【作者】 田宪臣；

【导师】 万小龙；

【作者基本信息】 华中科技大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2009， 博士

【副题名】诺顿环境实用主义思想研究

【摘要】 环境实用主义，是美国环境伦理思想的一个主要流派，也是西方环境伦理学研究领域的一个十分重要的派别。在环境伦理学的发展过程中，越来越多的环境哲学家，包括威斯顿、诺顿、明特尔、莱特、萨戈夫、温茨、帕克、罗森塔尔和布赫兹，都自称为环境实用主义者。这些环境实用主义者中，诺顿和莱特倡导人类中心主义，而温茨则提出非人类中心主义；威斯顿、诺顿、温茨、萨戈夫、帕克、罗森塔尔和布赫兹等明确提倡把美国的实用主义思想和方法应用到环境哲学，莱特则反对这样的做法；一些学者，如威斯顿、诺顿和莱特认为环境哲学必须“跳出”讨论内在价值的窠臼，其它的如明特尔则坚持从实用主义的视角谈论内在价值。环境实用主义在环境对话和政策协商中，拒绝诸如“人类中心主义和生态中心主义”的争论，认为这是无意义的，而赞同一种民主、多元的进路，鼓励对环境伦理具有批判性的、民主的协商。与避免争论相关联的是环境实用主义注重行动，其环境议题进路是实践的、实验的、经验的、行动导向的、积极的。在环境实用主义看来，环境实用主义是一种环境行动的哲学，开始于现实世界的问题，过度专门化的华丽辞藻是达不到环境行动的预期目的的。这为环境伦理学中的多种立场打开了一个非常有价值和有历史意义的视角。布莱恩·诺顿是环境实用主义的主要倡导者，一位训练有素的科学哲学和语言哲学家。他既有深厚的理论功底，又有在美国环保局做咨询顾问的经历，从而形成了既关注理论学术研究、更关注解决现实环境问题的进路和思想特征。其著作涉及许多学科，在生物多样性、环境政策、保存生态哲学和可持续性等方面的开创性工作尤为著名。与这种多学科相适应的是他对可持续性和实用主义环境政策的提倡。他的特殊兴趣是着眼于可持续性来制定环境政策，致力于从多学科、跨学科对可持续的环境政策的研究、制定和执行，以期为后代人保有广泛的价值选择。诺顿的环境实用主义思想受到美国经典实用主义的浸淫，也受到当代环境实用主义者的影响。通过在认识论和道德哲学中使用基本的实用主义理念的实质内容，诺顿尝试把人类中心主义作为环境伦理的基础，并把自己称作是“弱人类中心主义者”。在他看来，真理的实用主义概念与人类共同体长期的可持续性原则相联系；在人与自然的广泛互动中蕴藏着价值多元性；人类共同体中的主体间有效性的发展被视为行动的伦理政策的基础。“可持续性”是诺顿环境实用主义思想的核心概念。他用“可持续性”解决意识形态、“割据”和当前的环境话语贫乏问题；用“可持续性”原则作为环境伦理和环境政策的道德导向。而适应性管理(“语境管理”或生态系统管理)则是达到可持续性的桥梁。实际上，他的可持续性定义是从他对适应性管理的描述中推论出来的。他为此提出一个行动者适应环境、做出决策的简单模型：基于一定选择，行动者生存下来并有了后代，他们的后代也会做出自己的选择，而基于其他选择使行动者走向死亡，没有后代。按照这个模型，行动如果没有降低后代人的机遇与限制的比率就是可持续的。为了达到可持续目的，诺顿特别注重对环境政策的实用主义分析。这种策略鼓励在其范围内超越学科的的界定，在探索合理政策中把环境科学和社会价值联系起来。在一定意义上，诺顿的方法是把语言分析用于实用主义哲学传统中，认为在公共话语中语言和行动密切相关。他的论证建立在两个假设上：第一，美国人谈论和写作环境的方式是美国各级政府在保护环境公共物品的理性行动上失败的一个主要原因；第二，环境行动的成功和失败经常由公共话语中阐述和讨论问题的方式决定。诺顿对环境伦理的证明是工具性的：他试图揭示环境保护背后的意图及其合理性和合道德性。在他看来，环境伦理学不应过多地介入道德哲学、元伦理学、形而上学或世界观方面的理论争论，而应关注环境管理和环境决策方面的实际问题。创造一个公共空间和对话平台，使利益攸关方就那些充满争议的环境问题表达自己的观点；使各种观点能够通过公共理性的运用，实现有效的交流和沟通，使那些不合理的诉求被公共理性过滤掉。通过对话和商谈，使人们就现实生活中充满争议的重大环境决策问题最终达成某种共识。伦理问题与政治问题密不可分；把伦理问题与政治问题割裂开来，会使环境伦理学陷入合法性危机之中。在环境问题越发突出并日益成为世界广泛关注的焦点的今天，研究包括诺顿在内的美国学者的环境伦理思想，其意义是不言而喻的。更多还原

