To take the idea of a non-anthropocentric ethic of nature seriously is to abandon morality itself. The idea of humanity is not an optional extra for moral seriousness. Non-anthropocentric environmental ethicists mistake the kind of value non-human entities may bear. It is not moral value, but aesthetic value.
FinnisJohn1983. Fundamentals of Ethics.London: Oxford University Press.
2.
FoxWarwick1984. ‘Deep Ecology: A New Philosophy of our Time?’, The Ecologist, 14.
3.
FoxWarwick1990. Toward a Transpersonal Ecology: Developing New Foundations for Environmentalism.Boston: Shambhala.
4.
GoldsmithE.1988. ‘The Way: An Ecological World-View’. The Ecologist, 18: 160–195.
5.
HareR.M.1952. The Language of Morals (rev. ed. 1961). New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
HareR.M.1965. Freedom and Reason.New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
HareR.M.1981. Moral Thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
LynchTony1996. ‘Deep Ecology as an Aesthetic Movement’. Environmental Values, 5(2): 147–160.
9.
McAllisterBill1997. ‘The jury's contempt: God Bless America’, Sun-Herald, June 15, p. 4.
10.
NaessArne1972. ‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary’, Inquiry, 16.
11.
NaessArne1984. ‘A Defence of the Deep Ecology Movement’. Environmental Ethics, 6(3).
12.
RoutleyR. and RoutleyV.1979. ‘Against the Inevitability of Human Chauvinism’, in GoodpasterK.E. and SayreK.M. (eds), Ethics and Problems of the Twenty-First Century.Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
13.
SingerPeter1986. ‘Animals and the Value of Life’, in ReganTom (ed.), Matters of Life and Death, pp. 339–380. New York: Random House.
