There has long been a confusion of the substantially equivalent between environmental philosophy and environmental ethics. From the perspective of philosophical tasks, however, the both are two different philosophical disciplines, each of which bears different discipline tasks on the relationship between human and nature. On the question of the relationship of human to nature, environmental philosophy is a systematic and comprehensive evaluation philosophical study that contrasts with ecology as a whole, and forms a subject group of continuous development based it as common philosophy foundation, in terms of the interspecific and intraspecific relations. Environmental philosophy in this subject group is in the foundational position of discipline. Because environmental ethics studies only the ethical relationship between human and nature, there is no equivalence relationship between it to environmental philosophy. On the contrary, the philosophical discipline that has a truly parallel relationship to environmental ethics is environmental aesthetics.

美国海洋生物学家蕾切尔·卡森的《寂静的春天》促使环境问题成为我们这个时代的最大主题,引发了现代环境运动的兴起.卡森在书中传递出的信息、思想和捍卫生态安全的呐喊成了广开民智、思想启蒙和诱发社会行动的意识原点,这标志着社会公众在意识结构方面实现了历史性的变革和重组.卡森成功地把一个仅存在于专业共同体中的纯粹技术性的环境问题上升为重大的社会公共问题.没有卡森的贡献,环境问题的严重性和普遍性就不可能被彻底揭露出来,更不会有今天这样一个如此深入人心的"环境意识"的生成,也不会有生态学的大众化及对环境政策制定的实质性影响.

环境哲学在当前发展中遭遇了学科属性不确定性的挑战,这种挑战实质上是环境哲学自我迷失的结果.环境哲学作为一门标准的哲学是由哲学的任务决定的.哲学的任务指示了环境哲学应当在处理人与自然关系这一基本问题上为我们提供一个完善的价值评价体系及行动原则方面做出贡献,这也是其参与社会行动的基本方式.环境哲学的出现并不是为哲学增添了一个普通的分支学科,而是作为一个基础的评价性哲学出现在哲学中,在处理人与自然关系问题上扮演着一个不可替代的且居于核心地位的角色,它填补了哲学在这方面的严重缺乏.环境哲学的应运而生开启了它作为评价性哲学及其社会实践的历史序幕.

现代环境运动的兴起促使生态学、生态学哲学和生态哲学形成了从认知到行动的一个完整的逻辑链条,三者分别在其中承担着各自独特的学科任务.然而,在这个逻辑链条中明显地存在一些严重问题,它们对这个逻辑链条的运行构成了阻碍.这些障碍就存在于生态学和生态哲学中.生态学中的最大问题在于生态学是否是一门成熟科学的争论,具体表现为传统意义的生态学与“新生态学”以及生态学能否或应当满足何种意义上的科学评价标准的争论.生态哲学中存在的主要问题是学科定位不清以及疏离科学、甚至反理性和反科学的激进环境主义倾向.这些问题都是需要我们审慎对待和解决的问题.

生态文明建设本质上是一个关于我们的社会应当以何种方式运行的价值判断.一个生态文明的社会是我们所期望的社会的一种发展形态.要实现这样一种社会发展形态,需要在实践上处理好两类基础性的问题,这两类基础性问题共同构成了生态文明实践及实现程度的基础.第一类基础性问题是关于社会的生态化发展的生态学基础问题.社会的生态化发展意味着生态学的思想、原理或规律应当是我们在生态文明建设的过程中必须遵循的科学前提,它构成了社会发展的科学规定性和内在尺度.第二类基础性问题是在现实的社会发展中存在的各种反生态的社会现象和社会行为问题,对这类问题的明确有助于我们发现现实的社会与生态学的科学规定性之间存在的差距.这类问题对生态文明建设的正常运行构成了程度不同的消极影响.此外,对于第二类基础性问题的提出依赖于我们对第一类基础性问题认识和把握的程度,也即第一类基础性问题构成了我们判断第二类基础性问题的参照系.

