part i 倫理與科學

Part I 倫理與科學鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授國立臺南大學

環境與生態學院生態科學與技術學系

Ayo Do Env, Ethics 20112

Part I 倫理與科學 Environmental ethics is not science, but

involves science in at least three respects.1. The reasoning process used in science is

helpful for doing ethics. T01. 道德哲學 (moral philosophy) ： Right 和

Good

2. Science gives us insight into nature. T02. 道德考量 (moral consideration) ：自然的價值

3. The public debate about environmental policy relies on the economics to weigh the likely costs of preserving natural resources against the impact on economic growth. T03. 倫理與經濟：公有財


環境倫理學

T00. 簡介：環境倫理與哲學 Part I 倫理與科學

T01. 道德哲學 (moral philosophy) ：理性與感性 T02. 道德考量 (moral consideration) ：倫理與科學 T03. 倫理與經濟：公有財 (The Common Good)

Part II 倫理推定 (presumptions) 的建構與驗證 T04. 責任 (duty) ：自然和未來世代 T05. 品性 (character) ：生態美德 (Ecological Virtues) T06. 關係：同理心與正直 (Empathy and Integrity) T07. 權利 (rights) ：人類與動物 T08. 後果 (consequences) ：預測未來

Ayo Env. Ethics 20114

環境倫理學

Part III 自然學習 (Learning from Nature) T09. 生活：可持續消費 T10. 環境政策：政府、機構和 NGOs T11. 健康環境：空氣與水 T12. 農業：土地與食物 T13. 公有地：適應式管理 T14. 城鄉生態學：綠色建構 T15. 氣候變遷：全球溫化

T01. 道德哲學 (moral philosophy) ： Right 和 Good

鄭先祐 (Ayo) 教授國立臺南大學環境與生態學院生態科學與技術學系

Part I 倫理與科學


T01. 道德哲學：理性與感性

The word ethics( 倫理 ) comes from the Greek ethos, for custom( 習俗 ). = 我們應該有的習俗

Ethics( 倫理 ) is moral philosophy ( 道德哲學 ).

Moral philosophy: 有五個途徑1. Duty ( 責任 )2. Rights ( 權利 )3. Character ( 品行 )4. Relationships ( 關係 )5. Consequences ( 後果 )


T01. 道德哲學：理性與感性

1.1 Right and Good 1.2 Reasoning about our feelings ( 感性 ) 1.3 Environmental Ethics ( 環境倫理 ) 1.4 Learning from diverse theories 1.5 Doing Ethics together Questions


1.1 Right and Good

Right action ( 正確行為 ) I do my duty ( 我盡到我的責任 ) Act to protect a person’s rights ( 保護個人的

權利 )

正確行為Right action

權利 (Rights)

責任 (Duty)


1.1 Right and Good

Being Good ？ ( 做好？ ) Being a good person ( 好人 ), we mean

that a person is “virtuous” ( 善良 ).

做好Being Good 關係 (Relationships)

品行 (Character)


1.1 Right and Good

Right = 正確的 ( 對或錯 ) ( 判斷正負 ) Right person for a job “Right” involve taking an action Duty ( 責任 ) + Rights ( 權利 )

Good = 好的 ( 好或壞 ) ( 相對比較 ) Good person, good job, good science, good

society “Good” refers to a state of being. Character ( 品行 ) + Relationships ( 關係 )


1.2 Reasoning about our feelings

Feelings( 感性 ), emotion, sensitivity, intuitions

Ethics is “concerned with making sense of intuitions( 直覺 )” about what is right and good. Emotion( 情緒 ) is never truly divorced from

decision making. Seeing the world with complete objectivity

( 完全客觀 ) is not possible, as our observations affect what we perceive ( 感知 ). Sensitivity( 感受性 ) requires rationality( 合理性 )

to complete it, and vice versa.


Reason( 理性 ) + feelings(感性 )

We rely on our reason to guard against feelings that may reflect a bias, or a sense of inadequacy, or a desire simply to win an argument.

We rely on feelings to move us to act morally and to ensure that our reasoning is not only logical( 邏輯 ) but also humane( 人性 ).


Reasoning ( 推理 )

Reasoning( 推理 ) is thinking ( 思考 ). Being rational ( 要有理性 ) refers to

having a reason, being reasonable means “being in accord with reason” (合乎理性的狀態 ).

In ethics, the goal of arguing is (or should be) not to win, but to clarify our reasoning.


Reasons vs. Rationalizations 理由 vs. 合理

For example, if I own land that I wand to log to make a profit. Logging should be allowed because it will

bring jobs into the community. (rationalization)

I want to logging because I will benefit from it and think that the community will also benefit. (two reasons for my position)

Self-interest is rational( 理性 ) and is not a rationalization ( 合理 ).


