In this paper, I argue that the subject of environmental ethics demands the critique of political economy: a political economy is always at the core of the human relationship to nonhuman nature. The elaboration of an ecological political economy is therefore a central task of Environmental Ethics. I make this argument in 4 stages. First, I argue that an “economy” is the interface of a social system (culture) and the biosphere. This interface is the political economy. Second, I argue for a principle of ontological interconnectedness between the human and the nonhuman. Third, I argue that since no human society exists without an economic fundament, the political economy is directly integrated to the ecology of the local. Here we have a standard for normativity: the consistency or inconsistency of a political economy with its ecological system provides a standard for normativity. Fourth, I conclude by asserting that the task of environmental ethics inexorably involves the critique of political economy. Environmental ethics concerns the human relationship to nonhuman nature. Because the fundament of the relationship of humans to nonhuman nature is economic, the subject of environmental ethics ultimately leads to a critique of the political economy in terms of the lessons of ecological science. Therefore, the goal of environmental ethics is the elaboration of ecological political economy.

A systematic approach to the description of phenomenon of environmental consciousness began to emerge in the second half of the ХХ century. An understanding strengthened by the widening environmental crisis had become a paradigmatic basis for this description. Its reasons lie in a dominant way of human techno-centrism, and it cannot be overcome without a change of this predominant worldview, universal and specific consciousness being a “psychological basis” of the ecological crisis. In a certain sense, the most appropriate reflection of the scheme of environmental consciousness will be the concept of semiotic fields or certain semiotic structures and specific symbolic series. These constructs are: Apocalyptic (predetermination of the end of history); the expansion of the human self-boundaries to the community and to the living in general; the value of life, regardless of its forms. One can say that environmental consciousness has a certain set of qualities, knowledge, symbolic means for addressing environmental situations, where the primary is the collision with environmental problems, and then there emerges a technical problem, aimed at resolving them in the space design of consciousness. However, when studying the phenomenon of environmental consciousness, some authors point out that the idea of environmental consciousness as a conceptual system can meet objections since the basis for the development of man’s relationship to nature lies in unconscious processes. Without denying the possibility of their participation, it must be emphasized that, in our interpretation, environmental consciousness is based on the knowledge gained from active and passive experience with the objects of the external world, situation analysis, and forecasts. Furthermore, exploring the phenomenon of environmental consciousness and its relationship with other mental phenomenon - unconscious, it is necessary to indicate the paradigmatic premise: the idea of multiplicity of events, that our lives can be at the same time turned in polysemantic (multi-character and multi-conceptual) space. Environmental consciousness can be seen as a very complex, self-regulating (i.e. having the ability to change the very purpose, functions and links) system, created to meet the challenges of establishing, stabilizing or changing relationship with nature and its objects that arise in the process of meeting man’s needs.

This paper begins, in Part I, with a brief discussion of the “objective self” described in John Rawls’ Theory of Justice (Harvard University Press, 1971), and Michael J. Sandal’s criticism of it (in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, (Cambridge University Press, 1985) with the purpose of proposing a ‘thickening’ of the concept of Rawls’ “thin (or objective) self” that would make sense of moral obligations and commitments to global environmental stewardship. In part II, a ‘thicker self’ is envisioned as one that incorporates indigenous, earth nurturing, values as essential to its own identity, and that, hence, has properties that promote commitment to environmental preservation. Part III, sets forth the suggestion that philosophers need to construe the human self in a thicker, more environmentally friendly, way than Rawls’s thin self is construed—-namely, in a way that involves the respecting of the wisdom of earth-preserving peoples and cultures, thus allowing the concept self to include awareness of globally focused environmental justice responsibilities.

