Abstract

Holist philosophy is a dominant school of thought within modern nature ethics. Commonly referred to in contemporary philosophy as ecocentrism, holist nature ethics postulates that larger abstract constructs, such as "species," the "ecosystem" the "biotic community" or the "land" should be accorded the highest value in ethical conduct toward nature. Holists contrast their philosophy with the atomistic and egocentric orientation of modern Western culture, arguing that humans should see themselves as part of the larger matrix of nature. In this study I critique this holist orientation, arguing that in expanding their moral allegiance to the larger "whole," holist nature philosophers reflect a masculinist orientation that fails to incorporate care and compassion for individual non-human animals. ;I examine four representatives of holist philosophy---Theodore Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, Holmes Rolston III, and Warwick Fox---focusing on the scope of their moral concern for nature, as well as the criteria they use for delineating the parameters of moral considerability. My intention is to understand the underlying worldviews that shape their attitudes toward non-human animals, as well as the place that they accord to empathy and care for individual non-humans. My central thesis is that the failure of holist theorists to incorporate respect for individual non-humans stems from an orientation which idealizes transcending the biological realm, represented by non-human animals, as well as affiliative ties. I furthermore argue that the holists in this study use non-human animals as symbols or props to support their constructs or psychological states. I make the case that these attitudes are masculinist in that they subordinate empathy and care for individual beings to a larger, cognitive perspective or "whole." ;I apply historical, analytical and metaphorical approaches in my exploration of each theorist in an attempt to understand the masculinist views that underlie their philosophy. In addition, I bring a lens that is shaped by the research in feminist social psychology and philosophy regarding the process of gender formation. I examine the literature that contends that men's urge to transcend the realm of biology is motivated their lack of a sense of connection and continuity with nature. I apply these ideas in my analysis of two representatives of the conservation movement, Roosevelt and Leopold. I show that sport hunting and the concept of manliness were central factors in the early nineteenth century movement for nature protection. Moreover, I argue that the protection that Roosevelt and Leopold sought for nature was motivated by the desire to preserve sport hunting as a heritage for future generations of young boys. Although Leopold sought to move beyond an instrumental orientation toward nature, I argue that sport hunting continued to play a central role in his thought. I go on to examine the ways in which more recent expressions of holism continue to subordinate individual non-humans in more subtle ways, i.e. through a conceptual "sacrifice" to larger constructs. ;In my last chapter, I propose an alternative ecofeminist holist philosophy. As I conceive it, ecofeminist holist philosophy attempts to identify the social and cultural factors that facilitate and impede the capacity for appropriate care. It emphasizes the importance in nature ethics of moral imagination, empathy, narrative, play, the act of attention and vegetarian practice