, the academic philosopher J. Baird Callicott


4/10



DOI: 10.1002/sd

(1989), creatively developed the thinking of the author of the land ethic, and thanks to his professionalpreparation was able to avoid the mistakes and transgressions of which his predecessor was accused.Callicott provided the philosophical bases for the holistically orientated ecological philosophy. Hisunquestionable achievement is the creative development of the idea of the ethic of communities, itstheoretical justification and also the construction of a new way of thinking called the ecocentric para-

digm. For this philosopher, holistic ethics is not only connected with certain obligations towards Earth,but also requires sacrifices for its good, analogously as we take obligations upon ourselves which areoften bound up with renouncement towards our family, friends and country.

Callicotts views became the direct inspiration for the creative activity of one of the most eminentrepresentatives of holistic ecological philosophy, Holmes Rolston III, a person of great merit in theglobal ecological movement (Rolston, 1989). He strived to construct a naturalistic concept of environ-mental ethics, while he based the relations of humans and nature by evoking the category of responsi-bility. He devoted much space in his considerations to the issue of values, including an analysis of theweighty and difficult subject of the transition from values to facts and the search for a way to avoid thenaturalistic error. He indicated the link between facts and values, but at the same time, in accordancewith traditional ethics, he emphasized that such a transition is basically impossible from the point of

view of formal logic. He developed the idea of holistic philosophy with the primacy of the good of wholeecosystems over individual good. He evoked the principles and rules that should be followed by politicswith regard to the natural environment, taken on the local and global scale; he analysed business rela-tions, especially business ethics with regard to the natural environment. In this context, he spoke onmany significant issues included in considerations on sustainable development.

Rolstons considerations are representative of environmental philosophy and ethics in their holisticversion (Rolston, 1989). These disciplines focus on whole ecosystems and in practical postulates to placethe good of the whole above the good of individual beings. This fact differentiates Rolstons views fromthe biocentrically orientated environmental ethics of Paul W. Taylor, which is simultaneously individu-alistic ethics. In this, the way of looking at the problem of the environment through the prism of thegood of individual beings is predominant. Taylors concept, called respect for nature (Taylor, 1986), isone of the best known versions of environmental ethics. The attitude of respect for nature should resultfrom the conviction that every organism, population and community of living beings possesses good(welfare) and intrinsic value, which means that we can think of them as deserving moral treatment andcommitment. According to the creator of the respect for nature ethic, as long as we consider an organ-ism, population or group of organisms as entities with innate value, we believe that they can never betreated as objects or things whose whole value depends on fulfilling an instrumental function simplybecause they are members of the earths living community. For this reason, achieving their good issomething intrinsically valuable. Thus, if we say that an entity has an innate value, then that means thatits good deserves to be the object of reflection of moral subjects, and also that the achievement of itsgood has an intrinsic value of itself, because of it.

On the other hand, the anthropocentric version of the environmental protection ethic, whose bestknown representative is John Passmore, rejects the moral status of non-human beings and thereby thewidening of the scope of morality (Passmore, 1980). It sees no need to construct any new ethics andbelieves that it is possible to solve environmental problems caused by civilization within the frameworkof the existing tradition. The duties formulated on the basis of anthropocentrically orientated environ-mental ethics have moral character only because of their final receiver, so humankind. Within this wayof thinking, these duties and actions lose their moral character when their only and direct addressee isthe environment. We can say, therefore, according to the concept maintained in the spirit of anthropo-centrism, that human actions regarding the natural environment and its non-human inhabitants areactually dependent on whether they fulfil two criteria, namely (a) whether their consequences are


5/10

104 W. Tyburski


DOI: 10.1002/sd

beneficial (or detrimental) for human prosperity and (b) whether they comply (or do not comply) withthe system of norms that protect human rights. Thus we can have obligations that concern the naturalecosystems and biocentric communities of our planet, but these obligations are always based on the factthat how we treat these ecosystems and living communities can only affect the realization of humanvalues and rights.

Another, and one of the most popular trends in current environmental thought, is deep ecology, whosename stresses the fact that in its postulates it decidedly exceeds the way of thinking characteristic ofshallow ecology. The creator of deep ecology, the eminent Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess, reasonsthat the essence of ecological thinking is the posing of deep questions about what society, what systemof education, what religions are most beneficial for life on this planet as a whole, and he adds that socialand humanist knowledge cannot diverge from the answers to these questions (Seed et al., 1988). Deepecology expresses a decided criticism of the positivisttechnocratic model of the development of civiliza-tion, aggressive market economics and the consumer lifestyle. It proposes new ecological thinking, theconcept of green politics aimed at protecting and defending the wealth and variety of forms of life andin the sphere of economics green economics responsible for action on behalf of economically self-suf-ficient bioregions and lifestyles motivated by postulates of restrained consumerism.

