Environmental Ethics 4 (2):163-174 (1982)
AbstractEnvironmental ethics in its modem classical expression by Aldo Leopold appears to fall afoul of Hume’s prohibition against deriving ought-statements from is-statements since it is presented as a logical consequence of the science of ecology. Hume’s is/ought dichotomy is reviewed in its historical theoretical context. A general formulation bridging is and ought, in Hume’s terms, meeting his own criteria for sound practical argument, is found. It is then shown that Aldo Leopold’s land ethic is expressible as a special case of this general formulation. Hence Leopold’s land ethic, despite its direct passage from descriptive scientific premises to prescriptive normative conclusions, is not in violation of any logical strictures which Hume would impose upon axiological reasoning
Similar books and articles
From Aldo Leopold to the Wildlands Project.Laura Westra - 2001 - Environmental Ethics 23 (3):261-274.
Holists and Fascists and Paper Tigers...Oh My!Michael P. Nelson - 1996 - Ethics and the Environment 1 (2):103 - 117.
Animal liberation: A triangular affair.J. Baird Callicott - 1980 - Environmental Ethics 2 (4):311-338.
Building Receptivity: Leopold's Land Ethic and Critical Feminist Interpretation.Kathryn J. Norlock - 2011 - Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture 5 (4):493-512.
Do Deconstructive Ecology and Sociobiology Undermine Leopold’s Land Ethic?J. Baird Callicott - 1996 - Environmental Ethics 18 (4):353-372.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Does clinical ethics need a Land Ethic?Alistair Wardrope - 2019 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 22 (4):531-543.
Re-Examining the Darwinian Basis for Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic.Roberta L. Millstein - 2015 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 18 (3):301-317.
The world of concrete contents.Arne Naess - 1985 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 28 (1-4):417 – 428.
Making and finding values in nature: From a Humean point of view.Y. S. Lo - 2006 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):123 – 147.
References found in this work
No references found.