首页> 外文期刊>Ethics & the environment >REPLACEMENT AND IRREVERSIBILITY THE PROBLEM WITH ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AS MORAL REPAIR
【24h】

REPLACEMENT AND IRREVERSIBILITY THE PROBLEM WITH ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION AS MORAL REPAIR

机译:道德修复中生态修复的替代和不可逆转问题

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Should the process of ecological restoration be considered a type of moral reparation? In a recent issue of this journal, Ben Almassi (2017) has argued that ecological restoration should be understood as a moral repair, i.e., as "a model for rebuilding the moral conditions of relationships" (20). Ideas of restorative justice and moral repair are appropriate to address human injustice and wrongdoing. But these concepts are vacuous and lose their meaning when addressing the ethics of human activities regarding the natural world because of the essential character of the restoration process: the replacement or substitution of new entities for pre-existing entities in an attempt to reverse the irreversible. At best, the idea of moral reparations to nature is a weak metaphor with no practical efficacy; at worst, it totally misconceives the relationship between human activity and the natural environment in the process of ecological restoration and provides yet another dangerous and disingenuous justification of human arrogance and domination of the natural world. In the guise of the act of moral reparations, humans are instead attempting to assume the powers of God, to control the natural and human world. My previous criticisms of the ethics and meaning of ecological restorations-especially regarding the substitution of new individuals and the artifactual nature of restorations-can be used to undermine Almassi's thesis of moral repair as a goal of ecological restoration practice. In addition an analysis of the Book of Job in the Old Testament demonstrates that not even God-much less humans-can restore and replace what has been destroyed.
机译:生态恢复过程应被视为一种道德赔偿吗?本·阿尔马西(Ben Almassi,2017)在该期刊的最新一期中指出,生态恢复应被理解为一种道德修repair,即被理解为``一种重建关系的道德条件的模型''(20)。恢复性司法和道德修复的思想适合解决人类的不公正和不法行为。但是,由于恢复过程的本质特征,这些概念是虚无的,在处理人类活动关于自然界的伦理时失去了意义:将新实体替换或替换为先前存在的实体,以试图逆转不可逆转的实体。充其量,对自然的道德赔偿是一个微弱的隐喻,没有实际的功效。在最坏的情况下,它完全误解了生态恢复过程中人类活动与自然环境之间的关系,并为人类的自大和自然世界的统治提供了又危险又不明确的理由。伪装成道德赔偿的幌子,人类正试图承担上帝的力量,以控制自然世界和人类世界。我以前对生态恢复的伦理学和意义的批评,尤其是关于新个体的替代和恢复的人为性质的批评,可以用来破坏阿尔玛西作为生态恢复实践目标的道德修复论。此外,对旧约中的《约伯记》的分析表明,即使是上帝-更少的人类-都无法恢复和取代被毁的东西。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Ethics & the environment》 |2018年第1期|17-28|共12页
  • 作者

    ERIC KATZ;

  • 作者单位

    the New Jersey Institute of Technology;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 02:19:32

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号