Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 2 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecology | Singer | I 251 Ecology/Aldo Leopold/Singer, P.: (A. Leopold)(1): Thesis: We need a "new ethics" that deals with the relationship of man to land and animals. Leopold thesis: Something is okay if it intends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community and it is wrong if it does not do so. >Utilitarianism. I 253 Ecology/Deep Ecology/Singer, P.: (see also Ecology/Naess, Ecology/Sessions). Problems: it is the question of whether a species or an ecosystem can be considered as an individual with interests. >Ecosystemic approach. Deep ecology: will have a problem with the definition of reverence for life. One cannot only doubt that trees, species and ecosystems have moral interests: moreover, if they are to be considered as a "self", it is still difficult to show that the survival of this self (the tree or the system) has a moral value, irrespective of the benefit it has for conscious life. Existence/Systems/Value/Ethics/Singer, P.: Another problem: "How is it for a system not to be realized?" I 254 P. SingerVsLovelock, James: In this respect, species, trees and ecosystems are more like rocks than knowing beings. We should confine ourselves to arguments concerning such knowing beings. >Deep ecology. 1. A. Leopold, A Sand County Almanac, with Essay on Conservation from Round River, New York (1970), pp. 238 and 262. |
SingerP I Peter Singer Practical Ethics (Third Edition) Cambridge 2011 SingerP II P. Singer The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. New Haven 2015 |
| Gaia Hypothesis | Braidotti | Braidotti I 84 Gaia Hypothesis/Braidotti: The recognition of multicultural perspectives and the critique of imperialism and ethnocentrism add a crucial aspect to the discussion on the becoming-earth, but nowadays they also fall in their own internal contradictions. Let us take, for instance, the case of ‘deep ecology’. Arne Naess (1977a(1), 1977b(2)) and James Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’ hypothesis (1979)(3) are geo-centred theories that propose a return to holism and to the notion of the whole earth as a single, sacred organism. >Deep ecology. This holistic approach is rich in perspectives, but also quite problematic for a vitalist, materialist posthuman thinker. What is problematic about it is less the holistic part than the fact that it is based on a social constructivist dualistic method. Braidotti I 85 This means that it opposes the earth to industrialization, nature to culture, the environment to society and comes down firmly on the side of the natural order. This results in a relevant political agenda that is critical of consumerism and possessive individualism, including a strong indictment of technocratic reason and technological culture. But this approach has two drawbacks. Firstly, its technophobic aspect is not particularly helpful in itself, considering the world we are living in. Secondly, it paradoxically reinstates the very categorical divide between the natural and the manufactured which it is attempting to overcome. BraidottiVsNaess/BraidottivsLovelock/BraidottiVsDeep ecology: Why do I not agree with this position? Because of two interrelated ideas: firstly, because of the nature-culture continuum and the subsequent rejection of the dualistic methodology of social constructivism - the post-anthropocentric neo-humanists end up reinstating this distinction, albeit with the best of intentions in relation to the natural order; secondly, because I am suspicious of the negative kind of bonding going on in the age of anthropocene between humans and non-humans. The trans-species embrace is based on the awareness of the impending catastrophe: the environmental crisis and the global warm/ning issue, not to speak of the militarization of space, reduce all species to a comparable degree of vulnerability. The problem with this position is that, inflagrant contradiction with its explicitly stated aims, it promotes full-scale humanization of the environment. This strikes me as a regressive move, reminiscent of the sentimentality of the Romantic phases of European culture. I concur therefore with Val Plumwood’s (1993(4), 2003(5)) assessment that deep ecology misreads the earth–cosmos nexus and merely expands the structures of possessive egoism and self-interests to include non-human agents. Braidotti I 86 In contrast with this position, but also building on some of its premises, I would like to propose an updated brand of Spinozism (Citton and Lordon, 2008(6)). I see Spinozist monism, and the radical immanent forms of critique that rest upon it, as a democratic move that promotes a kind of ontological pacifism. >Spinoza. 1. Naess, Arne. 1977a. Spinoza and ecology. In: Siegfried Hessing (ed.) Speculum Spinozanum, 1877–1977. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 2.Naess, Arne. 1977b. Through Spinoza to Mahayana Buddhism or through Mahayana Buddhism to Spinoza? In: Jon Wetlesen (ed.) Spinoza’s Philosophy of Man, Proceedings of the Scandinavian Spinoza Symposium. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. 3. Lovelock, James. 1979. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 4. Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. London and New York: Routledge. 5. Plumwood, Val. 2003. Environmental Culture. London: Routledge. 6. Citton, Yves and Frédéric Lordon. 2008. Spinoza et les Sciences Sociales. Paris: Editions Amsterdam. |
Braidotti I Rosie Braidotti The Posthuman Cambridge, UK: Polity Press 2013 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.