Andrew Light, “Callicott and Naess on Pluralism” Inquiry 39 (1996) PP. 273-94
Reading Questions
1. How does Light define monism and pluralism on p. 274? How do these definitions compare to those in Callicott’s article?
2. Light writes, “My argument will be that Naess does indeed articulate, or at least suggest, a pluralist form of environmental philosophy which avoids the foibles of pluralism which Callicott fears: the descent, or headlong rush rather, from pluralism to moral relativism and deconstructive postmodernism. I will also argue that the best frame within which to evaluate arguments for moral pluralism is to pay attention to what embracing such a position does for bridging the gap between environmental theory and practice, rather than to what such a turn to pluralism means in a more abstract sense.” (p. 275) After reading the whole article, how would you translate Light’s words into clearer, simpler sentences?
3. What is Naess’ pluralist form of environmental philosophy? How does it avoid sliding from pluralism to moral relativism and deconstructive postmodernism according to Light? In what sense is it pluralist? How does a discussion of Naess reframe the monism/pluralism debate? Is Light’s choice of Naess as a key example strategic? See especially pages 282-87. Note that Light closes his section on Naess with the following quote from Naess: “’The richness and diversity of philosophical and religious ultimate premises suitable for action in the ecological crisis may be in itself considered part of the richness and diversity of life forms on Earth.’” (287) Light then adds, “Metatheoretical pluralism is thus the activity of environmental philosophers who wish to emulate the patterns of the objects of their concern.” (287)
FYI - For a brief helpful views of “Deep Ecology” see: http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/bron/PDF--Christianity/Taylor+Zimmerman--Deep%20Ecology.pdf AND http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deep_ecology For a simple list of the Eight Principles of Deep Ecology see http://www.haven.net/deep/council/eight.htm
4. How does Light propose to bridge the gap between environmental theory and practice?
5. Throughout the article Light asks what philosophers can contribute to solving environmental problems. He defines environmental philosophy as “the attempt to bring the traditions, history, and skills of philosophy to bear on the questions of how to maintain the long-term sustainability of life on this planet.” (275) Do you see the role of philosophers and/or philosophy in the same way that Light does? Are there aspects of environmental issues that bring to the fore for you issues about the nature and role of philosophy (or of ethics) more generally? Further what seems at stake in terms of defining the sub-discipline of environmental philosophy in the monism-pluralism debate?
6. According to Light, why does Callicott think his “communitarian” version of the land ethic “gets the advantages of pluralism without its problems” (276)? What does Light think Callicott has missed about the “original questions” the pluralists raised? (277ff) What does Light mean by “pluralism as a kind of compatibilism”? (278) By metatheoretical pluralism (278-79)?
7. Light notes that Callicott acknowledges that he (Callicott) is an ‘interpersonal pluralist’: “By this he means that he upholds ‘everyone else’s right to explore or to adopt a moral philosophy and ethical theory that seems persuasive to them.’” (278) And, that Callicott assumes “’Intelligent people of good will should eventually reach agreement if they take the time to thrash out their initial differences.’” (278) How does Light evaluate these statements? How do you? How do they relate to the issue of whether Callicott would support compatible cooperation and metatheoretical pluralism?
8. What points does Light make with his example of two hypothetical communities on pages 279-80?
9. What is metaphilosophical pragmatism? (280) Why would Light’s pragmatist “not simply tolerate interpersonal pluralism but would advocate multiple overlapping arguments for environmental valuation when endorsing environmental policies, in order to generate as broad a basis of support as possible for the proposed actin.” (281)
10. Where does Light agree with Callicott and where does he disagree? (281-282) Is one or the other more persuasive? Why?
11. In his conclusion Light takes up the issues of cultural pluralism and relativism. What is the contrast Light makes between Callicott’s and Naess’s approaches to cultural pluralism? What worries about pluralism sliding into relativism does Light share with Callicott? How does Light think environmental philosophers can prevent pluralism from sliding into relativism?