No description available.

Ever since the environment and nonhumanity became major ethical topics, human-centered worldviews have been blamed for all that is morally wrong about our dealings with nature. Those who consider themselves nonanthropocentrists typically assume that the West’s anthropocentric axiologies and ontologies underlie all of the environmental degradations associated with our species. On the other hand, a handful of environmental philosophers argue that anthropocentrism is perfectly acceptable as a foundation for environmental ethics. According to Bryan Norton’s convergence hypothesis, "If reasonably interpreted and translated into appropriate policies, a nonanthropocentric ethic will advocate the same [environmental] policies as a suitably broad and long-sighted anthropocentrism" (Norton 2004:11). Norton notes that although adherents to either ism may disagree about the relative importance of the various reasons they have for advocating such policies, they nevertheless share an equal commitment to protecting the environment. Because any form of anthropocentrism must fundamentally favor humanity over nonhumanity, nonanthropocentrists are nevertheless concerned that such favoritism is "nothing more than the expression of an irrational bias" (Taylor 1981:215). They reason that only a nonanthropocentric ethic can guarantee that policies do not arbitrarily favor humans when their interests conflict with those of nonhumans. I argue that critics of convergence fail to appreciate that Norton’s hypothesis is limited to ideologies that he deems "reasonable" and "suitably broad and long-sighted," or else they misapprehend what these terms imply. When it comes to ethics, nonanthropocentrists and anthropocentrists alike vary along a continuum according to whether their overriding intuitions are more aligned with individualistic or collectivistic axiologies and their associated timescales. The most unreasonable, narrow, and short-sighted ideologies are those that are the most individualistic. It is at the collective end of the continuum that Norton’s proposed convergence takes place. I defend a version of anthropocentrism that I term ecological anthropocentrism.

This thesis aims to contribute to ecocentric views by revising and criticising Callicott&#039 / s conception of environment and ecocentric ethics that he develops in the light of ecology and the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics. The thesis also aims to support the ecocentric point of view by suggesting a different approach to the conception of environment in the light of the Existential Interpretation.

Dans ce mémoire, nous étudierons la place que devrait occuper en éthique environnementale, la notion de valeur intrinsèque de la nature, et nous critiquerons l’approche pragmatique qui rejette cette dernière. Pour Bryan G. Norton, l’un des pères du pragmatisme en éthique environnementale, la notion de valeur intrinsèque est un frein à la mise en place de politiques publiques en environnement. Nous défendrons, au contraire, l’idée que cette notion peut jouer un rôle essentiel en éthique environnementale en servant de base commune à l’établissement de politiques pouvant lutter efficacement contre des problématiques mondiales en environnement. Pour ce faire, nous commencerons par présenter l’approche pragmatique et ses critiques des théories de la valeur intrinsèque de la nature. Dans un second temps, nous critiquerons certains aspects du pragmatisme pour montrer que cette approche possède des défauts pouvant être comblés par la notion de valeur intrinsèque. Le caractère inadéquat d’une approche purement pragmatique face à des enjeux mondiaux en environnement ayant été établi, nous articulerons finalement la notion de valeur intrinsèque de la nature telle que la conçoit J. Baird Callicott. Ce faisant, nous établirons la base métaphysique permettant de soutenir l’existence de ce type de valeur pour les espèces et nous montrerons, grâce à Willis Jenkins, qu’une approche pragmatique peut être compatible avec la notion de valeur intrinsèque de la nature, moyennant certains aménagements. La notion de valeur intrinsèque de la nature peut ainsi jouer un rôle crucial en éthique environnementale et il est de notre devoir de résister aux tentatives de marginalisation la visant. / In this paper, we will study the place that the notion of intrinsic value in nature should take in environmental ethics and we will criticize pragmatism for rejecting the notion of intrinsic value. For Bryan G. Norton, one of the forefathers of environmental pragmatism, the notion of intrinsic value is an obstacle to the establishment of public environmental policies. Contrary to this belief, we will argue that this notion can play an essential part in environmental ethics as a common ground for establishing global politics able to respond to international environmental issues. For this purpose, we will first present the pragmatic approach and its arguments against the use of intrinsic value in nature. On this basis, we will then criticize some aspects of environmental pragmatism in order to show that this position is not flawless and that some shortcomings could be remediated with the use of the notion of intrinsic value in nature. The inadequacy of a purely pragmatic position in regard to global environmental threat having been shown, we will finally present the notion of intrinsic value in nature as conceived by J. Baird Callicott. This presentation will give us the essentials tools to establish the metaphysical foundation of the intrinsic value for species. We will finally show, with the help of Willis Jenkins position, that environmental pragmatism can be compatible with the use of intrinsic value in nature. Intrinsic value in nature can play a crucial role in environmental ethics and we should consequently resist to those who treat this notion as irrelevant.