Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:01:10.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Philosophy, conflict and conservation

from Part I - Introduction to conservation and conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2015

By
Alan Holland
Edited by
Stephen M. Redpath ,
R. J. Gutiérrez ,
Kevin A. Wood  and
Juliette C. Young
Alan Holland
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Stephen M. Redpath
Affiliation:
University of Aberdeen
R. J. Gutiérrez
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Kevin A. Wood
Affiliation:
Bournemouth University
Juliette C. Young
Affiliation:
NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
Get access

Summary

Philosophy has been described as ‘the conversation that Plato began’. In some remarks about ‘the role of philosophy’ in relation to environmental matters, Bernard Williams observed that “there is no special way in which philosophical considerations join the […] discussion” (Williams, 1995: 233). Nor, in my opinion, can philosophy be defined by reference to any set of doctrines. It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I attempt to provide a more informative characterisation of philosophy and of how it might help us to understand and manage conservation conflicts.

Philosophy and its methods

The reference to Plato is more helpful than it seems at first sight, provided we know something about Socrates, the ‘hero’ of Plato's dialogues. Socrates is depicted, typically, as conducting an ‘elenchos’ or refutation, in which someone's claim to knowledge is shown to be baseless, not on empirical grounds but because it can be shown by a process of sound reasoning that it either harbours a contradiction or leads to some other claim that is unacceptable. Because sound reasoning depends crucially on understanding the concepts through which any reasoning proceeds, Socrates undertakes to dissect the relevant concepts. Such ‘conceptual analysis’ has been central to philosophy ever since. Early philosophers thought of themselves as ‘lovers of truth’ or ‘lovers of wisdom’ (from the Greek, ‘philosophoi’) and hence as engaged primarily in a search for truth. The gap between those who sought truth using empirical methods (scientists) and those who continued with conceptual explorations (philosophers) widened gradually, although they can never be completely separate; Aristotle, for example, belongs to the canon of both science and philosophy.

Among philosophers, a division soon emerged between those who thought the point of philosophy was to find the truth, the so-called ‘dogmatists’, and those who thought the point of philosophy was to keep on searching for it, the so-called ‘skeptics’.

Type
Chapter
Information
Conflicts in Conservation
Navigating Towards Solutions
 , pp. 19 - 32
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle (1999). Nicomachean Ethics, tr. Irwin., T.Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Bradley, B. (2006). Against satisficing consequentialism. Utilitas, 18, 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckersley, R. (2002). Environmental pragmatism. In Democracy and the Claims of Nature, eds. Minteer, B. A. and Taylor, B. P., pp. 49–69. Washington, DC: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Elliot, R. (1992). Intrinsic value, environmental obligation and naturalness. The Monist, 75, 138–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, E. (1987). Organism, community and the substitution problem. Environ. Ethics, 7, 241–257.Google Scholar
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lukes, S. (1997). Comparing the incomparable: trade-offs and sacrifices. In Incommensurability, Incomparability and Practical Reason, ed. Chang, R., pp. 184–195. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McShane, K. (2007). Why environmental ethics shouldn't give up on intrinsic value. Environ. Ethics, 29, 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1874). Three Essays on Religion. London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer.Google Scholar
Palacios, G., et al. (2011). Human metapneumovirus infection in wild mountain gorillas, Rwanda. Emerg. Infect. Dis., 17, 711–713.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plato (1973). Theaetetus (Clarendon Plato Series), tr. McDowell., J.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plato (1993). Republic, tr. Waterfield., R.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Redpath, S. M., et al. (2013). Understanding and managing conservation conflicts. Trends Ecol. Evol., 28, 100–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, M. (2009). Environmental ethics. In The Environmental Responsibility Reader, eds. Reynolds, M., Blackmore, C. and Smith, M. J., pp. 40–51. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Rolston, H. (1990). Duties to ecosystems. In Companion to A Sand County Almanac, ed. Callicott, J. B., pp. 246–274. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Schmidtz, D. (2000). Natural enemies: an anatomy of environmental conflict. Environ. Ethics, 22, 379–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slote, M. (1985). Common-sense Morality and Consequentialism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Stocker, M. (1990). Plural and Conflicting Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, R. K., Bateman, I. and Brooke, J. S. (1992). Valuing the benefits of coastal defence: a case study of the Aldeburgh sea-defence scheme. In Valuing the Environment, eds. Coker, A. and Richards, C., pp. 77–100. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
UK Biodiversity Action Plan Steering Group (1995). Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group report volume 1 – Meeting the Rio Challenge. London: HMSO.
Varner, G. (1998). In Nature's Interests? Interests, Animal Rights and Environmental Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the Self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, B. (1995). Making Sense of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×