The maxim of “living in accordance with cosmic nature” is fundamental to the theories of the Stoics. Nature is the entire external universe and it is composed of both incorporeal matter and material substance, i.e., plants, animals and human beings. Nature is all beings and all things, but their substance and their existence are both independent from human free will. The pervasive influence of nature is reflected on the Stoic body of doctrine in the same way that the perception of nature is related to the ideas of the unity of the world and the totality of the coexistence of beings and incorporeal extra-beings. Stoic thinkers placed a great value on the idea of nature and identified it with cosmos or the universe. Nature is conceived to be all-inclusive and it is made up out of all kinds of beings and bodies, including the incorporeal ones which are also part of the universe. According to Stoics, nature and the universe as a whole are divine in essence with both inherent and functional properties. Stoics, who are regarded as pantheists, held the view that the cosmos is conceived of as divine and that it is interrelated with God, in the sense that God is the universe and acts as a spirit within nature and human life in the form of “cosmic reason”. All is ordained by reason, cosmic reason exists in the physical world and “logos” directs human beings. For Stoics the pantheists, nature is sacred and holy and human beings will not be able to attain eudaimonia if they do not strive to live in accordance with nature and free from all externals, which, in its turn, is achieved through “Logos”, as the latter is interconnected with man’s existence. The Stoic philosophy espouses that the individual human nature is part of the cosmic and universal nature. God, nature and man are all integral parts of the universe. Living according to nature is synonymous to conforming to the laws of the Divine Logos, i.e., the knowledge of the truth in the world. One lives according to nature when they follow the dictations of reason, that is, according to their potential which grow into abilities. In accord with the Stoic belief that there is a chain of causes and effects encompassing all, individual reason paves the way for everyone to achieve eudaimonia and not only the being who possesses it. Living in accord with nature consists in functions which are dictated by reason and appropriate acts that are in agreement with individual nature. It is only by the aforementioned means that man’s nature can attain wisdom and the rational part of the soul can in its turn perform acts directed by reason, free from passions. The moral tenet that is central to Stoic ethics is the one which supports the belief that growth of reason comes only from living in accord with nature and logos, alike, is only achieved through living in agreement with nature. In order to explore and understand the relevance of the aforementioned stoic tenet to modern environmental reality a major question must be addressed. To what extent could the stoic theory related to living in accordance with nature have influenced Arne Naess in developing his modern environmental ethics? This work will assume that stoic philosophy had a great impact on Arne Naess ecophilosophy and will hopefully shed light on this significant issue. Naess argues that metaphysics and science can coexist and in this way contribute to the development of a holistic system of thought. The system proposed by Naess places emphasis on ecocentric as well as human values, namely harmonious coexistence, altruism, solidarity and peace. Naess rejects the egocentric aspect of environmental philosophy and stresses the significant of biodiversity and biocommunity. Naess attaches a metaphysical dimension and an assessment perspective to ecophilosophy. In his philosophical framework, all beings and all things, both material and immaterial, either divine or human can coexist in harmony. It is this very coexistence which best illustrates Naess’s ecoethics.

Philosophers, long ago, were involved in defining the criteria for the aesthetic appreciation of nature. On the debate as to “Which is the real consideration of environment?” several philosophers agree that the object of aesthetic experience can be found in nature, while others believe that aesthetic norms are the result of arts. Systemic methods developed for expressing ourselves do not create aesthetic norms but represent norms elaborated by our senses. These norms exist a priori in nature, under the auspice of natural autaxia and in order to be expressed have to be analyzed and interpreted. Considering that the knowledge of the soul greatly advances our understanding of nature and that the senses frame intellectual perception, the aesthetic perception of our surroundings is the result of the ability to elaborate incoming stimuli originating in nature. Our interpretive ability is the result of the interaction between our genetic background and paedia, education, framing an important part of our whole emotional and psychological selves. Nature’s aesthetic evaluation is the result of the perception of the existing aesthetic norms in nature, the way they are framed by the faculty of human senses and interpreted by the various systemic methods developed.

In the summer of 2009 a fierce controversy erupted in Israel regarding the tax regime and royalties over revenues from the newly discovered gas reserves in the Mediterranean. The Civil Action Forum claimed that the Israel public (or citizens) owns these recourses, and therefore that 80% of the gas revenues should go to the public. The claim that the public ‘owns’ natural resources or public space recurred during the past decade in Israeli environmental rhetoric. Such campaigns, especially those with extensive public participation, often employ rhetoric of environmental rights and public ownership of public space or resources, or use the complementary language of reclaiming. Such rhetoric and terminology reveal an emerging “commons sense”, critical for conceptualizing and defending the public “rights” over environmental and public resources. The paper argues that the rhetoric of public ‘ownership’ and ‘reclaiming’ could better be accounted for by referring to the commons discourse than to the discourses of environmental (human) rights or (distributive) environmental justice. The question whether such ‘commons rights’ could be reconstructed as environmental rights necessitates acknowledging non-exclusive collective property rights over public goods.