基于长期以来人们使用“文化”和“文明”这两个词的随意性,尤其是由此带来的理解上的模糊性和不确定性,我们非常有必要在文化与文明概念之间给出一个区分,以明确这两个概念分别可以在何种意义上使用.要实现这个目的,就需要我们为文化和文明的划界建立起一个基本的分类框架,而这个分类框架直到目前一直是人们在使用这两个概念的过程中所缺乏的.本文所给出的这个基本的分类框架由种间关系和种内关系所构成.在这个分类框架中,文化概念可以在这两种不同的关系中使用,从文化人类学的和进化生物学的观点看,文化是用来描述相对于所有非人类生命的人类生存独特性的一个第一阶的实体性概念.文化在种间关系上标志着人作为一个生物种的生存方式,以单数形式表示;在种内关系上,文化指的不是文化本身,而是文化的类型、样式,或多样性,以复数形式表示.同样地,文明概念也可以在上述关系上使用,但它是对分别以单数和复数形式使用的文化的存在状态的度量,是从属于文化的一个第二阶的非实体性概念.

Science and technology play an irreplaceable fundamental role in answering the challenges of globalization in terms of an anthropological perspective. Globalization is an unavoidable consequence evolved by the long-range human culture, and meanwhile it marks a kind of state which human society has been in and of the future. Globalization as a process reflects tendencies that human beings continuously expand on the surface of earth. The consequences expanded by human culture, on the one hand, profoundly show a close interrelation of human beings as a species to all of other non-human species, on the other hand, also the close interrelations amongst different cultures within human society. Both of these interrelations in nature are the same to be a Darwinian competitive relation. The spatial expansiveness and the tension of the various kinds of relationships made by human are commonly determined by the desires and the means which human expand. Science and technology, as a subsystem of human culture, is a sole important approach for both enforcing the expansiveness and replying the expansiveness in space, and the progressive status of science and technology fundamentally impact on the degree realizing the expansiveness. Particularly, to a specific culture, it is very difficult to survive soundly within anfractuous competitions of human cultures without a powerful system of science and technology to support itself.

Anthropological thoughts in a theoretical level provide for us a most fundamental starting point of logic or context in understanding the civilization.We would place the civilization into an unrooted state without it.It is by the starting point of logic that we can see clearly that the so-called and uncertain concept of culture or civilization,accurately,has its structure on a whole.In other words,any civilization is made up of technological,sociological,and ideological systems,according to Leslie A.White's cultural anthropology.This structure,as an outcome,has been achieved gradually with long-term human activities to survive to develop.And interactions within the contents in culture or civilization have always promoted the development of human civilizations.The term in the ecological civilization,as a definition,indicates that the ideological system of it has changed fundamentally.This change,ultimately,will increase the tendency of ecologication of human civilization.The core of civilization is to construct a kind of cultural pattern and a kind of developmental mode which are based on the maintenance and development of diversity of both nature and culture.Given the anthropological perspective,two current viewpoints of the civilization are corrected because in this study there are some obvious deviations in recognition which are derived from some researchers' ignorance of the fundamental significance of culture or civilization in the civilization.

This paper focuses on ecological civilization and its fundamental significances to social development.Civilization can be viewed as a stage of cultural evolution,and ecological civilization indicates the fundamental change in conception of culture,which is helpful for the ecological turn in conceptional system of culture.That means the development of the society should be promoted in the light of the ecological thought and its principles of diversity,circulation and coexistence.

在环境伦理学的研究中,人们把达尔文的进化论与人类中心主义联系起来是一个不可避免的事情。从相关的文献看,有两种观点认为达尔文的进化论思想为人类中心主义的合理性提供了支持:一是从每个物种的存在都是以自身为目的的意义上寻求支持;另一是从人作为一个物种所具有的独特性上寻求支持。然而,这两种观点事实上都是建立在对达尔文的进化论误读的基础之上的。达尔文的进化论支持的只是非人类中心主义或反人类中心主义,而不是任何意义上的人类中心主义。

Naturalistic fallacy has been universally regarded as a great theoretical impediment for the rationality of environmental ethic.This paper maintains that this impediment for environmental ethics can be completely got rid of.This is because that there is a common misunderstanding of G.E.Moore's naturalistic fallacy,in which,Moore's good is not a final term;and that even if there exists a naturalistic fallacy,we can easily clear up the influence of it to environmental ethics,and make it a redundant question,as long as we change our manner of argumentation.