Deep ecology, speaking in the name of and on behalf of all forms of life, seeks a better form for therelations between people and other living beings inhabiting Earth. Its supporters contend that it is amisconception of the human race that we identify all values with human values. Therefore, they believethat raw materials and other natural goods are not only for people, but also for all living beings. Inscientific study they place a broad definition of science and holistic thought before a narrow definitionand analytical thought. They demand deep and radical change in the consciousness of society. At thebasis of this change should be the conviction that forms of life do not form pyramids with our speciesat the summit, but rather a circle in which everything is linked with everything.

Among other philosophers we will mention A. Attfield, W. S. Clark, W. K Franken, E. Goldsmith, E.C. Hargrove, J. Lovelock, M. Midgley, R. Nash, T. Regan, B. Rollin, J. Sweed and others.

Polish Perspective

In Poland ecological philosophy and environmental ethics became the object of serious interest andstudies at the end of the 1980s. One of the first papers was On the Idea of Ecological Humanism(Tyburski, 1990). The majority of these publications referred directly to the views of the aforementionedrepresentatives of eco-philosophical thought, developing them creatively, indicating their own stand-points and ways of thinking. In 1992, Marek M. Bonenbergs book Environmental Ethics: Assumptionsand Directions was published (Bonenberg, 1992), which was the first very competent presentation of themain standpoints in environmental ethics in Polish literature. The author, referring to the vast literature,analyses the concepts of Tom Regan, extending moral rights to non-human beings, the individualisticethics of Robin Attfield, the ethic of respect for nature by Paul W. Taylor, the land ethic by Aldo Leopoldand J. Baird Callicott, deep ecology, the ecocentric theory of Holmes Rolston III, the ethical implicationsof the Gaia hypothesis, Edward Goldsmiths biosphere ethics and eco-ethics by Henryk Skolimowski.

In 1993, the next publication devoted to the problem of environmental ethics was published, a bookby the present author entitled Unite with the Earth. Around the Issues of Ecological Humanism(Tyburski,1993). Alongside a presentation of the main standpoints in environmental ethics, the author focusesabove all on highlighting and analysing the axiological, deontological and educational dimension ofthe new discipline. He presents a system of values elaborated on its basis (eco-values), a set of norms


6/10



DOI: 10.1002/sd

and principles of behaviour and a programme of ecological education as seen from the perspective ofenvironmental ethics.

An important event, that had repercussions on the further development of environmental ethics andecological philosophy, was the Sixth Convention of Polish Philosophy in Torun, in 1995. For the first time,a section was created devoted to the issues of environmental ethics, eco-philosophy and bioethics. The

result of the very fruitful deliberations was the publication Eco-Philosophy and Bioethics (Tyburski, 1996a),which included papers by Z. Pia/tek, W. Tyburski, J. M. Dole/ga, Z. Hull, A. Papuzinski and others.

The issues dealt with in the aforementioned publication were drawn on in a further collective work,the fruit of a symposium in which researchers interested in the connections between ecology, econom-ics and ethics presented the results of their investigations. This fact is highlighted by the title of thework: EconomicsEcologyEthics (Tyburski, 1996b). The directions of the considerations presented in itprovide a catalogue of far-reaching questions. How should people behave towards their natural surround-ings and why should they behave thus? How far is economic rationality compatible with ecologicalrationality? In which direction should the economic transformation go in order that the effects of actionsserving economic purposes should not cause negative ecological consequences? What catalogue of valuescan link ecological and economic policies? What elements form the contemporary ideology of environ-

mental protection?The problem of ecological philosophy is the object of interest of Konrad Waloszczyk. His dissertation

entitled The Ecological Crisis in the Light of Eco-Philosophy (Waloszczyk, 1996) deserves particularattention.

