罗尔斯顿与克里考特的荒野论争及其反思  

Rolston and Callicott's Wilderness Debate and Its Reflection

作　　者：李秀艳[1] 

机构地区：[1]唐山师范学院社会科学部,河北唐山063000

出　　处：《哈尔滨工业大学学报（社会科学版）》2013年第2期135-140,共6页Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology(Social Sciences Edition)

摘　　要：罗尔斯顿和克里考特对美国既存的荒野观和荒野保护路线存在不同的看法。罗尔斯顿捍卫美国既存的"无人"荒野观,主张荒野保存;克里考特批判美国既存的"无人"荒野观,主张建立生物多样性保留区。实际上,克里考特的生物多样性保留区,虽看似解决了对印第安人的环境不正义问题,但却更易导致对环境的破坏。而罗尔斯顿揭示了环境不正义的根源,即不公正的社会制度。因此,只要在荒野保存中坚持生存原则,尊重文化差异和环境权利原则、公正原则(含补偿正义原则),就能在保护荒野的同时,实现环境正义。Rolston and Callicott have different ideas on the received wilderness view in America and the routes of wilderness protection. Rolston defends the received wilderness view that wildernesses are places that are hntrammeled by man ,where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,and advocates wilderness preservation. Callicott criticizes the received wilderness view in America, and advocates the establishment of biodiversity reserves. In fact, Callicott＇s biodiversity reserve, which looks like a solution to environmental injustice with Indialas,is more likely to cause environmental destruction. Whereas Rolston reveals the roots of environmental injustice, that is, unjust social system. So as long as we adhere to the principle of survival, the principle of respect for cultural differences and environmental rights, and the principle of justice （ including the principle of compensatory justice） in wilderness preservation, can we realize environmental justice in wilderness preservation.

关 键 词：既存荒野观 荒野保存 生物多样性保留区 环境正义 

分 类 号：B82-058[哲学宗教—伦理学]