“放任自然”还是“优化自然”——论个体主义与整体主义关于环境管理的张力与合力  

“To Let Nature Be”or“to Optimize Nature”--on the Tension and Integration about Environmental Management between Individualism and Holism

作　　者：孙亚君[1] SUN Ya-jun(School of Tourism and Event Management,Shanghai University of International Business and Economics,Shanghai 201620,China)

机构地区：[1]上海对外经贸大学会展与旅游学院,上海201620

出　　处：《科学技术哲学研究》2020年第6期101-107,共7页Studies in Philosophy of Science and Technology

基　　金：国家社会科学基金“应对生物入侵的环境伦理研究”(15CZX058)。

摘　　要：人类应该如何对待自然?这是所有环境伦理学的核心课题。但是,不同学派对此持有不同立场。作为个体主义的进路,不论是汤姆·里根的权利论还是保罗·泰勒的生命中心论,都呈现出“放任自然”的基调。相对地,作为整体主义的克里考特的生态中心论则倾向于“优化自然”的立场。文章阐明了个体主义与整体主义关于理想自然的差异性。这种差别也体现在关于物种保护的各自态度上。但是,无论是个体主义还是整体主义,都没能恰当地处理物种保护的道德性问题。进而,文章指出,至少在道德实践的方式上,三种学派之间是可以互相兼容的。虽然个体主义的精神是“尊重它者”,而整体主义的原因是“谦卑自身”,但它们在实践上都共同指向了“不干涉”策略。这应该成为环境伦理学不同学派间进一步对话与协调的首要共识。How should human beings deal with nature?This is a key topic of all environmental ethics.But different schools display inconsistent positions on this issue.As individualistic approaches,both Tom Regan’s rights view and Paul Taylor’s biocentrism hold a“laissez faire”opinion.By contrast,J.Baird Callicott’s ecocentrism as the holistic school prefers to“optimize”nature.In this paper,I try to clarify the difference in“ideal nature”between individualism and holism.This difference is also reflected in their attitudes towards species protection.Neither individualism nor holism,however,could properly deal with the moral issue of species protection.Further,I will demonstrate that the three schools are practically compatible to some extent.Although the individualism’s spirit is to“respect other beings”while holism’s reason is to“humble human beings”,at the practical level,they share a common orientation towards a“non-interference”strategy.This should be the primary consensus for further dialogue and coordination among different environmental ethics.

关 键 词：环境伦理 生态中心论 生命中心论 动物权利 道德实践 

分 类 号：N031[自然科学总论—科学技术哲学]