Unmasking rationalization

Reasoning by analogy ( 類比 ) 類比 ( 類推 ) 是將特定事物所附帶的訊息轉移到其

他特定事物之上的認知過程。舉例，原子中的原子核以及由電子組成的軌域，可類比成太陽系中行星環繞太陽的樣子。

Deductive ( 演繹的 ) reasoning 「結論，可從前提的已知事實，「必然的」推理的

結果。如果前提為真，則結論必然為真。 Inductive ( 歸納的 ) reasoning

提出證據支持假說，證據愈充份，假說愈可信靠。


宗教信仰 (Faith) vs. 理性(Reason)

For many people, morality and religious faith go hand in hand.

Moral philosophers, however, warn against relying on religious arguments in ethics. God and religion are unnecessary for

ethics. Relying on reason, however, does not

mean that we should ignore all religious arguments.


1.3 環境倫理

The discipline of environmental ethics took off in the 1970s, in response to the environmental movement protesting air and water pollution.

Moral arguments for laws to protect the environment initially emphasized the government’s duty (moral and legal) to protect the public welfare. Scientific evidence that environmental pollution is

a thereat to human health was used to argue that taking acting to clean up the environment is rationally justified (right).


Moral community ( 道德社群 )

In traditional ethics our moral community consists only of persons. The argument for a duty of mutual respects, and

the goal of personal and social happiness, each presume a moral community that includes all humans.

In environmental ethics, however, non-anthropocentric advocates assert that our moral community also includes other organisms, endangered species, ecosystems, and even the entire biosphere.


1.3 環境倫理

倫理Ethics

人類中心的Anthropocentric

(traditional)

非人類中心的Non-Anthropocentric

(biocentric, ecocentric, holistic)


1.4 Learning from diverse theories

We think people should be free to make their own moral choices as long as no one else is harmed. In law, this is reflected in property laws and the right of

privacy. Some land use choices, however, should be restrained

by governments to protect the environment and promote the public good. Such as watering your lawn when there is a drought, or clear-cutting forests on private land.

Moral relativist ( 道德相對論者 ) Cultural relativism ( 文化相對論 )

Cultural values ： If values are merely the customs of various cultures, this would mean that values are whatever the majority in a society believes is right.

If this were so, how could values change, as they obviously do?


1.4 Learning from diverse theories

Changes in cultural values are evidence that experience and ideas have led many people to change their mind about what is right and good, or better.

The nature of ethical reasoning presumes that some actions and ways of being are better than others.

The presumptions( 推定 ) of international human rights law affirm that some actions, such as torture, are absolutely wrong, and other human rights, such as the presumption of innocence, are absolutely right– and these rights should be universally enforced.


Ethical traditions Teleological ( 目的論的 ) ethics

Human nature ： to seek happiness and the civic virtues it requires, to be good persons (Aristotle, Aquinas)

Ethics is simply doing what yields the greatest benefits, utilitarian

Consequential tradition of ethics, actions resulting in greater happiness are “right” (Bentham, Mill)

Deontological ( 責任論的 ) ethics Human have the rational capacity to

discern( 辨識 ) and do their duty (Kant)


Ethical traditions

倫理Ethics

責任論的Deontological

好行為 (Kant)Right action

目的論的Teleological

做好 (Aristotle, Aquinas)Being good

後果 (Bentham, Mill)Consequences


1.5 Doing Ethics together

Our goal is doing ethics is to learn from diverse ethical theories in order to bring our understanding closer to the truth ( 真理 ) that we cannot fully comprehend, as “all our reasoning extrapolates from limited experience”.

Ethics, reasoning by analogy to the rule of law. Our society as a moral community by affirming

ethical presumptions ( 倫理推定 ) that should apply in creating and enforcing laws.

No one is about the law and everyone is equal before the law.


Ethical rules ( 倫理規範 )

Human right ( 人權 ) ：人性尊嚴 (human dignity) 。 Every person is included in the moral community,

defined by international human rights law. The conduct of governments often falls short

of this high moral standard, but this fact does not make striving to enforce the rule of law any less important. It asserts ethical standards as legal

presumptions ( 法律推定 ), but also affirms that changing circumstances and new insights may lead to modifying some of these presumptions.


The presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence ( 無罪推定 ) in criminal law. What we take to be right or good is a presumption.

Our moral community is defined by our moral presumptions and that those who challenge these presumptions bear the burden of explaining why some other action would be better.

Ethics underpins law, criticizes it, and becomes a guide to what law ought to be. Rationalization and give reasons for doing our duty,

acting with exemplary character, respecting and strengthening our relationships, and protecting rights.