In 1998, two important works were published devoted to environmental ethics. Zdzislawa Pia/tek isthe author of a very interesting dissertation entitled Environmental Ethics. A New Look at the Place ofHumans in Nature (Pia/tek, 1998). In line with its title, it proposes a new look at non-human living beingsthat make up the Earths biosphere, taking a biocentric point of view and arguing for the recognition ofthe following points:

not only humans, but also non-human living beings, have an intrinsic value;

not only humans, but also non-human living beings, realize their characteristic vital values and knowhow to live in accordance with their own nature;

not only humans, but also every living being, is a measure of those aspects of the environment withwhich it must cooperate in order to live. The biosphere should not be exploited and managed onlyfrom the point of view of human interests.

The same year a collective work entitled Environmental Ethics. Theoretical and Practical Implications(Tyburski, 1998) was published, presenting the results of the first national conference devoted to variousaspects of environmental ethics. The conference gathered nearly all the researchers specializing in thisdiscipline, who, despite theoretical and methodological differences, had the common conviction thatwhat is happening at the meeting point of ethics and ecology is very significant, and that the world ofhuman relations with nature has a deep axiological dimension which requires theoretical reflection andpractical action.

The works of Andrzej Papuzinski also deserve attention. He proposed the interesting concept of cul-turist ecological philosophy, which found its full expression in the book Life-Science-Ecology. Introductionto Culturist Ecological Philosophy (Papuzinski, 1998). By highlighting the social role of philosophy, cultur-ist ecological philosophy transforms the problem of the natural environment into knowledge about theecological difficulties of contemporary culture; assimilation of this knowledge by society may transformthe existing world.

Different aspects of ecological ethics and philosophy have, for many years, been discussed and anal-ysed by Zbigniew Hull; he pays particular attention to the philosophical foundations of sustainable


7/10

106 W. Tyburski


DOI: 10.1002/sd

development (Hull, 1995). The fullest expression and analysis of the ecological problem, however, is tobe found in the works of Jzef M. Dole/ga (1998).

It is also worth noting that there have been attempts to construct an environmental ethic from theposition of Christian thought. An example is the work by the priest Julislaw Lukomski entitled AnAttempt to Construct a Christian Ethic of the Natural Environment(L

ukomski, 1999). Selected issues in

environmental ethics are analysed from the same position by the priests Tadeusz Slipko and AndrzejZwolinski in the book entitled The Crossroads of Ecology (Slipko and Zwolinski, 1999).

Jan Wawrzyniak analyses the problems of environmental ethics from another, naturalistic position,in a vast dissertation, Theoretical Foundations of Naturalistic Environmental Ethics (Wawrzyniak, 2000),including a very lively, controversial discussion on the relations between humans and nature and whathe calls a new look at the place and duties of humans in the world of nature. In turn, the problem ofenvironmentalism is popularized by Wieslaw Sztumski, while Andrzej Kiepas examines various aspectsof the ecological problem from the perspective of technical philosophy.

Artur Pawlowski speaks on the subject of humans responsibility for nature, referring to Hans Jonassconcept of responsibility, James Lovelocks Gaia concept and Arne Naesss concept of deep ecology.Pawl

owski is also the editor of two volumes of dissertations on the subject of philosophical and social

conditions for sustainable development (Pawlowski 1999, 2003, 2004).A publication entirely devoted to environmental ethics and the popularization of its ideas is a collec-

tive work entitled Environmental Ethics as a Challenge for the 21st Century (Czartoszewski, 2002) theresult of a conference organized by the Centre of Human Ecology and Bioethics at Cardinal StefanWyszynski University in Warsaw.

A survey of the main standpoints in eco-ethics is provided by Ignacy S. Fiut in a book presenting thedirections of environmentally friendly contemporary axiology (Fiut, 1999). In turn, a survey and analy-sis of the basic catalogue of the subjects of eco-philosophy are presented in the latest book by StefanKonstanczak, mainly devoted to the needs of academic didactics, while philosophical premises found atthe basis of the concept of sustainable development are analysed by Leszek Gawor.

It should also be mentioned that in 1999 a collective work, that was also the first academic textbookfrom the field of ecological philosophy, was published under the title An Introduction to the PhilosophicalProblems of Ecology (Papuzinski, 1999). The degree of advancement of research on eco-philosophicalproblems led to a first attempt to sum up the achievements so far. Five authors undertook this task: K.L astowski, Z. Hull, W. Tyburski, J. M. Dole/ga and A. Papuzinski. The second, significantly broadenedand modified, edition of the book is currently being prepared; it also takes into account the output ofPolish eco-philosophical and eco-ethical thought of the last dozen or more years.