The philosophical study of the environment exists because philosophers are concerned about the environmental problems. This concern may not be the only factor that motivates to do environmental philosophy. For some scholars, the topic is philosophically intriguing. This paper suggests that two approaches can be distinguished: practical and philosophical. The starting point of the practical approach is the existence of environmental problems adopted from environmental sciences and public debates. These problems are then analysed philosophically so as to increase our understanding about them. According to the philosophical approach, the focus is on philosophical problems formulated in an environmentally meaningful way but the problems are independent of environmental problems. For example, Routley’s famous “last man” argument stems from the classic problem whether values are independent of valuers or not? Both approaches have their limitations. As to the philosophical approach, the problems under scrutiny are abstract and rather distant from real-life environmental concerns, whereas the practical approach may assume a naïve realist stance to the existence of problems. How to mix the philosophers’ fascination with (pure) intellectual problems with the real-life concerns over environmental degradation is a major challenge for environmental philosophy.

Green marketing is a phenomenon which has received enormous attention in the studies of modern market. This concept has enabled for the re-marketing and packaging of existing products which already adhere to such guidelines. Additionally, the development of green marketing has opened the door of opportunity for companies to co-brand their products into a separate line, lauding the green-friendliness of some while ignoring that of others. Such marketing techniques will be explained as a direct result of movement in the minds of the consumer market. As a result, business has increased the targeting of consumers who are concerned about the environment. These same consumers through their concern are interested in integrating environmental issues into their purchasing decisions through their response to the marketing strategy for whatever product may be required. This paper discusses how businesses have increased their rate of targeting green consumers, those who are concerned about the environment and allow their interest to affect their purchasing decisions. The paper identifies the three particular segments of green consumers and explores the challenges and opportunities businesses have with green marketing.

This paper analyses the contribution to environmental philosophy of the twentieth century philosophy transformation and the historical contribution of Portuguese philosophy, Bento (Baruch) de Espinosa (born in a Jew Portuguese family)and Antero de Quental, Portuguese philosopher from XIX century. Both built their philosophy of nature in a critical perspective of the thinking of Ernest Haeckel; and also Jorge de Sena, philosophical poet and writer of the XX century. Their analytic perspective is that the fundamental pushes of environmental philosophy reflection, from Espinosa to Antero and Sena, were the ethical issue and the moral problems. Unlike the history of philosophy, whose core problems are the human condition, the environmental philosophy drive their thoughts to the “raison d’ être” of the world and their phenomenology, without becoming a philosophy against the man, because the nature of the Human being, the nature of all entities and beings from the universe is the same “star dust”. The article postulates two fundamental theses: Environmental philosophy built a new ontology in criticizing anthropocentrism, but only in articulation with a new epistemology, founded in criticism of ethnocentrism, it could lead to a new ethics universal theory

The discussion about ecology is at the center of moral and political philosophy. The limits imposed due to shortage of natural resources as a result of their overexploitation, lead to the need for outlining the political practices and moral criteria that can lead to a new sustainable social place, organized from scratch. In the light of this environmental crisis the social-political crisis is revealed. The prosperity promised by the continuous commercialized growth, besides the fact that challenges the planet’s given limits, has also resulted in political decadence and humanitarian crisis. It is a priority to design new ways to fulfill people’s needs and make good of their capabilities. Organizing this new reality demands a number of reforms which will pertain to every aspect of social life, redefining standards and visions, determining the limits of our needs and the means for their satisfaction. Destroying the planet and the human race can neither be conceived nor resolved as a physical-scientific procedure. It is only through moral and political choices that salvation plans are not to be reduced to financial decisions but are based primarily on the moderate and fair use and distribution of material means of life for the present and future generations.

