Ideas of Nature in an Asian Context

Abstract

Contemporary Western philosophers have customarily displayed a marked ambivalence in their collective opinion regarding the merits of Eastern ideas generally, and especially in discussions of environmental ethics. On the one hand are enthusiastic and quite frankly uncritical assumptions that the Eastern view represents a more enlightened and nature-friendly alternative to exploitative Western ideologies. On the other hand, of course, stand harsh and sometimes woefully ignorant claims that Eastern philosophy, if there is any, is distinctively life-denying and thus nature-unfriendly. Both attitudes have a long history running back to the early nineteenth century, with eminent philosophers on either side and spanning many philosophical issues. My assumption is that neither view is correct. However, more nuanced discussions of the ramifications of Eastern ideas for environmental ethics have turned up, though sometimes the assessments are no less harsh.' In particular, Holmes Rolston, III, has argued the case that a detailed look at the resources of Asian religious and philosophical traditions leaves little that could, as he says, help the West to value nature.2 Two considerations make his evaluations of Eastern views worthy of examination. First, this is not a casual remark made in the context of some more general philosophical analysis. It represents a conclusion based on a discussion of specific Eastern philosophical concepts and ideas. Second, many aspects of Rolston's arguments have gone unanswered in the literature on the other side of the issue.3 Furthermore, these arguments have been made in other contexts and face the enterprise of comparative philosophy generally. So, lessons learned here may have application elsewhere. And lastly, Rolston is not entirely dismissive of Eastern traditions, which suggests not only a more balanced approach than many critics but also that his is an informed opinion. conclusion Rolston reaches may be summarized quite succinctly. Eastern religious and philosophical insights would need considerable reformulation in order to find positive application within environmental ethics. Essentially, Rolston's argument consists of two intermingled parts. On the one hand stands an account covering the important or necessary features of ethical theories appropriate to valuing the natural world, while on the other, a hard look at traditionally Eastern concepts of reality and their related axiologies. In the background stands the Western scientific understanding of nature, that is, the understanding that the contemporary biological sciences have come to hold. Rolston, of course, assumes that such scientific views are largely true but ethically neutral. In other words, Rolston fully acknowledges a genuine need to look beyond science. The West desperately needs an account of evoMichael G. Barnhart