Of the latest publications worthy of note is an interesting monograph by L. S. Pyra devoted to theviews of Holmes Rolston III (Pyra, 2003). The problem of ecological philosophy and environmentalethics is also found in the works of other authors, including W. Boloz, M. Ciszek, J. De/bowski, G.Francuz, J. Jaronie, E. Kosmicki, A. Latawiec, D. Liszewski, Z. L epko, Z. Migus, A. Skowronski, Z.Wrblewski and S. Zie/ba.

Let us add that ecological philosophy and environmental ethics at last have their own journal, Problemsof Eco-Development(edited by A. Pawlowski), and that these disciplines are systematically taught at manyPolish universities.

In this very brief review of the standpoints, trends and orientations of ecological philosophy andenvironmental ethics, we must mention the works of Henryk Skolimowski. His writing has found apermanent place in eco-philosophical thought. This philosopher says that the paradigm of mechanisticand positivist thought, which is at the basis of the developmental trends of modern civilization, providesa one-sided interpretation of reality. This is predatory thinking regarding nature and it is in it that weshould perceive the causes not only of ecological disasters but also social and ideological disasters. The


8/10



DOI: 10.1002/sd

direction of creative transformations should lead, according to Skolimowski, from mechanistic, analyti-cal and pragmatic understanding to ecological understanding, which is not a negation of the value ofprogress, nor of the value of science, but another way of reading reality, another way of perceivinghumans in the whole scheme of nature. Instead of atomistic tunnel vision, Skolimowski proposes aholistic vision one that gives a proper perspective of the wholes, within the framework of which the

place of its individual fragments can be revealed. It is to such a concept of discovering the world thatecological consciousness fully corresponds, being a holistic, integrating, therapeutic consciousness parexcellence, and at the same time being in opposition to mechanistic consciousness. There is no savingthe Earth without a change in our consciousness. If we wish to declare peace with the Earth, then aboveall we must change our predatory, parasitic, materialistic consciousness to a reverential one. At the basisof the new consciousness lies the assumption that the world is a sanctuary. In Skolimowskis opinion,this idea redefines humans relationship with the surrounding natural reality and reveals a new optic ofvaried relations with it, based on veneration, respect and reverence. Such an attitude is at the same timean axiological principle of ecological ethics. The role of one of the supreme values in this ethic is takenon by responsibility responsibility for ones own life, the prosperity of future generations, the environ-ment and the future of the whole planet. In the world regarded as a sanctuary, we must take the role of

custodian and carer, behaving with respect and love for the whole of life and the environment. It is thisphilosophers belief that, until now, our way of thinking was dominated by perceiving the world froman economic perspective. What we should do is to see the reality surrounding us through ecologicalspectacles. Today, to think well, says Skolimowski, is to think ecologically. This concerns technical,political and even religious thinking. Therefore, ecological philosophy is a matrix of a new understand-ing of the cosmos and of a proper cooperation with nature and the whole world. Skolimowski is con-vinced that the ideas he proposes are able to provide the proper inspiration for all those who are lookingfor sense in a world threatened by civilization. They are presented in many publications, among themin Hope is the Mother of the Wise or Living Philosophy (Skolimowski, 1989, 1993).

Also in Poland, the problem of ecological philosophy and environmental ethics is an area where aca-demic discussion of various options, standpoints and directions is conducted. It is not possible to presentthe wealth of discussion here, but as an example let us focus on a few selected matters. In the area ofenvironmental ethics, discussions and polemics continue mainly between followers of anthropocentrismand representatives of weak anthropocentrism together with those who question the homocentric pointof view, opting for biocentrism. The objects of heated debate and sometimes trenchant polemics are thevarious views on the place of humans in the universe, on the different perceptions of a supreme valueand theoretical questions of justification, also through various judgements on contemporary culture andcivilization, as well as the concept of the development of the world and the vision of the future.

Conclusion

Despite differences revealed between individual viewpoints, there are also many common areas. Thereis no doubt that the representatives of all the directions in environmental ethics are convinced of theneed to broaden the ethical value and to subject human activity in nature to a moral evaluation. In addi-tion, all agree on the role of ethics in the ecological education of society, and all indicate the need tobuild systems of values (eco-values) and moral codes aimed at environmental problems. They also stressthe importance of forming ecological thought, sensibilities, conscience and an ecological attitude asindispensable elements of an ethical protection of the natural and human environment. They are alsounited in a more general way by the desire to diagnose the causes of the ecological crisis that themodern world is experiencing, to elaborate the best concepts to solve this and to construct such a


9/10

108 W. Tyburski


DOI: 10.1002/sd

philosophy of development that would take into account both the needs of humans and the needs ofnature. This is where the idea of sustainable development has its origin.