Lynn White asserts in his well - known essay "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis" that the ecological crisis in our present society is deeply grounded in Christianity, which is the most anthropocentric religion that the world has ever seen, because in terms of man' s relationship to nature it emphasizes that nature has no reason for existence save to serve human beings. According to Lynn White, the only way to get out of our ecological crisis is to adopt a modest, but non - heretical, and man - and - nature -friendly religious view, which is supposed to replace the anthropocentric Christian beliefs. However, all forms of religion, including Christianity, merely exert an external influence upon natural environments, because our established attitudes towards nature and towards man' s relationship to nature are in essence deeply connected with our own nature. That is to say, our ecological crisis and the anthropocentric Christian axiom both share a biological root; human beings by nature desire to possess whatever they want to possess, but the Christian dogma and anthropocentric view are no more than a strong self - consciousness and conceptualization of that distinctive human nature that man is not willing to be restricted by anything.

Environmental philosophy in contemporary philosophy is of special significance for the general development of philosophy.Its emergence reflects a most universal and most profound change in philosophy,which indicates a future developing trend and a new mission of philosophy in general.This paper brings forward an idea thatenvironmental turnin contemporary philosophy is essentially theanthropological turnin philosophy,in other words,this turn is an important harbinger and mark of ananthropological erain philosophy.

Man is a self-decisive cultural being, thus we can only follow nature from this sense of man, yet because of the immaturitywe human beings display in the course of our evolution, and ouradherence to nature also undergoes a course from immaturity to maturity. Inthis changing process, we thereby derive three different modes of following nature, namely intuitionaladherence; an adherence in the scientific sense and an adherence in the moral sense. These three modes of adherence are a reflection of our attitude towards the nature in the course of our own evolution.

One of the big,perplexing questions in the environmental ethics is the controversy between anthropocentrism and nonanthropocentrism.Anthropocentrism,up to now,has been divided into five types: cosmological,teleological,epistemological,biological and axiological anthropocentrisms.Cosmological and teleological anthropocentrisms are solved problems,and axiological anthropocentrism can also be discussed in the study of environmental ethics.However,epistemological and biological anthropocentrisms are both regarded as the anthropocentric perspectives which cannot be disproved.This paper argues that the last two types of anthropocentrisms,just as cosmological,teleological and axiological anthropocentrisms,can be not only discussed but also disproved.

The scientific foundation of environmental ethics is based on the regional community rather than natural community, because judged from the perspective of evolution, the integrated forms of mankind and nature have experienced the evolutionary process from natural community to social community and then to regional community. And each of the various integrated forms reflects a different existential state of mankind and nature in their corresponding community. In the natural community, human beings exist as a species in general and obey only the natural law. In the social community, there only exists the ethical relationship between human beings and what they follow is only the social law. In the regional community, human beings live as a real moral species and it is just in this sense that man possesses the ethical relationship with nature.

This paper discusses, in view of cultural evolution and its tasks, the rationality of anthropocentrism as a cultural concept, and the inevitability of non-anthropocentrism to replace anthropocentrism, for the latter is a new cultural concept which suits the human development. Man's cultural evolution indicates the evolutionary process of man from the existence of an ordinary material species to the existence of himself with self-improvement. Anthropocentrism is the cultural concept corresponding to the first task of the cultural evolution, while non-anthropocentrism is the cultural concept corresponding to the second task of the cultural evolution. The shift from anthropocentrism to non-anthropocentrism is a substantial process of human beings' self-surpass.

In what sense we follow nature is an important theoretical problem in the study of ecological ethics. One conclusion on this problem drawn from the research having the concept of nature as the logical starting point is that man can follow nature by no means in the sense of human efforts. But if we turn the logical starting point from nature to man, we will find that it is in the sense of human efforts that there exists the problem of following nature. The discussion from the logical departure of nature obviously neglects the special way and meaning of the existence of man as man because man is a self-determined cultural existent by nature and only in this way can man follow nature. Therefore, this sense of following internally obtains a general ethic tendency.

Humankind extends moral concerns to the relationship between man and nature, which reflects a kind of profound change in the development of human morals. Ecological morals appear as a new archetype. It is not an extension and application of the then existing ethics theory in nature. What ecological morals deal with is the moral relationship between man existing as a category and nature. Therefore ecological morals cannot be understood as the moral relationship between people with nature going in between. Those who insist that it is meaningful only by putting ecological morals under the framework of the moral relationship between people actually eliminate all kinds of possibilities for the existence of ecological ethics. This kind of view is essentially a result of the kind of thinking ways that regard humankind as the center of the universe. It regards morals as an enclosed system that has nothing to do with time and denies all the evolving possibilities of morals.