论文部分内容阅读
This paper comments on the different schools of non-anthropocentrism, such as pathocentrism, biocentrism and physiocentrism, etc. The characteristics of these schools put an emphasis on the value and right of nature. The paper points out that the ecological ethics of non-anthropocentrism cannot interpret the relationship between mankind and nature convincingly. Moreover it makes the environment problems so complicated that men are entangled in endless debate about the right of nature and forget our responsibility for the interests of future generations. The paper considers that we do not need the so-called new ecological ethics anymore, because our moral theory, namely, the anthropocentric ethics available at present, is sufficient to offer arguments for the environment protection of mankind. It is the only way out to overcome the ecological crisis by balance the interests of the present generation with the interests of future generations.
This paper comments on the different schools of non-anthropocentrism, such as pathocentrism, biocentrism and physiocentrism, etc. The characteristics of these schools put an emphasis on the value and right of nature. The paper points out that the ecological ethics of non-anthropocentrism can not interpret the relationship between mankind and nature convincingly. Moreover it makes the environment problems so complicated that men are entangled in endless debate about the right of nature and forget our responsibility for the interests of future generations. The paper considers that we do not need the so-called new ecological ethics anymore, because our moral theory, namely, the anthropocentric ethics available at present, is sufficient to offer arguments for the environment protection of mankind. It is the only way out to overcome the ecological crisis by balance the interests of the present generation with the interests of future generations