ReferencesBonenberg M. 1992. Etyka Srodowiskowa. Zaloz

.enia i Kierunki. UJ: Cracow.

Callicott JB. 1989. In Defense of the Land Ethic. Essays in Environmental Philosophy . State University of New York Press: NewYork.

Czartoszewski JW (ed.). 2002. Etyka Srodowiskowa Wyzwaniem XXI Wieku. UKSW: Warsaw.Dole/ga JM. 1998. Czlowiek w Zagroz

.onym Srodowisku. ATK: Warsaw.

Fiut IS. 1999. Ekoetyki. Kierunki Rozwoju Aksjologii Wsplczesnej Przyjaznej Srodowisku. Abrys: Cracow.

Gromczynski M. 1992. Codziennosc i Absolut w Filozofii Ralpha Waldo Emersona. UL : Ldz.Hull Z. 1995. Filozofia i przyrodoznawstwo w ksztaltowaniu myslenia ekologicznego. In Czlowiek i S

rodowisko. DyscyplinyHumanistyczne i Ekologia, Tyburski W (ed.). UMK: Torun; 1929.

Leopold A. 1948/1987. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University Press: New York.Lukomski J. 1999. Prba Zbudowania Chrzescijanskiej Etyki S

rodowiska Naturalnego. PAT: Cracow.

Papuzinski A. 1998.Z.ycie-Nauka-Ekologia. Prolegomena do Kulturalistycznej Filozofii Ekologii

. WU WSP: Bydgoszcz.Papuzinski A (ed.). 1999. Wprowadzenie do Filozoficznych Problemw Ekologii. WU WSP: Bydgoszcz.Passmore JA. 1980. Mans Responsibility for Nature. Ecological Problems and Western Traditions. Duckworth: London.Pawlowski A. 1999. Odpowiedzialnosc za Przyrode/. PL: Lublin.Pawlowski A (ed.) 2003. Filozoficzne, Ekonomiczne, Inz

.ynierskie i Przyrodnicze Uwarunkowania Zrwnowaz

.onego Rozwoju. PL:

Lublin.Pawlowski A (ed.) 2004. Filozoficzne, Spoleczne i Ekonomiczne Uwarunkowania Zrwnowaz

.onego Rozwoju. PL: Lublin.

Pia/tek Z. 1998. Etyka Srodowiskowa. Nowe Spojrzenie na Miejsce Czlowieka w Przyrodzie. UJ: Cracow.Pyra LS. 2003. Environment and Values. Holmes Rolston IIIs Environmental Philosophy. AR: Cracow.Rolston H III. 1989. Philosophy Gone Wild. Prometheus: Loughton.Seed J, Macy J, Fleming P, Naess A. 1988. Thinking Like A Mountain. Towards a Council of All Beings. New Society: Philadelphia,

PA.Skolimowski H. 1989. Nadzieja Matka/ Ma/drych, Eseje o Ekologii. BEETPFE: Warsaw.

Skolimowski H. 1993. Filozofia Z

.

yja/

ca. Ekofilozofia Jako Drzewo Z

.

ycia. Pusty Oblok: Warsaw.Slipko T, Zwolinski A. 1999. Rozdroz.a Ekologii. WAM: Cracow.Taylor PW. 1986. Respect for Nature. A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.Thoreau HD. 1854. Walden, or Life in the Woods. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/205 [31 December 2006].Tyburski W. 1990. O Idei Humanizmu Ekologicznego. TKSK: Warsaw.Tyburski W. 1993. Pojednac Sie/ z Ziemia/. W Kre/gu Zagadnien Humanizmu Ekologicznego. UMK: Torun.Tyburski W (ed.). 1996a. Ekofilozofia i Bioetyka. UMK: Torun.Tyburski W (ed.). 1996b. EkonomiaEkologiaEtyka. UMK: Torun.Tyburski W (ed.). 1998. Etyka Srodowiskowa. Teoretyczne i Praktyczne Implikacje. UMK: Torun.Waloszczyk K. 1996. Kryzys Ekologiczny w Swietle Ekofilozofii. PL : Ldz.Wawrzyniak J. 2000. Teoretyczne Podstawy Neonaturalistycznej Bioetyki Srodowiskowej. UAM: Poznan.


10/10

Etika Lingkungan Nova

Documents

Transcript of Etika Lingkungan Nova