Buddhist religious teachings are nature and environment based, holistic and pragmatic in approach. Its environmentalists extend loving-kindness and compassion beyond people and animals to include plants and the earth itself. Hence, in Buddhism, both animate and inanimate objects are similarly important because they are reciprocally interlinked and interdependent. Existentially, buddhists affirm that all sentient beings share the fundamental conditions of birth, old age, suffering, and death. Buddha himself decides to share this existential insight into the cause and cessation of suffering which is regarded by the tradition as an act of universal compassion (karuna) and friendliness (maitree). Buddhist environmentalists assert that the mindful awareness of the universality of suffering produces compassionate empathy for all forms of life, particularly for all sentient species. Buddhist environmental movement suggests Buddhism to be an effective force for maintaining environmental poise, the traditional buddhist emphasis on individual moral and spiritual transformation must be adjusted to address more forcefully the structures of oppression, exploitation, and environmental degradation. It recognizes the value of all things/objects, which seems a very vital and necessary component in recognition of ecological articulation for human development. Buddhist ecological outlook is not only a retreat from the world but a place, where all forms of life, human, animal, and plant, live in a cooperative microcosm of a larger ecosystem and as a community, where humans can develop an ecological ethic. Such an ethic highlights the virtues of restraint, simplicity, loving-kindness, compassion, equanimity, patience, wisdom, nonviolence, and generosity. These virtues represent moral ideals for all members of Buddhism which are equally efficacious for all animate and inanimate species of the world. Many other points relevant to the topic will be discussed in the full paper.

Academic African American philosophy is a specialized sub-discipline of American philosophy as it is taught in institutions of higher education. As a sub-discipline, it has its preferred topics of research which do not include (possibly have excluded) environmental philosophy, a larger sub-discipline and field of study as well as a pedagogical approach practiced by academic philosophers. Environmental philosophy has grown exponentially in size, scope and popularity in the past 25 years. In its poverty of interest and research in environmental philosophy, African American philosophers are not reflective of African American interests and investments in Black cultural concerns relevant to environmental issues. With a few exceptions, African American philosophy has exhibited in its research agendas, ethical positions, and cultural arguments, a general disregard for significant Black ecojustice scholarship, sociopolitical movements and popular, mediated manifestations of Black environmentalism. However, this academic vacuum is collapsing as the next generation of African American graduate philosophy students begin to research, write, and teach environmental philosophy.

Though ecology is mainly regarded as a sub-discipline of biology, today ecological problems are dealt with by different kinds of scientific and philosophical studies. As one of the new sub disciplines of philosophy, philosophical ecology tackles ecological problems from an ethical point of view and puts man’s responsibility for ecological disasters into question. Ecological analyses include not only human beings, but also animals and plants as well as the inanimate components of the environment such as soil, rocks, and water. On the other side, philosophical anthropology is concerned with human being as its object, putting aside other components of nature. Criticizing the so called conventional ethics which takes only human being as valuable, philosophical ecology tries to combine the ecological and anthropological perspectives and shed light on the ecological problems of our age. In this paper, I will try to show that an anthropocentric point of view cannot prevent ecological disasters without recognizing the ecological cycle in which each part can survive only connected with other parts but also that an ecological perspective cannot reach its aim without realizing the central position of human being in nature.

The majority of people acknowledge the change in the world following a law-like reality that has appeared not only in the human life cycle but also in other creations and non-creations, according to their ontological perspective. However, studies have shown that the climate has changed whether people acknowledge it or not, following an epistemic perspective in philosophy that brings to light information of our modern world. Effects from climate change include disasters and other phenomena such as El Nino, La Nina, global warming, and the greenhouse effect. It is clear that both nature and humans are important actors influencing climate change. Increasing populations in many countries, along with the effects of capitalism, are major factors that lead to climatic change. Consequently, scholars have at least two serious concerns: Do we have responsibilities towards future generations? In addition, do future generations have a right to a sustainable environment? This article encourages answers to these questions. A “safety valve” may be an effective way to reach the elusive sustainability in conjunction with the four noble truths of Buddhism and the philosophy of the “sufficiency economy”. Not only older but also younger people need to take the responsibility to work together in order to preserve and protect the environment.

