Whether philosophy can contribute decisively towards alleviating humanity’s pressing environmental predicament I here argue in the affirmative. There are many considerations that challenge my case. Specifically, I show that environmental ethics, the subdiscipline of moral philosophy which was founded on the presumption of this possibility, has faltered. The field threatens to divide between “impractical theoretical” discourses within the academy, and “pragmatic” and largely atheoretical “practical” engagements with environmental science, policy and management. To help environmental ethics advance beyond this dysfunctional division, I explore methodological comparisons with bioethics, the “most successful field of applied ethics”. My deliberations apply in novel ways Bartha’s model for evaluating the plausibility of scientific hypotheses that incorporate analogies. In an initial test application of Bartha’s model, I evaluate the relevance to environmental ethics of the failure of the “top-down” applied ethics approach in bioethics. I present good reasons to conclude that environmental ethics can indeed learn from this failure. I also conclude that my trial application of Bartha’s model is promising. I then evaluate two proposals for reforms towards the greater practical effectiveness of environmental ethics. First I evaluate the plausibility of the proposal of Minteer and Collins for a new field of “ecological ethics”. They argue for the adoption of the broadly pragmatic methodological commitments now prevailing in bioethics. Because they focus primarily on supporting individual rather than collaborative processes of ethical judgment, I argue they risk facilitating an ethically pernicious “ecological paternalism” on analogy with the widely condemned practice of medical paternalism. Second I evaluate Norton’s proposal to incorporate environmental ethics within the adaptive ecosystem management paradigm. By arguing that the tasks of seeking cultural and biophysical sustainability within spatiotemporally defined communities must be integrated, Norton offers a potentially vital interface for intelligent and just interaction between culture and wider nature. I also argue this interface may be of more general relevance to bioethics and moral and political philosophy. However, a significant theoretical challenge for Norton’s sustainability model is identified. I argue that his model provides a thought experiment which illustrates the conceptual and practical incoherence of the primary liberal mechanisms for managing ethical conflict once these are applied to the sustainability challenge. Those mechanisms are the separation of public and private spheres and the simultaneous pursuit within private spaces of mutually exclusive conceptions of the good (and biophysically sustainable) life. I argue that rectifying this failure defines a vital, albeit daunting, theoretical and practical challenge for environmental ethics. That is to reconceptualise ethical conflict and to help design and facilitate practical processes to achieve sufficient common ethical agreement. Addressing this challenge is beyond the scope of this dissertation. However, some promising work and possibilities for further research are outlined. I conclude that I have successfully defended the value of analogical comparison with bioethics for enhancing the unity and effectiveness of theory and practice in environmental ethics. I therefore further conclude that I am correct to affirm that philosophy can, and I believe indeed should, contribute more effectively toward alleviating humanity’s pressing environmental predicament.

Modernity as a philosophical and intellectual movement has cultivated a perspective of humanity as separated from nature. In modernity, nature is valuable only insofar as it has instrumental value (i.e. that it may be utilized for the benefit of humanity). This study postulates that such an approach to the nature-human relationship may have led to considerable environmental damage and misuse, and that the perspective of humanity as separate from nature should be re-evaluated. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‟s philosophy is investigated as a possible means to overcome this dichotomy. De Chardin describes varying ontologies that are embedded in the evolutionary process and against which all human relevance and action must be sketched. This differs from an evolutionistic approach, because whilst engaging with scientific discourse (which tends to be reductionist in approach), De Chardin also incorporates spiritual and religious ideas and perspectives. Furthermore, De Chardin‟s ideas differ from vague pantheism, irrationally or mystically formulated, because he engages with the terminology used in modern science and re-evaluates this terminology‟s application and conclusions in relation to his newly developed cosmology (or cosmogenesis). Several questions are central in this study: Firstly, could De Chardin‟s approach be incorporated into the natural scientific discourse? Secondly, does De Chardin‟s cosmology provide new avenues for investigation into a closer and more sustainable relationship between humanity and the natural world? In this study it is postulated that De Chardin does make a contribution to a more sustainable relationship between nature and humanity through his perspective of a holistic ontology that differs from simple mysticism and his postulation of the noosphere, which leads to a new evaluation of humanity‟s technology use. / MPhil, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

Modernity as a philosophical and intellectual movement has cultivated a perspective of humanity as separated from nature. In modernity, nature is valuable only insofar as it has instrumental value (i.e. that it may be utilized for the benefit of humanity). This study postulates that such an approach to the nature-human relationship may have led to considerable environmental damage and misuse, and that the perspective of humanity as separate from nature should be re-evaluated. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin‟s philosophy is investigated as a possible means to overcome this dichotomy. De Chardin describes varying ontologies that are embedded in the evolutionary process and against which all human relevance and action must be sketched. This differs from an evolutionistic approach, because whilst engaging with scientific discourse (which tends to be reductionist in approach), De Chardin also incorporates spiritual and religious ideas and perspectives. Furthermore, De Chardin‟s ideas differ from vague pantheism, irrationally or mystically formulated, because he engages with the terminology used in modern science and re-evaluates this terminology‟s application and conclusions in relation to his newly developed cosmology (or cosmogenesis). Several questions are central in this study: Firstly, could De Chardin‟s approach be incorporated into the natural scientific discourse? Secondly, does De Chardin‟s cosmology provide new avenues for investigation into a closer and more sustainable relationship between humanity and the natural world? In this study it is postulated that De Chardin does make a contribution to a more sustainable relationship between nature and humanity through his perspective of a holistic ontology that differs from simple mysticism and his postulation of the noosphere, which leads to a new evaluation of humanity‟s technology use. / MPhil, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

The Comprehensive Environmental Decision Making (CEDM) paradigm developed through this research conceptualizes CEDM through a particular way of seeing a commitment to man's relationship with his environment. Previous research has explored CEDK but the idea remains ill-defined. The challenge in this research is to reestablish the guiding ideas of the government-environment-citizens matrix, while at the same time describe a meaning and means of operation suitable for environmental professionals working in industry today, where the man-environment commitment is critical to economic growth and environmental quality. In this research a meaning and means of operation begins with Lynton K. Caldwell's guiding ideas. As an avenue of implementation, government structures established through The National Environmental Policy Act and the Pollution Prevention Act provide policy reinforcement. Accepting policy as a CEDM avenue the requirements of environmental understanding, information and perception are developed through aspects of the environment and sustainable development with rational ecology ultimately providing the guideposts and criteria whereby CEDM may be judged. Citizens are those environmental professionals where an ethic is shaped through systems learning with the Environmental Management System used as a framework to establish the CEDM network of relationships in the workplace. The professional's socially binding value is hypothesized as an obligation not to do harm. With this value orientation, rational ethics and systems thinking provide guidelines that direct the professional in evaluating and optimizing policy and business structures. The CEDM paradigm is illustrated as a social choice mechanism suited to the 1990s and beyond by using case studies to apply policy directions.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Texas, Aug., 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Tübingen. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 281-299).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Murdoch University, 1997. / Includes bibliographical references (86 p. ).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2003. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Arts. Bibliography: p. 456-492.

Thesis (Ph.D.) -- Flinders University, Dept of Theology. / Typescript (bound). Includes bibliographical references (leaves 357-386). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Oregon, 2008. / Typescript. Includes vita and abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 592-621). Also available online in Scholars' Bank; and in ProQuest, free to University of Oregon users.