【Abstract】 Environmental pragmatism is one of the main schools in environmental ethics inAmerica, and it is also an important school in the research areas of the westernenvironmental ethics. A growing number of environmental philosophers now refer tothemselves as environmental pragmatists, including Anthony Weston, Bryan Norton, BenMinteer, Andrew Light, Mark Sagoff, Aristotelis Santas, Peter Wenz, Kelly Parker, SandraRosenthal and Rogene Buchholz. These self-proclaimed environmental pragmatists do notspeak with an entirely unified voice. While Norton and Light advocate anthropocentrism,Wenz includes nonanthropocentric values. While some, such as Weston, Norton, Wenz,Sagoff, Parker, Rosenthal and Buchholz, explicitly advocate the application of theperspectives and methods of American pragmatism to environmental philosophy, Lightdoes not. While some, such as Weston, Norton and Light, think that environmentalphilosophy must "move beyond" discussion of intrinsic value, others, such as Minteer andSantas, defend pragmatic conceptions of intrinsic value.Environmental pragmatism refuses the meaningless debates such as the one betweenanthropocentrism and non-Anthropocentrism in the process of environmental dialoguesand policy consultations. On the contrary, Norton consents a democratic and pluralisticapproach, endorses the critical and democratic consultations to the environmental ethics.Associating with rufusing the meaningless debates, Environmental pragmatism pays greatattention to action. In fact, it is an approach--or at least a set of approaches--toenvironmental issues that is practical, experimental, experiential, action-oriented, active,engaged, and empowering. According to Environmental pragmatists, Environmentalpragmatism is a kind of philosophy of environmental action. It begains with the issues inthe realistic world, and the rhetorical language connot reach the expected targets of theenvironmental actions. This provides a vaulable and historical dimension for many ideasin Environmental ethics.Bryan Norton is a leading proponent of environmental pragmatism. He is also abridle-wise scientific and language philosopher. He has both the profound academic basicand the experience of being a consultant in EPA, which make him pay attention to boththeorical research and practical environmental problems in the problem-resolving process.His research includes many disciplines, such as the biology diversity, the environmental policy, the philosophy of conservation biology, and the sustainability. Along with this, headvocate both the sustainability and the pragmatism environmental policy. He applieshimself to institute environmental policy from the sustainability, and to study, form,andimplement the sustainable environmental policy from multi-discipline and inter-disciplinedimension, in order to sustain wide value choices for the following generations.Norton’s environmental pragmatism thought is affected both by American classicalpragmatists and by contemporary environmental pragmatists. By using basic pragmatismcore ideas, Norton attemps to put anthropocentrism as the foundation of environmentalethics, and he call himself as "the weak anthropocentrist". For him, the pragmatismconception of truth has a close relation to human community’s sustainable principles;value diversity is contained in broad interaction between human and nature; thedevelopment of the inter-subjective validity among human community is considered as thefoundation of the active ethic policies.Sustainability is the core conception of Norton’s environmental pragmatism. He usessustainability to solve the problems, such as ideology, "towering" and the indigence ofpresent environmental language. Meanwhile he puts sustainability principles as the moralguide of the environmental ethics and environmental policies. Adaptive management is thebridge to reach sustainability. In fact, he define sustainability from his description to theadaptive management. He constructs a brief model for an activist to adapt environmentand to make policies. According the model, an action is sustainable if it doesn’t reduce theratio of the opportunity and constraint of the following generations. In order to reach thesustainability, Norton pays special attention to analyse environmental policies in thedimension of pragmatism, encourages to define it beyond the disciplines, and relatesenvironmental sciences with social values in the process of researching rational policies.In a sense, Norton’s method is to use language analyse in the tradation of pragmatism.For him, language has close relations with action in public words. He builds hisargumentations on two assumptions. First, the manner for Americans to talk about andwrite environment is one of the main reasons that American goverments at all levels fail inthe actions of protecting common environmental goods. Second, the success and failure ofenvironmental actions are often decided by the manner of illuminating and discussing theproblems. Norton instrumentally demonstrates environmental ethic, tries to reveal thepurpose of environmental protection and its reasonality and morality. He thinks thatenvironmental ethics should not get involved in the arguments among moral philosophy, meta-ethics, metaphysics and worldviews, but pay attention to the real problems aboutenvironmental managements and policies. We should to build a public space and adialogue platform, which allow all stakeholders to express their ideas about thosecontroversial environmental issues, and allow all kinds of views to be communicated bycommon reasons. With dialog and discussion, the major controversial problems ofenvironmental policies in reality will finally get some kind of common sense. Ethic issuehas close relation with politic one. Separating one from the other will bring theenvironmental ethics with crisis of legitimacy. Today, accompanied by increasinglyprominent environmental problems, it is of great significance to study environmental ethicthoughts of American schoolars including Norton.更多还原