21世纪荒野伦理的案例

IF 1.5 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Ethics Policy & Environment Pub Date : 2020-05-03 DOI:10.1080/21550085.2020.1848183
Brian Petersen, J. Hultgren
{"title":"21世纪荒野伦理的案例","authors":"Brian Petersen, J. Hultgren","doi":"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Past debates surrounding wilderness have not led to constructive dialogue but instead have created a rift between dueling sides. Far from academic, this debate has important ethical, policy, and practical implications. We outline out the major fault lines of the debate between wilderness realists and constructivists and also identify common ground between them. From this starting point, we offer three potential bridges between them and conclude by proposing a preliminary vision of a 21st Century wilderness ethic focused on social-ecological connection, re-commoning, and social justice. Returning to the ‘great wilderness debate’ can lead to a synthesis of the realist and constructivist positions and a renewed wilderness ethic in an era of neoliberalism, hyper-nationalism, and intensified environmental crises.","PeriodicalId":45955,"journal":{"name":"Ethics Policy & Environment","volume":"1 1","pages":"222 - 239"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Case for a 21st Century Wilderness Ethic\",\"authors\":\"Brian Petersen, J. Hultgren\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21550085.2020.1848183\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Past debates surrounding wilderness have not led to constructive dialogue but instead have created a rift between dueling sides. Far from academic, this debate has important ethical, policy, and practical implications. We outline out the major fault lines of the debate between wilderness realists and constructivists and also identify common ground between them. From this starting point, we offer three potential bridges between them and conclude by proposing a preliminary vision of a 21st Century wilderness ethic focused on social-ecological connection, re-commoning, and social justice. Returning to the ‘great wilderness debate’ can lead to a synthesis of the realist and constructivist positions and a renewed wilderness ethic in an era of neoliberalism, hyper-nationalism, and intensified environmental crises.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45955,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"222 - 239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics Policy & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848183\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics Policy & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2020.1848183","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

过去围绕荒野的辩论并没有带来建设性的对话,反而在交战双方之间制造了裂痕。这场辩论远非学术,而是具有重要的伦理、政策和实践意义。我们概述了荒野现实主义者和建构主义者之间辩论的主要断层线,并确定了他们之间的共同点。从这个出发点出发,我们提供了它们之间的三个潜在桥梁,并提出了21世纪荒野伦理的初步愿景,重点是社会-生态联系,重新共同和社会正义。在新自由主义、极端民族主义和环境危机加剧的时代,回到“大荒野辩论”可以导致现实主义和建构主义立场的综合,以及一种新的荒野伦理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Case for a 21st Century Wilderness Ethic
ABSTRACT Past debates surrounding wilderness have not led to constructive dialogue but instead have created a rift between dueling sides. Far from academic, this debate has important ethical, policy, and practical implications. We outline out the major fault lines of the debate between wilderness realists and constructivists and also identify common ground between them. From this starting point, we offer three potential bridges between them and conclude by proposing a preliminary vision of a 21st Century wilderness ethic focused on social-ecological connection, re-commoning, and social justice. Returning to the ‘great wilderness debate’ can lead to a synthesis of the realist and constructivist positions and a renewed wilderness ethic in an era of neoliberalism, hyper-nationalism, and intensified environmental crises.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics Policy & Environment
Ethics Policy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
Revising the Keystone Species Concept for Conservation: Value Neutrality and Non-Nativeness Why Conceptions of Scale Matter to Artificity Arguments in SRM Ethics Animal Dignity: Philosophical Reflections on Non-Human Existence Justice and Sustainability Tensions in Agriculture: Wicked Problems in the Case of Dutch Manure Policy Covert Moral Enhancement: Are Dirty Hands Needed to Save the Planet?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1