The process of human alienation from the natural world has led to the current crisis of the system “Man-Nature”, expressing a fragmented worldview that is information oriented and pragmatic. To overcome this alienation, people should realize that they exist in a particular reality, which is described as the ecological world. This world has knowledge of the opportunities provided by living creatures. Extracting this information is an active process of direct perception of the environment. Disclosing meanings of nature, man forms an environmentally oriented consciousness which determines its place in the natural existence. Environmental consciousness is an orientation focused on understanding the unity of existence, including the environment and people.

The key to global climate justice is how to define or distribute greenhouse-gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) emissions rights in different countries. Three questions are to be answered: First, what does global climate justice distribute? Second, on what principle does it distribute? Third, what is the moral foundation of the principle? The thesis analyzes the peculiarity of GHG emissions permits as a global public resource and its consequent ethical issues. On the ground of egalitarianism, it proves the basic principle of distributing GHG emissions permits required by global climate justice, and the basic ethical ground of global climate justice accepted by international community.

This paper argues that moral pluralism is the best theory of environmental ethics. Pluralism has been widely used in legal and medical ethics, but not in environmental ethics. Current theories of environmental ethics make two errors: (a) attempting directly to derive non-consequential obligations (duties, rights, respect, and justice) from values, and (b) failing to explain and resolve indecision and disagreement. This paper argues that moral pluralism does not make the two errors. In addition, pluralism is theoretically justified by giving a complete account of the depth, particularity, and diversity of human moral experience, including non-consequential duties to the environment. Pluralism is not arbitrary moral relativism. Rooted in the way the world actually is, moral pluralism is like the sciences in that lower-level generalizations (basic principles) rest on particular facts, events, and cases in the world. Because pluralism’s moral principles are derived from facts about cases, the principles are inductively warranted, confirmed, and revisable. What is needed today is an ethical theory that will empower decision-makers, legitimize tolerance, and peacefully resolve problems, either by producing agreement or by explaining the reasons for the continuing disagreements. Pluralism is that theory.

Since the Club of Rome published “Limits to Growth” in 1972, the environmental problems have received the attention of people around the world and have become a global issue. The international community has also organized special meetings to promote the study of environmental issues. One of the most important meetings is the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held every year since 1972. The most important issue is on how to deal with climate change, which has become an international mainstream issue. From the perspective of environmental justice, the paper is a brief analysis of the negotiations on international climate changes, based on the opportunities of the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the 2010 Cancun Summit and the 2011 South Africa Bender Climate Summit.

Environmental virtues are the proper disposition or character for human beings to live well with nature. Ch’eng (sincerely, realness, integrity), a classical concept in Chinese philosophy, can be specified as an environmental virtue. Ch’eng is the law of nature and can be regarded as the virtue of nature (cheng zhe tian zhi dao ye). Ch’eng is the requirement for humans to respect and obey nature, is the approach to realize the harmony of human and nature, is the way to be a perfection or integrity person of virtue. Be human of the virtue of ch’eng， one should consummate oneself and nature. That means a person of virtue not only have the virtue of human relationship but also have the virtue of environmental virtue.

This paper presents a narrative on the Ethos of Rice based on the study of the local farming practices in one of the central rice granaries in the Philippines. It tackles the endless debate of the economics of rice production and how it impacts the farm and the farmers’ relation with the land. While it is seen as inevitable and necessary, because rice is the saving grains of the family, their local farming practices and valuation has shown respect to the land that is akin to the land ethic of Leopold. At the same time, the author argues that the aesthetic of the land, which presupposes an ecological conscience and sensitivity to the ‘finer beauty’ of the farm as it becomes the extension of the farmers’ lives, their completeness and fulfillment, may also help facilitate a lasting relationship with land. The appreciation of the its value is therefore a matter of understanding the ecology of the farm and the dynamics of emotions, predilections, valuations, dispositions and the whole breadth of relations that are there. The seasoned farmers of Nueva Ecija have learned this difficult subject of land ethics and aesthetics through their intimate commune with their rice farms, and from there a vision of conservation may be glimpsed.