The first part of this study is devoted to analysing the prevailing western ethical systems and to a comparison of them with a conception of a new environmental ethics. The author here, with reference to J. Passmore, divides the western approach into a “dominant tradition”, in which man conducts himself with regard to the things of nature, and to nature itself, as a tyrannical ruler, and the less widespread tradition of man as superintendent (or supervisor), and man as perfecter. According to Sylvan, environmental ethics is in conflict with each of these conceptions. The second part of Sylvan’s text introduces thought-experiments which demonstrate the inconsistency of the environmental tradition of western ethics based on (human) chauvinism. First of he introduces the thought-experiment of “the last man” and then the thought-experiment of “the last people”, “the great businessman” and “the disappearing species”. The third part of Sylvan’s text then briefly considers the possible consequences connected with the acceptance of an environmentally-ethical attitude. This brings with it, in Sylvan’s view, changes to one’s ethical conception and changes to meta-ethics. New concepts are needed to treat old and new realities; a fundamental change in perspective is required., Richard Sylvan., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Cieľom tejto štúdie je vyvrátiť časté a stále sa objavujúce kritické námietky voči temer štyri dekády starému Singerovmu antidruhistickému argumentu, ktoré sú založené predovšetkým na jeho nepochopení. Nepochopený je nielen samotný argument, ale aj Singerovo metodologické východisko, ktoré sme nazvali „Singerova etická britva“. V práci ukazujeme, prečo nie je možné zamietnuť Singerov utilitaristický argument len preto, že odmietame utilitarizmus en bloc. Rovnako tak ukazujeme, prečo nie je namieste obviňovať Singera z toho, že nerozšíril svoju etiku aj na rastliny a neživú prírodu. Opak je pravdou, pretože Singer jasne demonštruje, ako môže byť environmentálna etika vzťahujúca sa na ochranu divočiny založena na tom istom princípe rovnakého zvažovania záujmov, vďaka ktorému je druhizmus morálne neprijateľný., The aim of this study is to refute the frequent and repeated critical objections to Singer’s almost four-decades-old argument against speciesism. These objections are based, above all, on misunderstanding. There is misunderstanding not only of the argument itself, but also of Singer’s methodological starting point, which we have termed “Singer’s ethical razor”. In the text we show why it is not possible to reject Singer’s utilitarian argument only by rejecting utilitarianism en bloc. In the same way, we show why it is not appropriate to charge Singer with failing to extend his ethics to include plants and lifeless nature. In fact the opposite is true because Singer clearly demonstrates how environmental ethics relating to the protection of the wild can be based on the same principle of the equal consideration of interests which is the basis for the moral unacceptability of speciesism., and Peter Sýkora.