冷笑話 @_@# 不冷不好笑 , 好笑就不冷

台灣的法律規定：男人 22 歲才能結婚，可是 18 歲就能當兵。

這項法律，說明了 3 項觀念：一是殺人比做丈夫容易；二是過日子比打仗難；三是女人比敵人更難對付。

摘取自： http://a.coldjokes.com/p.php?p=495

http://a.coldjokes.com/p.php?p=495


Constructing ethical presumptions

倫理Ethics

責任論的Deontological

好行為Right action

目的論的Teleological

做好Being good

後果Consequences

責任 (Duty)

權利 (Rights)

品行(Character)

關係(Relationships)


Part 2

倫理推定 (ethical presumptions) 的建構與驗證 T04. 責任：自然和未來世代 T05. 品性：生態美德 (Ecological Virtues) T06. 關係：同理心與誠信 (Empathy and

Integrity) T07. 權利：人類與動物

T08. 後果：預測未來


T04 Duty

In environmental ethics, reasons have been given for affirming direct duties to nature.

Science has confirmed the self-organizing character of every organism and ecosystem, might this analogy to human autonomy ( 人性自主 ) justify ascribing moral consideration to both?


T05 character

Most moral philosophers rely on duty and consequential arguments to draw conclusions about human responsibility for nature.

Yet, there is a tradition of thought affirming that personal happiness( 個人幸福 ), as well as good and just society( 好且正義的社會 ), can only be realized (被實現 ) by good persons.

Environmental ethics encourage virtues such as integrity ( 正直 ), gratitude( 感恩 ), and frugality(儉樸 ).


T06 Relationships

Chapter 6 argues about caring relationships. This concern is especially relevant for doing

environmental ethics, because our cultural traditions have long relied on rationalizations to excuse the abuse of women and nature.

Might we now learn from nature, and also from the experience of women, how to live more ecologically?


T07 Rights

In law rights are supported by the secular ( 世俗的 ) argument that individuals have natural rights as autonomous and rational beings, and by the religious affirmation that rights come from God.

International human rights law affirms the right of every people to social and economic development, and the right to animals but generally do not grant them rights.

How are we to resolve the moral and legal conflicts between protecting human rights and preserving endangered species and the earth’s ecosystems?


Constructing ethical presumptions

To explore these four patterns of reasoning to construct ethical presumptions as to what we should do and the kinds of persons we should be. To test these ethical hypotheses by predicting the

likely consequences of acting on them, to see if the possible or probable outcomes confirm or challenge our reasoning.

Most of us already think much like this, although we probably describe ethical presumptions as feelings( 感性 ) or intuitions ( 直覺 ). We have a sense of what we believe to be right that

is based on our experience, which we explain to others by referring to our feelings and the reasons that support these feelings.


clarify our moral reasoning

Also, we usually consider the likely consequences of acting on our sense of what is right, before we make a decision and carry it out.

Doing ethics is a way of trying to clarify our moral reasoning( 道德理性 ).


Testing ethical presumptions

To test an ethical hypothesis (presumption) by predicting the likely consequences of acting on it. If we find evidence that seems to “falsify” our

hypothesis”, we should take this into account. Evidence that seems to verify our

presumption should be taken as supporting it. As with the rule of law, some ethical

presumptions may be stronger than others.


Stronger presumption

For example, consider the presumption of innocence. To overturn this moral and legal presumption, the law requires the state to present evidence that is beyond all reasonable doubt. In a civil lawsuit, however, where one party

has accused the other of breaking an agreement, the burden of proof on the party bringing the action requires showing only that the claim is supported by a preponderance(優勢 ) of the evidence.


T08 consequences

In predicting the likely consequences of acting on a moral presumption. Affirming that we should do whatever brings

about the greatest good for the greatest number of persons has been an effective way of promoting political and economic freedom, and today this seems to be the dominant reasoning in environmental ethics.

Both natural science and social science utilize consequential methods of reasoning.


Review Questions

1. Explain the difference between teleological and deontological ethics: Give examples.

2. What reasons might you give for not littering? Are any of your reasons religious? How would you argue that your reasons are justified or are not rationalizations?

3. Explain why the rule of law be helpful for doing ethics and give an example.

4. Identify a conflict of duties concerning use of the environment, and give a reason for supporting the action you think is best. Who should be involved in resolving this conflict?

5. What are the likely consequences of acting on the presumption that you constructed in the previous question? Explain why your predictions weigh against taking the action or confirm it.

Ayo NUTN website:http://myweb.nutn.edu.tw/~hycheng/

問題與討論

http://myweb.nutn.edu.tw/~hycheng/

part i 倫理與科學

Documents