Real Anthropocene politics

Simon Hailwood
{"title":"Real Anthropocene politics","authors":"Simon Hailwood","doi":"10.4324/9780203731895-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses parallels between the Anthropocene discourse and the realism v moralism debate in political theory. Central to realism is the claim that political philosophy should not be viewed simply as a form of ‘applied ethics’. Different versions of realism vary in plausibility but the central insight seems correct: politics is not well-understood as simple conformity to a prior, independently defined moral standpoint. This is something of a strawman however. When put too strongly realism overstates the dichotomy between morality and politics and the extent to which ‘moralists’ define moral standpoints independently of politics, and obscures the way ethics and politics may be intertwined without reducing to each other. The Anthropocene discourse also emphasises something true: the degree of human impact on the earth makes it impossible to view nonhuman nature as fully independent of humanity. But this can involve a strawman too: not all ‘traditional’ environmental thought and practice has that view of nature. Analogously to strong forms of political realism very strong forms of Anthropocene advocacy obscure the intertwining of humanity and nonhumanity. Yet such Anthropocene advocacy is also vulnerable to ‘realist’ critique of the ideological ramifications of its homogenising framework and recourse to strawmen.","PeriodicalId":393637,"journal":{"name":"Rethinking the Environment for the Anthropocene","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rethinking the Environment for the Anthropocene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203731895-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses parallels between the Anthropocene discourse and the realism v moralism debate in political theory. Central to realism is the claim that political philosophy should not be viewed simply as a form of ‘applied ethics’. Different versions of realism vary in plausibility but the central insight seems correct: politics is not well-understood as simple conformity to a prior, independently defined moral standpoint. This is something of a strawman however. When put too strongly realism overstates the dichotomy between morality and politics and the extent to which ‘moralists’ define moral standpoints independently of politics, and obscures the way ethics and politics may be intertwined without reducing to each other. The Anthropocene discourse also emphasises something true: the degree of human impact on the earth makes it impossible to view nonhuman nature as fully independent of humanity. But this can involve a strawman too: not all ‘traditional’ environmental thought and practice has that view of nature. Analogously to strong forms of political realism very strong forms of Anthropocene advocacy obscure the intertwining of humanity and nonhumanity. Yet such Anthropocene advocacy is also vulnerable to ‘realist’ critique of the ideological ramifications of its homogenising framework and recourse to strawmen.
真正的人类世政治
本文讨论了人类世话语与政治理论中现实主义与道德主义之争的相似之处。现实主义的核心主张是,政治哲学不应被简单地视为一种“应用伦理学”。不同版本的现实主义在合理性上各不相同,但其核心观点似乎是正确的:政治并没有被很好地理解为对先前的、独立定义的道德立场的简单遵从。然而,这是一个稻草人。现实主义过于强调了道德和政治之间的二分法,以及“道德主义者”在多大程度上独立于政治定义道德立场,并模糊了道德和政治可能交织在一起而不减少彼此的方式。人类世的论述也强调了一些事实:人类对地球的影响程度使我们不可能将非人类的自然视为完全独立于人类之外的。但这也可能涉及到稻草人:并非所有的“传统”环境思想和实践都有这种自然观。与强烈的政治现实主义类似,强烈的人类世主张掩盖了人性与非人性的交织。然而,这种人类世的主张也容易受到“现实主义者”对其同质化框架的意识形态后果的批评和对稻草人的求助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信